Should College Football Be Banned?

On numerous occasions - and blog posts - I've discussed and debated the ethical conundrum that is college football.  Particularly, issues of paying athletes and concerns about abysmal graduation rates and tax exempt status for universities based on an educational mission have taken center stage.  Now, as the national discussion heats up regarding the increasingly violent and dangerous nature of the NFL - coinciding with an incredibly rise in popularity - the issue has become prominent enough to generate serious discussion in American cultural circles.  To that end, Slate Magazine will be hosting a public event on May 8, when "Ideas Guru" Malcolm Gladwell and sports chronicler Buzz Bizzinger will debate the issue of "banning college football" with a couple sports columnists and former athletes who will defend the sport as integral to the culture of higher education.

Gladwell's interview highlights many important points in this debate, not the least of which is the violent gladitorial nature of the sport contrasting and conflicting with the general culture of academic achievement.  Certainly, it has become difficult to look past the weak excuses that university athletic programs have become when considering graduation rates of college football and basketball players.  And, while I have never been a supporter of paying college athletes, there is certainly some credence to the argument that these young men are simply hired entertainers who generate incredible revenue for their host schools.  In fact, Jose Nocera of the New York Times recently opined that perhaps college athletes - or at least athletes in the big two sports - should simply be allowed the opportunity to simply "major in football."  It's actually not a crazy idea - or at least not as crazy as it appears on the surface.

Clearly, college football is at its heart a big business, and the issue of providing an authentic college experience based on learning to work as a team and be a disciplined professional is nothing but a smokescreen that sports proponents use to defend an almost indefensible system whereby colleges and universities rake in huge revenue and prestige by showcasing the physical talents of a few young men on Saturday afternoons.  And, the organizations claim tax exempt status based on an educational mission that is obviously not the priority of the young men or the athletic departments.  However, the system is so massive and ingrained, it will be tough to rattle from its moorings.

Can't wait to hear the arguments Gladwell and Bizzinger are going to generate.

Apple Avoids Paying Taxes for Benefits It Reaps

Regardless of your views on taxes, it's hard to support a company operating fully in one state - California - and benefiting from its infrastructure, culture, workforce, quality of life, etc., while setting up an "office" in another state - Nevada which has no state income tax - so the company avoids paying for the very services it uses to great profit.  And, that's exactly the case of Apple, as exposed in this story from the New York Times.

This oligarchic manipulation of the system has been exposed numerous times over the years, especially when American corporations operate fully in the United States - benefiting from infrastructure, legal foundations, stability, workforce, etc., - but setting up the corporate "headquarters" in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes.  The corruption was documented in great detail in the book Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston, though despite that books publication in 2003, nothing has changed.  It is absolute fraud, and it's a shameless lack of integrity.  In fact, just like the expose on Dateline tonight about teenagers, it's a culture of cheating, clear and simple.  Sadly, we have reached a sad point in our republic when people will willingly break the rules - or bend the ethics - all in the name of making money.  Sure, they can do it.  And, of course it's just good business to maximize profit while minimizing expenses.  But how we can justify this as logical, ethical, righteous, or simply not a big deal, is beyond me.  And that's what's happened to the American character.

I have to thank Darren at RightOnTheLeftCoast for linking to this story, though we disagree on this issue.

Apple MacBook Air 1.7GHz Intel Core i5 Notebook Computer - MC966LL/A

Make College Less Affordable

It's no surprise I have promoted the idea of less college for all.  Despite the desires of Bill Gates and the Obama Administration to lead the world in college graduates and have 80% of adults with a bachelor's degree, more degrees is not the answer to America's ills,  and it will not revive the economy.  In fact, more college degree holders simply drives down the demand for such highly skilled workers while increasing the demand for jobs - thus, voila, lower wages for traditionally middle class fields.

Now, Ed Quillen of the Denver Post has offered an insightful contribution to the college loan/college debt/college-for-all debate.  In Quillen's lucid analysis, increasing the guaranteed money available for college loans only leads to colleges raising tuition.  And, there is no reason that so many employers have decreed that a bachelor degree is the screening device for a job.  Thus, Quillen believe employers should no longer be allowed to use education credentials as a screening process.  Imagine that.  Of course, it could be a logistical nightmare.  But if employers simply had to screen candidates based on individual testing processes, fewer would feel the need to pursue a degree that may very well be useless in their field.

The classic example Quillen throws out is our wise "rail-splitting"President, Abe Lincoln, who earned his license to practice law through a simply display of knowledge, rather than a degree.  And, seriously.  If someone can pass the bar exam, does he really need the degree to back it up?  Does someone really need the education degree to step into a classroom?  Can't a scientist design rocket without attending a university?

Can't a surgeon operate on your brain without ... ?

OK, there are some caveats.

But Quillen has a good point.

Tips for Teaching Writing

I am sharing my favorite tips for superb writing as a part of the Superb Writers’ Blogathon. In partnership with Grammarly grammar checker, this series is bringing helpful hints to aspiring superb writers all across the world wide web. 

“It’s about readin’. It’s about writin’. It’s about thinkin’.”

That’s the advice of an old-school professor of rhetoric when asked about the goal of AP Language and Composition and freshman writing classes. In an era of complicated state standards and debates about the Common Core, English teachers need to remind themselves of the basic mission. Of course, many English teachers love the literature side of the job because they love their books and the themes. That handles the reading and the thinking.

But what about the writing?

English teachers are tasked with teaching students how to write - and this is often the most neglected part of the job. In fact, many English instructors don’t consider themselves composition teachers. For one, it’s hard. The reason is obvious: to assess writing, teachers end up buried under mountains of essays. Secondly, teachers too often use writing as simply summative assessment. The kids write an essay to show what they know. And many teachers do not know how to teach the craft – for writing truly is a craft, an art form.

The key to effective writing instruction is the opportunity to write. Students must practice the craft, and they must do so in a variety of genres for a variety of purposes. And it’s OK for writing to simply be practice. A colleague once told me, “If you’re grading everything they’re writing, they are not writing enough.” Whether it’s journaling and free-writing or copying famous speeches and essays in the tradition of the Greeks and Romans, regular practice of writing is integral to success. Thus, students should occasionally just write. One of my favorite free response activities is to read the students a short essay to begin class – generally it’s from the works of Robert Fulghum, the author of All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. His essays are great conversation starters.

So, how do we move from assigning writing to teaching it?

We all want our students' writing to sing. Creating voice where there is little to none, however, is a challenge. Thus, as my AP Language students progress in their writing and ability to argue and deconstruct style, I reach a point where top students wonder if their scores will ever improve. The key to higher scores is often sophistication of language. It's diction, syntax, tone, style, voice, mood, attitude, and command of language. Top papers just sound better. And it's the way they command the language that makes the difference. Thus, breaking the task down into its various components is fundamental. It’s what many people call Six-trait.

To that end, I use an assignment writing op-ed commentary as a way to model effective style/voice, and as a way to help them find their own. We analyze numerous pieces of commentary during the year, as they are great pieces for style and opinion/argumentation. In crafting their own, students are then challenged with finding some topic on which they have something interesting to say. To begin, we do a few short journal entries entitled "Angry Talk," Happy Talk," and "Interesting Talk." They often share their ideas - and even a few choice sentences - as a way of generating ideas and discussion. Often, this assignment produces some of the best writing I see from them all year.

The issue of teaching and grading conventions – that is, grammar and mechanics – is also a tricky aspect of the job. While grammar is only one aspect of effective writing, a poorly edited paper is distracting and ultimately ineffective. Thus, teachers are remiss if they don’t hold students accountable. In a standard, holistic rubric, conventions are certainly considered, but they are not the predominant part of the grade.

Certain practices in writing instruction can improve grammatical fluency. For example, one of the most effective is the practice of sentence combining. Giving students a deconstructed and simplistic passage in single sentences and asking them to combine the sentences is a helpful tool for improving command of language. Sentence combining not only improves sentence fluency and sophistication of syntax, but it also dramatically impacts mechanics and punctuation.

Finally, the task of editing and revising is integral to developing the craft. In this area, the use of exemplar essays is foundational to good instruction. Showing students how it’s done well is a step beyond simply assigning and returning writing. Whenever I discuss exemplar papers, I always urge – even require – that students copy some of the sample sentences that I’ve highlighted. This work goes in their writing journal along with a reflection on their own paper. Students must always copy and take note of sentences I’ve edited. Revising and re-writing a troubling sentence effectively internalizes the improvement. Early in the year, I ask students to circle all the weak word choice – especially “be” verbs – in their sentences and revise the sentences with a stronger, action verb. Giving them a list of such verbs, analytical terms, and tone words is also helpful.

Ultimately, the craft of writing can – and actually must be – taught. Students learn through the opportunity to write and create, the freedom to make mistakes, the practice of peer and exemplar review, the act of editing and revision. While few of us wield the magical pen of Shakespeare or Mark Twain, all of us can – with effective instruction – become competent and effective writers.

Franklin Advanced Merriam-Webster Dictionary & Thesaurus with Spell

Jumpstart 4th to 6th Grade 20414

Schools Weeding Out Veteran Teachers to Save Money?

In a well-run school district with strong administration, a good teacher never has anything to worry about. At least that is my general assumption about my profession. However, stories creep out every once in a while that reinforce the reasons teacher associations hold tightly to tenure, due process, seniority, and other standards of teacher contracts. Because, we've all heard rumors and accusations that school districts seek to save money by dumping veteran teachers in search of young, inexperienced, and ultimately cheaper staff.

That's the charge coming out of Denver Public Schools, according to veteran teacher Cynthia Masters.

I've heard similar stories of teacher turnover recently from different school districts. And in one particular district, I have no doubt the superintendent has intentionally sought a younger and younger staff that he could control while keeping costs down. Of course, there are bad apples in any profession, and it shouldn't surprise us that these stories occasionally surface. However, as school districts face increasingly tight budgets, and the public perception of teachers and government workers continues to plummet, the attrition of veteran teachers to save money is a situation to watch for very carefully.

Health Care & Insurance is Not a Free Market

As someone who purchases family health insurance not through my employer but as an individual consumer, I have carefully watched the Supreme Court hearings on the Affordable Care Act - pejoratively reviled by insurance holding members of the GOP as "Obamacare." As arguments about the "market" and the commerce clause applicability have been made to the insurance issue, many consumers have frustratedly tried to remind critics, this is not a free market issue. It's not an open market.

And, I have been baffled by the inability of the Obama administration to make this argument both in the public and in the actual court hearing. Now, finally, op-ed writer Donna Dubinsky has effectively and succinctly clarified these concerns:

As best as I can tell, the recent arguments at the Supreme Court did not touch on a critical part of the discussion about government’s role in health care: the broken market for private insurance. It was as if the court forgot that the private insurance market does not function as a normal market. If you are not employed and you want to purchase insurance in the private market, you cannot unilaterally decide to do so. An insurer has to accept you as a customer. And quite often, they don’t. Insurers prefer group plans, with lots of people enrolled to spread the risk. Can you blame them? The individual consumer is a lot of work, is a higher risk, and produces relatively little revenue.

The justices repeatedly asked: If the government can require you to purchase insurance, what else could it require you to do? What are the limiting conditions to this breadth of control?

The government muffed its response. To me, the answer is obvious. There are two simple limiting conditions, both of which must be present: (1) it must be a service or product that everybody must have at some point in their lives and (2) the market for that service or product does not function, meaning that sellers turn away buyers. In other words, you need something, but you may not be able to buy it.

Let’s test the examples presented to the high court: Can the government force you to eat broccoli? This proposition fails on both counts. Nobody must eat broccoli during their lives, and the market for broccoli is normal. If you want broccoli, go buy it. Nothing stops you.

Clearly, these are the issues which drove the move for universal coverage in the first place. And I have significant criticisms of the ACA - especially the mandates it requires for coverage to be provided for free. While I agree colonoscopies and well-visits should be covered - nothing should be for free. The consumer must contribute to the payment for all health services.

But, the private market is in serious trouble. It's not a free market, and no GOP alternatives to the ACA address that disparity.

Turn Fitness into a Game

Why will people put hours into beating a video game, but not minutes into beating the scale? Well, obviously the easy answer is that sitting on a couch is engaging but not physically hard. But maybe there's something to the lack of level-up competition that inspires people to devote hours to beat a new video game, but not any to beat their health risks from excessive weight and lack of fitness.

Thus, a new website and application seeks to change that paradigm. The Slimkicker Calorie Counter and Level-up Weight Loss Game is an online app designed to aid in weight loss and fitness by making it a game.

To be fair I don't know much about the site, and I haven't used it yet. But I learned about the idea a while back and was intrigued by the concept. Is it possible for an app to make living healthy, and fitness into a RPG game, where users earn points, and "level up' as they accomplish their health goals? For example, what if every time a user adds something healthy like veggies to their diet, or completes a workout, they earn points. Then, as they achieve more and more, they can be entered into challenges for the chance to earn prizes.

Sounds intriguing.

Sugar is the Devil

It's been about ten years since I began to seriously consider the negative effects that sugar can have on the diet and overall health. And, in that time the research has continued to reveal the negative, toxic, even lethal consequences that come with consumption of sugar. From the rise of high fructose corn syrup - and its ubiquitous presence in everything from bread to ketchup - to the shocking increased consumption of sugary drinks, sugar has nearly overtaken the American diet. And, for the most part, Americans are unaware and naive to the problem.

The basic idea is this - fifty years ago Americans consumed a couple teaspoons of sugar a day. Now, it's often one-hundred times that. So, while eating dessert is one thing - and even reasonable at times - Americans are consuming monstrous amounts of sugar. And, as Sanjay Gupta exposes in the following segment on 60 minutes, it is impacting far more than our waste lines. It's a factor in heart disease and cancer in ways no one ever imagined. And, it's simply not a factor in other populations the way it is in America. For example, forty years ago, we declared war on fat - and heart disease rates have skyrocketed. That's because the fat was replaced with sugar, and it's every bit as destructive, if not more so.

The basic facts of the case are clear. Sugar is absolutely no good. So, the daily consumption has to drop. Even a soda a day is too much. In fact, many doctors such as Dr. Oz have long argued that if you can or will only make one change in your diet, it's to cut out the soda. Start consuming more food and join SugarBusters. Interestingly, when most of our oldest citizens are studied and polled, one key factor in their diets is that it is surprisingly low on sugar. Cut back on the sugar.

Your life truly depends on it.

Does Poverty Matter?

The debate in public education over whether - or how much - poverty matters in the achievement of all kids continues to rage. For example, Peter Meyer's recent piece in EducationNext is criticizing the persistence of what he calls "the poverty myth." At the same time, a discussion of America's poor standing on PISA and TIMMS international test rankings led me to this article by Mel Riddile of the National Education of Secondary School Principals. Riddile has parsed the date to expose a fascinating detail. When American schools with less than 25% poverty are removed from our international test data, America ranks number one in the world in math and science. Thus, he argues that the significance of poverty is no myth and it matters a huge deal. Additionally, Corey Bower's work at Ed Policy Thoughts exposes another side to the gaps and the realities of poverty in education.

Interestingly, I agree with all these points of view, as they are all credible and contributing factors in the discussion.

Riddile is simply pointing out the role that poverty is currently playing in the achievement gap and its impact on international test scores. That seems pretty indisputable. And, of course, David Brooks has written continuously in the New York Times of brain research and the impact on children who do not form stable relationships by the age of 18 months. It can have a life-long debilitating effect. Of course, Brooks subsequently argues that because poverty is so debilitating and such a huge factor in the educational and career success of people, the institutions designed to combat those forces are all the more important. But Meyer is overstating his case by using the word "Myth." It's not a myth. Poverty does matter. Big time. It's not a myth that parenting, socioeconomic status, and neighborhood are the pinnacle of influences on a child's educational success. That's a foundational idea of reform efforts such as Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children's Zone. That said, schools and teachers must not use it as an excuse. It's not why kids "can't" succeed. It's simply a key factor in why they don't.

Even Jaime Escalante couldn't reach all kids.

Benadryl Bad Parenting

There is certainly no shortage of bad parenting stories these days like this one which recounts the pathetic news of an entire family kicked of a JetBlue flight because the parents were unable to control their children. However, the more disturbing news comes from stories of parents who claim to have no trouble traveling with their children thanks to the shocking, negligent, pathetic, and potentially criminal parenting trick known as the "Benadryl Solution."

Parents are doping their kids with antihistamines to put them to sleep.

Despite my outrage, many people are neither surprised nor bothered by this. For, in a day and age when parents and pediatricians are putting children as young as three years old on medication for hyperactivity, a little benadryl at the airport could seem positively sane. But it's not. And I don't care if your pediatrician recommended it and said it would be OK. And I don't care if Grandpa talks about how they used to put a little bourbon in the baby bottle or rubbed some brandy on the baby's gums. It's not OK. As Helen, an advanced practice nurse specializing in maternal addiction in Philadelphia, sees it, “I think putting a chemical into your child’s brain in lieu of substituting appropriate comforting parenting behaviors is shameful.”
Benadryl is a drug which is manufactured and intended to treat cold and allergy symptoms. It's not intended as a sleep aid or parenting tool, and the box clearly states the product is not to be used for any purpose other than the one for which it was manufactured. It's not enough to simply argue that a little bit won't hurt the child. For one, we don't know that. Stories of such poisoning and abuse are rare but not unheard of. Secondly, the more significant issue is the substitution of dope for adult parenting skills.

My children are ages seven and ten, and my wife and I have always been amazed by people who come up to us while we are traveling - or even out to eat - and note incredulously, "We didn't even realize young children were on this plane" or "in this restaurant." It's as if people are truly shocked that children can behave in public. Barring a true medical condition of hysteria or hyperactivity - for which parents should have a prescription - children should never be doped because a parent can't handle taking them out in public.

Benadryl parenting is no parenting at all. Anyone who has made this decision has clearly revealed an inability to be an adult. And if you're already doing this, please don't have any more children.

Worth Avenue Giveaway Worth Checking Out

The other day I had the most interesting experience sitting at my local Starbucks. At a table next to me three people were engaged in a casual conversation about smart phone accidents. As this was going on, one of the men was literally repairing the glass on a smart phone with a little kit he had sitting on the table. When he was finished, the young couple he was with handed him some cash for phone and they all left. It was a little side market I never knew existed.

In the day of advancing and ever more valuable technology, it may worth investing in a little peace of mind. Worth Avenue Group has been insuring personal property since 1971, and they offer coverage for all your electronic products, from iPhones to iPads to cell phones, laptops and more. Additionally, Worth Avenue Group is currently offering a "Greatest Teacher" Technology-in-Education Give-Away. The grant program will give away $150,000 in grants and prizes to teachers who get the most votes for the "Greatest Teacher in America." This includes a $25,000 education technology grant for schools, iPads for teachers, etc.

Voting runs through March 31, 2012. This kind of deal is definitely worth checking out.



Otterbox Defender Series Skin Case for Apple iPhone 4/4S APL2-I4SUN-20

Asus 32GB Blue Transformer Pad TF300T Tablet - TF300TB1BL

Samsung 8GB Galaxy Tab 2 Wi-Fi Tablet - GT-P3113TSYXAR

 Apple iPad 2 Dock - MC940ZM/A

American Students Dropping in Science Ranking

While we've all heard that American schools are trailing the world in math and science on international test scores, it's worth noting that according to the National Academies on math and sciences, the United States is also dropping in overall rankings on science in society and the marketplace. Thus, the US is ranked ranked as low as 48th out of 133 countries in terms of math science instruction. This measures and impacts the number of science degrees we produce, as well as significant markers such as patents. For far too long, Americans have responded to criticism of science skills by pointing to our world-leading companies in the tech sector. However, if we continue to fail producing innovative scientists, we risk losing our "Silicon Valley" status.

On the science ranking, I won't dispute the criticism because the point is our kids simply don't want to go into science. In America the real math and science whizzes go into finance or business because they can make more money, or at least believe that they can. Case in point: I had student nominated as a Presidential Scholar which is one of the most prestigious awards for high school students. He has completed in Destination Imagination and the Science Olympiad all through high school, and he is amazingly successful. And all he wants to do is work on Wall Street and be a hedge fund billionaire.

David Brooks of the Times has been writing about this for years. It's a brain drain, as our best and brightest have for years been heading for finance as opposed to the sciences. And that's partly our fault. We give them autonomy. In Taiwan or Singapore or Korea, the kids who excel in math/science are forced into those college majors. And, of course, they revere the sciences more than we do.

I don't really disagree with anything the article says. And we're working on it in Denver with The Denver School of Science and Technology and Cherry Creek's new STEM charter for science and math. But if kids don't want to study it, they won't. And we have a lot of really bright kids in this country - but they are going to law school before anything else. And that is all about money. There are a lot of exceptionally bright sociology and history and comparative lit majors out there. And the reason the same isn't true in many other countries is that their colleges literally don't let them do that.

No easy answer - but always worth the discussion.