I swore I would take a break from commenting on politics. I need to take a more positive view of life. I do not want others to think I am a negative person. I need to spend my time commenting on matters of educational relevance.
Never mind, I have decided I am what I am (popeye said that) and true happiness can only be achieved by being true to yourself (I said that, but other folks probably did too.).
Let me, as an educator, start with something I am supposed to understand. Educators are now responsible for the development of 21st century skills including the improvement of higher order thinking. Sound good so far? This has always been the case, but indicating we are in the 21st century makes it sound more immediately relevant.
Anyway, one the essential 21st century skills is critical thinking. Most folks could not offer a definition, but I can. Just the word critical should be enough for you to understand how important this must be. Why get excited about uncritical thinking? Anyway, critical thinking is deemed of special significance because access to information is no longer an issue. While Walter Cronkrite is gone we do have Fox News and other sources unwilling to commit to offering a no spin zone. There is plenty of information at our finger tips. The problem with the wealth of sources is that it is possible to find about any opinion on any topic. The existence of opposite views should be a concern. Logic should allow the conclusion that not every position taken is accurate or appropriate. We must be able to identify our own biases and the biases of those offering us opinions.
So, if you are interested in educational technology, you quickly encounter the challenge of critical thinking in the context of information literacy. How do you prepare future citizens to evaluate the content they encounter online? We have lists of suggestions readers should learn to take into consideration. The first item on the list is always the same. Who said what you are considering? What are the credentials of that person and what might be the motives of the person? If you cannot identify the source, you really should move on.
Nothing political so far. Just wait.
This morning I opened up my news reader and I found this article. Senator Cruz (yep – the pretend filibuster guy) is opposing the nomination of Tom Wheeler as FCC chair. I know paying attention to who is the FCC chair seems a little strange, but I pay attention because the FCC plays a role in setting Internet policies for schools.
So, Senator Cruz has a concern and this seems to be that (according to the Washington Post):
he “blocked the confirmation of Tom Wheeler as chairman of the FCC, saying he wanted greater assurance from President Obama’s nominee that the agency wouldn’t require more funding disclosures for political TV ads. Cruz has said that such free speech should be protected.”
“Yes, the Senator is holding the nominee until he gets answers to his questions regarding Mr. Wheeler’s views on whether the FCC has the authority or intent to implement the requirements of the failed Congressional DISCLOSE Act,” Cruz’s spokesman Sean Rushton said in a statement.
It is important that this abstracted content be read carefully. Our assumptions may lead to miscomprehension. The key phrase reads “wanted greater assurance from President Obama’s nominee that the agency wouldn’t require more funding disclosures …”.
So Cruz is concerned with first amendment rights. So am I – I think. Anyway, my understanding of these deep political issues is possibly flawed so I decided to consult wikipedia:
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.
So, unless I am missing something requiring a law degree, the free speech comment in the first amendment is about your right to take a public stand. It is not about whether or not you should have to own up to the stand you take. Do you read this in a different way? Find your civics book if you must.
I do understand why political candidates might want to hide the sources responsible for their funds. However, for the public to evaluate the information generated by these sources, they really do need to know the source for the information. This is what we teach you in middle school. Why would you want to prevent critical thinking?