The High School Experience

Time Magazine features an article this week about how much or how little high school defines us. There are so many facets to this idea, and as we move farther away from those years, it seems we definitely are more likely to view them nostalgically. At the very least, as teachers we can offer some objective perspective for our students who are dealing with these intense years - years that, in my experience as both a student and teacher can represent the highest of highs and the lowest of lows. There is all the hope and optimism in the world, and it's tempered by the angst that seems to ground every song, movie, novel, TV show, and blog entry about the high school experience.

John Hughes virtually created the high school movie genre that still fascinates us. Taylor Swift tells us that being fifteen is "who you are before you know who you are going to be." Dan Savage is reaching out the teens struggling with issues of sexuality - and there is no harder venue in which to struggle with that than high school - with his incredible YouTube campaign "It Gets Better." I regularly counsel my students that regardless of whether it's a great experience, or a bit disappointing, these are not, I hope, "the best years of their lives." They should view with suspicion anyone who tells them that - or at least without some honest qualification. A student wrote years ago in a personal essay about a particularly arduous year for her class that "No one reaches adulthood without a few scars." Wise words.

So, here's a question. Good, bad, or neutral, what is your truest observation about high school?

No Regrets from 2008

When I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, it was the first Democrat I'd voted for in the presidential elections since 1992, and one of the few I'd voted for at the national level. Since then, the economy has been stagnant, an all-out ideological battle has begun over the role and size of government, and the 2012 presidential race is a constant source of speculation. With that in mind, many Obama supporters are asked if they have buyer's remorse. It's a necessary question.

In terms of Obama's performance, I'd put him at about a C. The initial push for health care reform was a mistake, but only because it was an over-reach. The bill is a monstrosity, and it was not a priority for most voters in 2008. On top of that, voters supported and the parties agreed on many components - as much as 80% - of the Affordable Care Act. The first major piece of legislation should have been a much smaller bill that covered common ground. It would have been good for America.

In terms of the economy, the idea of a stimulus bill was a good idea, but it was not focused enough on immediate infrastructure spending and labor that immediately impacts the economy. It was also too heavily geared toward tax rebates that produce no visible or guaranteed effects. The money should not have been about bailing out state deficits, and the Obama Administration has been rather inept about explaining the loss of revenue that has caused debts and deficit levels to rise. Military contract spending has not been adequately restrained. Medicare should be able to negotiate prices. Oil, ethanol, and farm subsidies should be closed, and the tax code should be simplified to eliminate wasteful spending such as mortgage deductions on second homes and those valued over one million dollars. Obama's leadership on all this has been mediocre, and I don't like this "lack of leadership" style.

That said, I have no regrets on the vote, considering the alternative. While I strongly supported John McCain in the 2000 election, I could barely stomach the version of McCain-lite that ran in 2008. He had completely sacrificed his pragmatic understanding of finance and tax policy, and had given in to the mis-guided supply siders in the GOP. And, of course, I am proud to have not voted for any ticket that had Sarah Palin's name attached to it. The same goes for the current crop of candidates who are so naive on the history of tax cuts and their impact on the economy that they continue to ignore decades of history.

So, no regrets. But no firm plans to vote the same way in 2012.

The Reality of Sports Recruiting

With my recent post on Colorado high school sports, and the recent implosion of the Ohio State University football program from recruiting violations, I am wondering about the ethics of sports recruiting - at all levels. Certainly, as someone asked, there's not necessarily anything wrong with schools - even high schools - reaching out to students with athletic talents and encouraging them to attend a specific school. My argument about high school is simply that it is against all state high school athletic codes - and private schools are often criticized for sports success when they can be selective about their students. Thus, I wouldn't necessarily argue that there is anything wrong with recruiting, as long as all schools are allowed to do so.

Should high schools be allowed to contact sixth graders about athletic programs? How about offering athletes preferential treatment or guarantees. Private schools can waive tuition based on financial need - but should they be able to waive tuition just based on athletics - or any talent for that matter. Certainly, some private schools already waive tuition for athletes, as that is a common sanction against private schools - providing illegal tuition assistance. Because public schools can't do that, would it be wrong for them to allow perks such as choice schedules or parking places or access to events or private tutoring or anything really? Would that be OK?

At the college level, people have long talked about paying athletes. An argument is that these young athletes are being exploited by the universities. Of course, the reverse is true. The athletes are exploiting the universities for access and exposure. And, if schools do begin paying athletes, they must give up their tax exempt status, which is based on an "educational mission." Many people they should already give up that status, considering the billions of dollars in TV revenue they already accrue.

It's a good question.

State Championships in Colorado

What a year for Regis Jesuit High School athletics in Colorado. They won state championships in boys tennis, golf, basketball, swimming, lacrosse, baseball, and a second-place finish in football. Of course, there's no reason to suspect athletic recruiting at this school of 900 students - except they actually admitted illegal recruiting practices to CHSAA last fall. Though Regis has dominated boys swimming for years, they’ve made a dramatic leap to domination in all sports in a very short time. And, it’s not a question of if they are recruiting – it’s a matter of how extensive the violations have been. The coincidence between the recent string of victories and the illegal recruiting admission last fall should not be ignored.

Unfortunately CHSAA has taken no serious action toward private school recruiting, and public schools are understandably troubled by this trend. Last fall, the Florida High School Athletic Association fined Mandarin Christian High School $142,000 - a penalty so harsh it may destroy the school's entire sports program. While it may seem extreme, Florida should be applauded for taking the issue seriously. It’s worth asking how a similar hard-line might change high school playoffs in Colorado.

At one time, Jesuit schools had a reputation for a rigid code of ethics and a devout focus on education. Hopefully, that hasn't changed in Colorado, though recent results certainly cast suspicion. The problem with recruiting is it's difficult to prove - thus, when it's discovered, regulators need to make it hurt. By not doing so, CHSAA is condoning behavior detrimental to high school sports.

Austan Goolsbee and the Truth about Taxes

In news today, Austan Goolsbee, one of President Obama's top economic advisors, is leaving his job at the White House to return to his position as an economist at the University of Chicago. Goolsbee is probably best known for his "White Board" speeches in which he sketched out economic policy of tax cuts - criticizing the GOP plan for continued tax cuts - in a short videotaped speech. Here's a look:

Sadly, far too many Americans are naive to even the simple truths of this two-minute video. And if that sort of thinking continues, the US economy will continue to be mired in the backwaters of ideologically produced debt and deficits.

English Class - Business or Pleasure

Recent comments from a reader, as well as curricular discussions with colleagues, have led me to recently ponder the English classroom and the phrase "life long lovers of reading."

That phrase has always bothered me, especially when it is used in reference to the job of an English teacher and the role of the English classroom. There is a clear line between reading for pleasure and the study of literature, and no English class/curriculum should be designed with the goal of "creating life-long lovers of reading." We can, and should, teach them to "appreciate literature," but not to love it. No math teacher is tasked with making students "love" the "joy" of a "wonderful algorithm." No social studies teachers is expected to pursue the goal of "loving" the timeline of the Civil War. No science teacher is expecting "love" for the beauty of a graph or chemical reaction. We don't expect for schools to create life long lovers of jazz music or basketball or writing or texting or nursing or fixing pipes or installing software or filing or calculating or .... or anything.

English classes are about developing literacy and critical thinking skills - not developing hobbies. Simply because there is an "artistic quality" to the content, does not mean that "loving" the art is the purpose of the class. Literary analysis is not about discovering the joy of a wonderful book, though that can certainly happen -it's about understanding important societal themes and appreciating effective use of language. And no author ever wrote a novel or poem with the intention of it being assigned to students to read and deconstruct. It just so happens that great literature is the perfect content for students to practice the higher level thinking skills of rhetorical analysis. And the themes of great literature also allows schools to be purveyors of culture and sources of character instructions as the stories allow students to understand literature as a "record of the human experience."

But loving reading? You can't teach anyone to like something. And you shouldn't try.

Teaching and Facilitating

Darren at RightOnTheLeftCoast addresses the issue of "teaching" versus "facilitating learning." Here are my thoughts:

Years ago, when I agreed to take on a student teacher, I first heard the term "learner facilitator" from the college's education department chair who introduced candidates that way at a meet and greet. And I mocked the term endlessly after that. In the classroom, I have always been a traditional, classical instructor, and am wary of "foo foo" education.

In my high school honors freshman English classes, I spend 3/4 of the year instructing my students on how to study literature as high school students, rather than the middle school language arts focus of simply reading and commenting on stories. We learn to analyze language and literature by focusing of diction, syntax, tone, mode/genre, allusion, allegory, rhetorical strategies, as well as thematic analysis. We also develop skills of rhetorical analysis in our writing, focusing of modes of literary analysis, style analysis, and argumentation.

In the final quarter of the year, I literally use the terms "sage of the stage" and "guide on the side," as well as "teacher/learner facilitator" when I expect them to put into practice the skills they have learned during the year. With the final works of the year - pieces such as Old Man and the Sea and Beowulf - the responsibility is on them. They lead discussion, research the scholarly work, develop a research assignment, and prepare for the final evaluation of their skills. Of course, I am there for guidance and will not let them miss an idea or perpetuate a misinterpretation. But they really need to walk the walk and put skills into practice. And the evaluation is literally weeks long.

The focus is on skill, not content, and they must apply the skills to all content. So, there is a time and place for "facilitating learning" in the classroom. That is true for my students as they work toward the AP language exam where the content is a mystery and they must be able to apply the skills I have "taught" them to any content. My pass rate of 94%, with more than 3/4 of students receiving 4s and 5s, validates the success of this model.

That said, teaching or facilitating isn't really the point, as long as learning is happening. Thus, in the grand scheme of public education, "Best Practice" is really about whatever works.

Politics and Double Speak

In this era of partisan politics run amok, there is no greater time for citizens to be attuned to what George Orwell called the politics of the English language. With that in mind, I always seek in my classroom to help my students become "people on whom nothing is lost." It is an imperative that they become astute and aware to manipulation by language. The example I give them at the beginning of the year is the clever wording that a Gingrich-led GOP was able to institute regarding taxation on inherited income. By effectively switching the terminology from the traditional "inheritance" or "estate" tax to the more negatively connoted "death tax," they re-framed the issue and fundamentally changed the debate. The problems of this were nowhere more evident than in a national poll where 75% of Americans said they supported the estate tax, but 75% of them opposed the death tax. It was the same poll to the same group of people - these potential voters were so manipulated by language, they didn't even know what they believed.

With this in mind, I think it's worth taking a look at what is arguably one of the greatest example of political doublespeak in the history of American politics. It's the infamous "whiskey speech" by Mississippi legislator Noah Sweat. This speech was delivered on the floor of the legislature in response to questions about his position of laws limiting the production and sale of alcohol.


My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:

If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

Spoken like a true politician - a unique species always worthy of study.

GOP and the Party of Crazy

According to former Colorado Republican congressman - and occasionally ranting lunatic - Tom Tancredo, President Obama withheld his birth certificate on purpose to "make the GOP look nuts."

Hmmm ... ya' think?

Then again, I don't think the GOP has needed any help looking like the "party of crazy." They've been handling the nutcase side of politics rather well on their own. Though, even if it wasn't intentional, once the nuttiness began, I wouldn't doubt Obama was shrewd enough to allow it to happen. Yet, if he really wanted to go that route, he would have let the whole thing run throughout the primaries of 2012.

Tom Tancredo continues his analysis by exclaiming that Obama pulled the ultimate Muhammed Ali "rope-a-dope." I wouldn't disagree, though the most amusing part is Tancredo identifying the GOP as "the dope." He, of course, would be leading candidate in that race from his extreme comments and rather pathetic runs for president and governor of Colorado in the past few years. I mean, seriously. Anyone who identifies President Obama as "a greater threat to the United States than Al-Qaeda" is either a truly extreme politician, or a conspiracy nutcase who is holding on by a very thin thread.

And, so we're left to continually ponder where this stuff comes from. A decade ago, I was completely comfortable dividing my vote between the Democrats and the GOP, always choosing the most moderate and pragmatic leader. Alas, it has become increasingly difficult to walk that line. From seemingly aloof and misguided positions on tax rates and foreign policy to education and immigration reform to clear naivete about foreign policy and the true costs of government to intentionally ambiguous takes on labor, the "free market," and health care, I just can't find common or moderate ground with the GOP.

I have hope .... but it's wearing thin.

Atlas Shrugged ... So do I

The rise of interest in Ayn Rand's monstrous and fantastical ode to the wealthy elite - Atlas Shrugged - has baffled me for a while. It seems that many don't actually read it - but rather check the Wikipedia entry - and if they do read it, they don't read it with any sense of reality. For the one thing everyone - including Rand - seems to miss is that no true capitalist would ever pursue the principled stand of John Galt. In fact, if Galt is as principled as he seems, he never would have become successful in the first place. The reality is that innovators and business leaders like Galt are driven by, for lack of a better word, greed. And they aren't going to walk away from making more just to prove a point to the government and all those needy, lazy workers who are sucking them dry.

It's just such a preposterous thesis - and a truly disconnected viewpoint from someone who claimed to preach the gospel of unfettered capitalism. The creative and economic elite wouldn't shut everything down - they'd do what they've always done - buy politicians. No one is going to stand on principle and stop making money, though they may grandstand about it. But if I know anything about business leaders it is this - they would pretend to join the crowd, all the time planning to back out and take over in the vacuum that would result from all the business leaders walking away. And, of course, many of the innovators are people like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg, who are calmly creating away in their garages and dorm rooms, and not worrying that someday the government will take away all their riches, so they just won't create in the first place. That'll show 'em!

What a bunch of hogwash.

Military Mis-Appropriations

I wonder how serious the debt and deficit would be if, twenty-three years ago at the end of the Cold War, American voters and legislators had taken an honest and realistic look at defense spending. My guess? Trillions of dollars would have been saved, and our country would feel safer and more secure than it does now. A recent feature investigation in Time Magazine asks - and answers - the same questions.

For at least a decade, I have argued with debt and deficit critics about the need to cut military spending. From unnecessary and unproved or outdate weapons systems to convoluted and secretive appropriations programs linked to local jobs with military contractors to hundreds of thousands of soldiers stationed around the world in stable societies, the military is a behemoth of spending that results from lack of oversight. As Time points out with the famous quote from Truman about the "military industrial complex," the nation needs "an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" to carefully analyze and budget for our military needs and peaceful goals.

Thoughts on Taxes and Deficits

Some thoughts from a discussion over at Darren's blog - RightontheLeftCoast.blogspot.com

Of course, higher taxes won't end our debt in a year or two, and no one is proposing it could. And no one is proposing 100% confiscation, which is absurd. Of course, marginal rates of 89% existed during the country's exceptional economic boom from 1945-1965. Not that I'm arguing higher rates solve the problem - just that they don't necessarily cause more problems. The economy is about far more than marginal tax rates.

However, had rates not dropped to historic lows over the past decade, the debt would be far, far less. Extrapolate the lost revenue over twenty years and the case is obvious for allowing rates to rise for the wealthiest. If, for the past thirty years, capital gains and dividends had just been taxed as income, as uber-rich people like Buffett and Gates have proposed, and FICA was not capped, this current debt crisis would hardly exist. So, raising taxes on the rich - over the next decade or so - will do wonders in paying down the debt. And the garbage about "killing jobs" by "punishing the job creators" is exactly that, garbage. Supply and demand doesn't work that way - and no effective business owner turns down a good investment or refuses to expand his business simply because he might pay 19%, rather than 15%. A good deal is a good deal and business investments are made on timeliness first.

Budget criticisms about foreign and PBS/NEA/NPR are political not fiscal, and they don't have much relevance to the debt/deficit concern. As are comments on Ponzi schemes and socialism. Social insurance is a good investment for any society - just look at the economies of Singapore and Germany - and the debt problems are essentially solved through means testing and allowing the government to negotiate with providers. Just look at prescription costs for veterans if you disagree. And we've actually been "printing money" since the 1970s and the boat is afloat.

Taxes are the revenue the state uses to fund state business. The greatest percentage of revenue will come from its greatest concentration of it. The wealthy can simply afford to pay more for the functioning of the state, and they have clearly gleaned as much from a society that has been stable enough - because of said government/society - to create such wealth.
No wealthy business owner amasses wealth in a vacuum - it accrues from all contributers along the supply/demand line. And the infrastructure that allows that to occur and flourish is maintained by a government of representative democracy.

Limit/end corporate welfare (agree with you there), means test the safety net and allow for negotiations and cuts without hysterical "killing grandma" cries, cut back the military/security behemoth, don't cut taxes to "spur growth," plan to pay for wars while fighting them, and have a nice day.