Every time there is a presidential election we hear folks asking what the prospective candidates will do about ‘the problems with our educational system.’ It gets old very quickly; nevertheless, it has become a staple of presidential campaign platforms and so it is necessary to talk about education, sadly, from a political point of view.
In 2008, then Senator Barack Obama made a speech at a school in Colorado. He was, I suppose, in part laying out his agenda for how to ‘fix’ education. He spoke that day about No Child Left Behind which he simultaneously praised and condemned. Condemned might be too harsh a word, but since he was in large part appealing to his constituency, it is apropos. And then he hit the nail on the head: “We don't have to accept an America where we do nothing about six million students who are reading below their grade level.” That was probably a political dig, but I agree even if I disagree that we were ‘doing nothing about’ it. I think if we ask any teacher, they would disagree that ‘we’ were doing nothing about it.
Whatever else we might say about teachers, students, parents, politicians, or custodians, this is a problem: children cannot read. As an educator, I am only too well aware of the struggles our children have when it comes to reading. Being a newer educator, I’m not exactly certain yet where or what that disconnect is, but there are reading issues prevailing in our classrooms.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of reading programs available and there are thousands of well-educated, dedicated, passionate teachers using them to help children read. I know that the teachers I work with would balk at the idea that they are doing ‘nothing about it.’
So, if that is true, and I think it is, how can someone start off a blog post, syndicated by Huffington Post, that starts this way: “The education reform movement is failing”? (Vicki Cobb) I’m not sure what education reform movement is being referred to because I thought our president had solved all those problems and had reformed NCLB; I guess I was wrong. People demand teachers be accountable; politicians act; people get frustrated when teachers do what politicians say. There is one disconnect.
Personally, I do not happen to believe that education needs to be reformed. Maybe people's expectations need reformed. Maybe where we spend our dollars in education needs reformed. Maybe the way we teach each individual student needs to be reformed. At the end of the day there will always be problems until we address some seriously significant issues--simple issues--that will not be solved by merely throwing more money at the problems. We need to reform our mindset about how we adults are behaving when it comes to education. We don't need education reform; we need people reform.
In part 1 of this 3 part series of posts, I will begin laying out what I believe will help improve education and might bring about some of the reform that people are evidently clamoring for in the United States. Maybe if we practice some of these things we can help close the achievement gap that exists between the USA and, say, China. At minimum, I would like to see our children become better learners, better readers, and take a life-long joy in learning about this world in which we live.
First, I think we should de-emphasize athletics in schools (which is not to say eliminate). I’m sure this will rankle the hearts and minds parents whose children derive their self-worth from their ability to throw or catch a ball, but I think it is necessary. I do not even think it is enough to have eligibility tied academics. A Notre Dame football was recently suspended from the team for exercising ‘poor academic judgment.’ So of all the football programs that exist in the USA, we hear about one player being suspended for academics? Really? And this is supposed to teach us exactly what? Of all the programs that exist in the USA there is seriously only one athlete having academic issues? Really?
I think athletics are over-emphasized, over-valued, and an overall distraction to academics in our schools. What I mean is this: I’d like to see as much emphasis, enthusiasm, financial support, and volunteerism from parents for academics as there is for athletics. Why not have a booster club for academics? Why not have cheerleaders for ‘nerds’? Why not have book clubs? Writing clubs? Chess clubs? Math clubs? Cross-country reading groups? Academic baseball or golf? We should have art shows and talent shows. We should have drama clubs.
It seems to me that we have no problem whatsoever raising thousands of dollars for new football stadiums in the USA—at the taxpayers expense!—but we have to beg, borrow and steal when it comes to a new playhouse or library levy (and I’ll have more to say about the arts later in this series). Author Anne Lamott has done significant work when it comes to libraries and I have appreciated reading about her passion for these ‘places of small miracles.’
If we want to help children keep reading, reading more, reading better then we should not have to worry about budget cuts affecting libraries or curriculum or the arts first. The majority of the population can live without school athletics, but you cannot even be an athlete without knowing how to read and think and comprehend.
I’m not opposed to athletics. I am opposed to the infatuation we seem to have with them and the lack of enthusiasm we have for reading or learning. I want to see academic competitions with parents lined up out the door. I want to see more things like Literacy Night that we host at my school a couple of times per year (in contrast to the hundreds of athletic events we host/participate in yearly). Maybe we could have teachers on the radio calling commentary on students while they are taking a test: “I see Johnny is erasing his answer on #3…what’s up with that Bill? Oh, I see...he wanted to add another paragraph and cite some references. Good for Johnny!”
I don’t know. All I’m saying is that maybe a switch of emphasis will help bring about the reform folks are looking for. Maybe it’s not reform of the same tired methods we need, as much as an utter revolution of ideas and emphasis?
One final thought. Why is it if you are an athlete your coach can demand that you spend x amount of hours working out, lifting, running, practicing, watching film (even in the summer!!) and getting your body in shape and building stamina and that if you do not meet x requirement, you don’t play. But if a teacher makes a similar requirement of a reading or math student it is an issue because ‘it might cut down on family time’ or some other such nonsense? Think about all the hours demanded by coaches all in the name of ‘being the best player’, but that backlash teachers receive if the same student has an equal amount of reading to do before the next day. Think about all the evenings and Saturdays parents give up for athletic competition, but how many parents show up to school on test day to cheer on their kids?
You want your student to do better on tests? Well have them read for an equal amount of time that they practice their football or basketball skills.
Reform or revolution? I think by and large we have our priorities way, way out of balance in America.
In part 2 of this post, I will discuss my second practical thought on how to improve education in America: Lessen government involvement.
Book Review: Exposing the Psalms
Author: Peter Nevland
Publisher: Authentic Media
Year: March 2014
Pages: 240 (e-book)
Additional Information: Spoken Groove
Buy at Amazon: Exposing the Psalms
Tree of Psalms project
[Disclaimer: Some high ranking government official had a brainchild one day and said that if I didn't inform my readers that I received a free copy of the book in exchange for my unbiased review then you, the reader, might assume the review was biased. Either way, I received a free e-copy of this book in exchange for my mostly unbiased review.]
I am glad Nevland included an index in the back of his book Exposing the Psalms. For me, as a theologian first and a reader second, it is important to know what sort of literature influenced an author who has had the audacity to write about Scripture. I am fairly well read when it comes to commentaries and theology and I have to say that the sources were a bit lacking. There's nothing wrong with reading Matthew Henry's (1700's) commentaries or with reading Jameson, Fausett, and Brown (1800s) or with reading John Gill (1700s), but the fact remains that there are literally hundreds of commentaries that would provide and additional 300 years worth of insight into the Psalms. I'm sure Mr Nevland has his own reasons for using these particular commentaries, maybe not. Still I find it bizarre in a curious sort of way. Again, it's not that it's wrong, it's just strange.
The book itself is an interesting read. One of the more important aspects of the book is that Nevland does not come at the Psalms with an overtly scholarly point of view. He might be a scholar, as is evident (occasionally) by the depth of his writing, and there is a strong theological element to the books too, but maybe he's just good at research and processing. He does outline his methods at the beginning, which is helpful too, but maybe he prefers simply to read and experience the Psalms (such as he did with Psalm 95 where he wrote that he 'must have read it more than twenty times, before it changed me enough to connect to its story', 100.)
Either way, there were times when reading the book that I was simply blown away by the depth of the insight he offered on a verse or a Psalm (e.g., his thoughts on Psalms 148 & 133 were brilliant). Then there were times when I was somewhat shocked by what appeared to be a rather naive approach to a Psalm (e.g., his thoughts on Psalm 23 & 24 were incredibly similar, theologically strange, and in my experience difficult to accept as meaningful: "So the 'paths of righteousness' in Psalm 23 instantly draw a picture of God leading you on a road where you can do no wrong.He'll surround you with so much goodness, you can't make a mistake. Instead of goodness coming from the inside out, it attacks you until it penetrates your soul. Every possible decision is right", 34. Frankly, I have no idea what those sentences mean. See also, pages 39 & 205 where there are hints of this 'prosperity' notion. )
At the end of each section of writing about a specific Psalm (Nevland covers 30 of them in the book, and in random order. I didn't care for the randomness of the order, but again I suppose he had his purposes) Nevland gives the reader 3 questions to mull over and answer. I thought this was an especially nice idea. It helps draw the reader back into the Psalm and also encourages deeper or at least more focused thought about the Psalm. He also included at the end of each section a song or a poem that is somehow closely connected with the Psalm he has just exposed us to. I will say this much, I admire Nevland as an artist, but I didn't have much use for the songs/poems. Frankly, I got to the point where I just stopped reading them. In my opinion, the book was neither better nor worse because of their inclusion. Some readers will enjoy them and read them, others will not.
A small point of contention for me was the imbalance of the book. Some chapters were really long and heavy. Other chapters were very short and ended somewhat abruptly. It may be a personal thing, but I would have preferred a bit more balance to the chapters. (I get that some Psalms are longer than others and require more pages, but I think there are ways to solve that particular problem.) Balance in chapters helps a reader establish a rhythm in their reading and it was difficult to establish such a rhythm with the disproportionate chapters.
The truth is, this is not the type of book one should sit down and read straight through and then review on a blog. This is a slow book. By that I mean, I think it needs to be read slowly, one needs to take their time, one needs to dance a little with the Psalms Nevland is exposing (and by and large I think he did a fine job keeping the Psalms in their historical context) in order to fully appreciate what he is doing--which is where I think Nevland's brilliance shines forth: these are songs, psalms, poems read, performed, or sung at the king's court or in the King's court. These Psalms are neither monotone, nor monolithic. These songs were written, often, in community. They were most certainly performed in community. They are towering, staggering collections of voices, read throughout the generations of those who seek the Face of God from during the high points of festivals to the lowest depths of dereliction. These are the voices of honesty and praise and worship and lament and fear and abandonment and adoration and faith. These are the voices of God's people through the ages attempting to understand God's absence and attempting to stand up in his presence.
If I had to narrow my thoughts down and say something absurd like 'this is the one thing Nevland did exceptionally well in his book' it would be at this point. I think Nevland did a remarkable work helping remind his readers of the historical context, the liturgical voice, the desperate prayers, the communal and personal nature of the Psalms. I enjoyed that he got me thinking about these Psalms not as mere words scratched into a scroll or parchment--detached from all context or historical upheaval--but as the words of living, breathing people who were being chased by rebels, threatened by wild animals, or suffocating and gasping for their last breath. I like that he got me listening to the words as if a full band were playing in the background and dancers were leaping and twirling with every word. He got me thinking about people trembling in the presence of enemies and finding peace in the presence of God. In a word, he had a way of bringing these Psalms out of their scholarly garb and into my work & play clothes. That, in my opinion, is the best part of the book.
I do have one complaint about the book: Jesus just seems kind of thin in the book. There are times when Jesus is Jesus, but there are other times when he is 'some other famous guy' (see 127). This bothered me. It's probably not that Nevland purposely avoided Jesus and I'm certainly not saying that he has no interest in Jesus. I am saying that even Jesus pointed out that the Psalms were, by and large, written about him (see Luke 24:44). Does this mean every Psalm is about Jesus? Maybe. Maybe not. My point is that we may well find that the Psalms speak to us or speak for us (even Jesus prayed the Psalms at his crucifixion, see Luke 23:46, Matthew 27:46), we may find that they offer us great consolation or great consternation, but at the end of the day the Psalms point to something, someone, beyond themselves. The Psalms are not Psalms merely for their own sake.
Nevland doesn't necessarily avoid Jesus, but neither do I think he goes out of his way to make him as fully present, or as evident in the Psalms, as he could have. It's important that the Psalms live, but even the authors of the Psalms would probably tell us they were not writing merely to bring out the emotional best in the readers.
I give this book 4/5 stars.