Abusive Coaching is Not OK - Stop Defending Rutgers Bully Mike Rice

The question Americans should be asking themselves - especially coaches, teacher, and parents - is whether disgraced Rutgers coach Mike Rice's behavior is more disturbing than the comments of people who actually defend him and abusive coaching.  When the story and video first surfaced, the initial reactions were shock and outrage.  Coach Rice's behavior was so far beyond the pale that it seemed unfathomable that he hadn't been fired immediately and even investigated by authorities for potential assault charges.  I simply couldn't believe that an adult who calls himself "a coach" could be so cruel and literally out of control in his interactions with players.  Nor could anyone I spoke with, including men who played and coached football.

Yet, it didn't take long for the conversation to veer into even more disturbing territory when people made clear that opposition to abusive coaching wasn't the consensus view.  On Fox News, Eric Bolling opened the discussion by saying the firing of Rice symbolized the decline of America because of the "wussification of American men."  Fox commentator Sean Hannity echoed this mentality when he declared that he was "yelled at by coaches" and he "turned out OK."  But let's be clear: if someone thinks the abuse by Coach Rice is any way acceptable, he absolutely did not "turn out OK."  It seems most disturbing for these comments - always from men - to be made by people who are fathers.  Jon Stewart reacted with sharp criticism - and his trademark wit - to Hannity's defense.  Of course, any comments between Stewart and Hannity will be politicized, but Stewart's most significant point is that this should be beyond party or ideology.  There is simply no reason to defend this man.

Now Slate Magazine editor David Plotz has weighed in with a troubling defense of Coach Rice under the even more disturbing title "I Loved My Abusive Basketball Coach."  At this point, the discussion must shift to the basic psychology behind victims of abuse who learn to react by defending the abuser and blaming themselves.  This is not in any way "OK."  While many former athletes will defend strict coaches and teachers as being necessary to instill discipline and bring out the best in some kids, the line between strictness and abuse should be roundly clear to everyone.  Coach Rice is so far past the line of acceptable behavior, he can't even see it anymore.  Neither can those who defend him.  Po Bronson's recent book Top Dog explained the situation whereby lower performing athletes will actually respond to stricter practice as a way of "bringing out their best" when they lack the will to do it themselves.  But he's not talking about abuse.  Coach Rice's behavior was never about coaching - it was about control and anger and abuse.

Clearly, there are problems in the world of athletics that have nothing to do with the sport.  These are the heart of issues that lead to books like Why Johnny Hates Sport and the need for movements like the Power of Positive Coaching.  We are losing our way as human beings if we do not respond to the behavior of Coach Rice with serious disapproval.

In Defense of Liberal Arts - It's Not All About Jobs Skills

In the push for all things STEM in order to keep America competitive and provide jobs, many small minded education critics have been down on the liberal arts to the point of declaring the study of literature, art, philosophy, and culture "useless" if if doesn't "help someone find a job."  The latest politician to rant about this is North Carolina governor Pat McCrory who whined to Bill Bennett - a Ph.D. in philosophy - that "If you want to take gender studies that’s fine, go to a private school and take it. But I don’t want to subsidize that if that’s not going to get someone a job.”   Basically, McCrory is making economics and finance the end-all-be-all of any educational venture - at least one funded in part by taxes.

This myopic view of education seems to align with the rampant anti-intellectualism that's becoming common among the financial elite - and which it should be said aligns mostly with the Republican Party.  The other side of the argument is the validity of the liberal arts and education beyond just jobs skills, and that point is well made by Meghan Florian in a piece for The Chronicle titled Notes From an Employed Philosopher.  Florian turns the tables of McCrory who called out the "academic elites" by rightfully accusing him of being an economic elite.  For, in one reading of McCrory's narrow world, rich (white) kids get to pursue a liberal arts education at private school, while poor kids turn to the trades.

The argument is, of course, more complicated than that.  Nonetheless, Florian's point is well made.  And McGrory could learn a little from the liberal arts, as well as from people like Daniel Pink who argues for a more right brain creative world in his groundbreaking book A Whole New Mind.  In reality, it's not just about basic job skills of math, science, and welding.  It's about growth as human beings.

Plumbing, Nursing, & Technical Jobs on the Rise

Despite the mass rush to college to major in "I don't know yet," the economy is clear on what will be immediately needed in the near future.  Topping the list are jobs in the highly skilled services industry - jobs like nursing, plumbing, electrical work, and technical systems.

Ken Jennings and the Triumph of Geek-ness

Ken Jennings represents the ultimate ascendence of "geeks" into American popular culture.  In a great feature for Yahoo News, Kevin Lincoln profiles the legendary Jeopardy! champion who has since parlayed his trivia prowess into a one-man industry of knowledge.  Jennings is simply that know-it-all type of person who was fascinated by knowledge.  He's probably the kid who was not necessarily "nerdy" but always seemed to be reading something - whether it was a cereal box or sections of the text book that hadn't been assigned.

The identity of a "geek" was an interesting point of discussion in AP Language and Composition classes a couple years ago when students were asked on the exam to consider Leonid Fridman's essay which developed the argument "America Needs Its Nerds."  Fridman was making a case against the pervasive anti-intellectualism in America.  He noted:

There is something very wrong with the system of values in a society that has only derogatory terms like nerd and geek for the intellectually curious and academically serious. A geek, according to Webster’s New World Dictionary, is a street performer who shocks the public by biting off heads of live chickens. It is a telling fact about our language and our culture that someone dedicated to pursuit of knowledge is compared to a freak biting the head off a live chicken 

The true dominance of geeks and nerds became a moot point of discussion years ago with the success of people like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.  It was clear at that point that geeks had won.  However, Gates and Zuckerberg were all about business, and Ken Jennings is basically all about fun.  He finds knowledge fun, and he's crafted a nice little "business" out of that hobby.

Fund College Via Donations on AngelDorm

As college costs grow beyond the average American's ability to pay, creative financing for higher education is poised to become the next big thing in education and finance.  What it will look like remains to be seen, but you can bet it will be on-line.  One organization that is out front on the creative financing is AngelDorm, a website designed to help students fund their education through donations via social media.  According to the press info:

With Angeldorm.com students actually create an online "dorm" that becomes their fundraising hub for receiving contributions for their college tuition, fees, books and campus housing.  They then can use their social media sites to share their dorm to raise money from potential doners. It's perfect for friends and family to donate to the student's education. Plus, the money goes directly to the university, so no need to worry. It's great for gift giving at birthdays, high school graduations, weddings, baby showers etc.

With student debt nearing $1 trillion and becoming the fastest growing sector of personal debt, there is growing pressure on families already struggling to pay mortgages and other loans. From 2000 to 2010, tuition soared 33 percent while private college loans rose by 592 percent over that same span.

Angeldorm aims to reach everyone in the student's family tree – not just parents but also brings aunts, uncles, siblings and cousins into an expanding circle that reaches friends, neighbors, religious congregations, civic groups, clubs, employers, coaches, teachers, fraternities, sororities – anyone who might wish to give something more than warm wishes to college kids who need a financial lift. The student can also elect to tell their story to a broader audience of people they do not know personally but who might find their story compelling. The Angeldorm system will follow the crowdsource model that has made meaningful changes in political campaign funding by turning small donations from the American middle class into political heavyweights.


The Model: Getting Ahead, Giving Back. Angeldorm enables donor contributions in amounts that middle class people can manage: The Halo ($25 to $49); Tassel ($50 to $150); Wings ($150 to $250); and Angel ($250 plus). Angeldorm has built a seamless and credible records system to accurately track donations, fees for credit card transactions and a flat $2.75 per transaction fee to support the network with a sustainable financial model.  Fidelity Investments, one of the largest college plan providers, offers Angeldorm students professionally managed tax-advantaged 529 accounts to facilitate setting up a plan, but students can also use any provider of their choice.

Who knows where this is going next?  As parents and students consider their options for the future, their most important asset will be information and access.  AngelDorm looks to be worth checking out.

Agents of Change in the Secondary & Higher Ed World

Collaborative relationships between school districts and universities are significant in both the university role for teacher training and the goal of high school students' matriculation.  And, the education system has long advocated itself as a K-16 model.  Yet, the sad reality is that far too many students do not transition well to higher education, and colleges have long lamented how poorly prepared students are for the rigors of university.  In fact, the role of AP classes in providing access to college level work for qualified students has been complicated by the moves of many colleges to limit the AP credit given to students.  Dartmouth recently decided to no longer give any AP credit, and the College Board added synthesis and research-style DBQs in response to university complaints that students weren't being adequately prepared for college-level research papers.  Critics argue that universities are implementing these restrictions simply to increase revenue because they were losing money on general education requirements - which are often a school's cash cow.

The problem is the students who are caught in the middle - though innovative thinking about curriculum and scheduling can contribute to a more efficient and effective education system.  The rise of concurrent enrollment (CE) and dual credit classes is contributing to a closer relationship between the two entities, especially in terms of curriculum.  As it becomes clear that many students can complete both K-12 and higher ed in less than than traditional time, the blurring of lines between high school and college will benefit students both financially and academically.  Relationships that exist now between schools like Golden High School and Red Rocks Community College have created opportunities for students to literally walk across the stage at graduation and accept a high school diploma and an associates degree at the same time.  Additionally, plans in the works in places like New Hampshire may someday allow high school "graduation" as early as sixteen if the student is qualified and gains admission to a associate degree or career training program.

The system - though traditionally rigid - is in flux with the rise of edu-punks and edu-preneurs (to use Anya Kamenetz's term).  And with the rise of new systems such as CE and dual-credit, as well as MOOcs like Coursera and edX, the lines will continue to blur in ways that benefit all stakeholders and create more efficient, accessible, and effective education.  For those entering school administration, then, it's of primary importance to be "a leader [who] promotes the success of every student by understanding, responding to, and influencing the political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context."

Teaching and Relevance - Especially in Math

Math teacher and edu-blogger Darren Miller at RightontheLeftCoast posted a couple thoughts on the teaching of math and the idea of relevance in education that are worth considering.  The first bit of information comes from a short TED Talks video, featuring math teacher Dan Meyer who argues that our current method of delivering math instruction is setting our kids up for failure and a contempt for - or at least frustration with - the entire skill of computation and numeracy.  

Dan Meyer's points need to be discussed in math departments and schools - and even at dinner tables - across the country.  His points about the blockades to effective math literacy are well explained as:

1. Lack of initiative
2. Lack of perseverance
3. Lack of retention
4. Aversion to word problems
5. Eagerness for formulas

A second point of from math teacher Arthur Benjamin argues that our math scaffolding holds as its pinnacle the study of calculus, when it should really focus on the study of probability and statistics.  That, he points out, would be much more relevant and applicable to everyone's life.

Interestingly, the issue of relevance was discussed by education writer Diana Senechal in a recent guest post for Joanne Jacobs.  Diana's points are well developed.

A Whole New Schooling

America's high school graduation rates and college admission rates are at their highest level in more than thirty-five years, and America educates a far larger percentage of its population to higher levels than almost all other industrialized countries.  America's higher education system is still the envy of the world, and because of its opportunities, the United States remains that "shining city upon the hill" that John Winthrop described nearly three centuries ago.  In terms of international rankings, when schools with less than 25% poverty are ranked, American schools actually lead the world in test scores, and the highest achieving states like Massachusetts actually outperform perennial academic all stars like Finland, Singapore, and Japan.  In many ways, the public education system is one of the greatest success stories in American history.  Yet, there are clearly huge discrepancies in the opportunities and access to education provided by the current system, and there is no logical way to argue that the system is equitable or that public education is meeting the needs of every child.

The American education system works very well for students whose parents know how to work it.  If a family is not restricted by where they can choose to live and enroll their children, or how much they can access the extras of education - from summer camps to college counselors and ACT prep courses - then they are in great position to reap the benefits of a clearly defined system.  However, the income gap is nowhere more significant in America than it is in the public education system - despite the beliefs by many Americans that the system is a level playing field.  The American system also works very well for many teachers who are granted great autonomy in their ability to manage their classrooms and their workloads and, in many ways, their evaluation.  Teachers are generally more focused on their content and their style of presenting information than they are on adapting to and understanding the way students learn.  In almost all fields, especially professional areas like accounting and medicine and law and information technology, employees need to pursue regular professional development to stay current.  Not so much with education.  And that must change.

With my principal's license I have no immediate interest in becoming "a principal."  However, I am committed to progress in education by contributing to areas of professional development and school culture.  In my perfect world, I could live with one foot in the classroom and one foot in the administrative office, working as an advocate for both teachers and kids, but focusing primarily on "what's best for kids" and whatever works.  Too many teachers lack the support or motivation to be truly visionary in adaptive change.  That doesn't mean, however, that they are altogether opposed to it.  My goal is to find a way to be a bridge and facilitator for teachers who will struggle with the changes demanded by Common Core and SB191 and the school improvement plan.  NCA expects that teachers learn to use data to guide instruction, and teachers will need support in how to do that.  In a pseudo-administrative role, I would seek not so much to be a buffer as to be a filter, breaking down information on what teachers need to know about new expectations, so they can focus on doing what they do - which in my experience can be pretty magical.

As I've noted before, I am interested in working toward a world where teachers don't say "I teach math or English or history" but instead say, "I teach kids."  I've been reading a lot by "ideas guru" Daniel Pink who advocates for new thinking in developing skills in kids which allow them to succeed.  Rather than a particular content, Pink focus on the need for students to develop skills in "numeracy, design thinking, and sales," as these are marketable skills.  The ideas put forth by people like Daniel Pink or Po Bronson or Malcolm Gladwell on "the way the world really works" are the kind of information that I would like to help weave into school culture.  From places like High Tech High to books like A Whole New Mind to plans like "Tough Choices, Tough Times," school culture needs to be adapted and developed to allow greater access and choice for kids.  However, the focus must be on data and results.  "Whatever works" is my motto for education.

Stephen Brill & Time Expose the Corrupt Cost of Health Care

The real health care questions are or should be: 

Why are the bills so high? What are the reasons, good or bad, that cancer means a half-million or million dollar tab? Why does a trip to the emergency room for chest pains that are only indigestion end up costing as much as a semester of college? What makes a single dose of even the most wonderful wonder drug cost thousands of dollars? Why does routine lab work done at a hospital by a salaried employee cost more than a car? Why do hospitals charge $70 for a box of gauze pads when they’re on Amazon for a couple bucks? And, what is so different about medical systems that cause advances in technology to drive bills up instead of down?

In the longest investigative report Time Magazine has ever published, writer Stephen Brill has exposed the dark side of medical billing and asked the most important question - why are the bills so high?  You won't like the answer, though unless you've navigated the health care and insurance world outside of the protection of group coverage, you likely have no idea what the "costs" of health care are.

School Wide Literacy Makes a Difference

In addressing the idea of school wide literacy - especially amidst the discussion of Common Core's recommendations on informational text - there are few schools more appropriate to spotlight than the success of Brockton High School in Massachusetts.

Watch An integrated approach to literacy on PBS. See more from Need To Know.

"Read Option" & the Common Core's Informational Text Issue

**The following is reprinted from publication in the Denver Post.

Since Tim Tebow's departure, the "read-option" hasn't been at issue in Denver. However, it's set to rise again, this time in Colorado's classrooms.

With recent news about Common Core standards, change is coming to schools, and reading is no longer "an option." Strangely, this isn't without controversy. Common Core's recommendation on informational texts has created a brouhaha. The Washington Post even declared the end of literature in schools after Common Core "mandated" 70 percent of student reading should be informational texts. Teachers now fret about exchanging "The Great Gatsby" for instructional manuals.

But that's simply not true. Most troublesome is that critics can't even "read" the standards. Common Core hasn't mandated that 70 percent of reading in English classes is non-fiction. It recommended teaching non-fiction beginning at the elementary level and increasing until 70 percent of high school reading is non-fiction.

This makes sense because English classes account for one-fifth of high school schedules. Thus, 80 percent of a student's daily load is not literature, but it should include reading. Students in math, science, social studies, health and arts classes should read informational texts. English classes are where literature remains the content. The challenge is for content-area teachers to realize that the "critical thinking" they allegedly teach now means "critical thinking" about "informational text."

Committing to literacy can literally turn around schools. It's not enough to simply focus on proficiency by third grade as Colorado's READ Act stipulates. Literacy needs cultivation at all levels. Tom Fair, an English teacher at Cherry Creek High School, asserts "we have long under-served non-fiction at the high school level."All content teachers assert critical thinking is one of the primary skills they develop. Of course, literacy instruction is simply teaching kids to "think critically" about a text. Thus, if we're going to have education reform, it has to start with reading.

The average low-income child enters kindergarten knowing as many as 5,000 fewer words than middle- and upper-income children. A child who finishes fourth grade not reading at grade level will never catch up with his peers. According to the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), 44 percent of high school students are "dys-fluent" in reading grade-level, familiar text. They are not illiterate, but they can't truly read. They are "fake readers." Their eyes skim the words, but they don't truly comprehend them.

School reform will never succeed until all reformers and teachers accept literacy as the fundamental skill in accessing information. With Common Core assessing literacy in social studies and science, literacy must finally be unbound from the English classroom. For years, content-area literacy has been part of the ACT, though few paid attention. ACT reading tests have always had sections on social studies and science. Students read dense content-area passages and answers questions in limited time. Without regular literacy instruction in this content, students stand little chance of success. 

Reading is a learning skill, not an English skill. If a student is only getting one hour of literacy instruction, he will never truly become educated.  Teachers from kindergarten to graduate school need to stop assigning reading and start teaching it instead. If the new Common Core standards on literacy promote this, students will benefit.

Problems with Emphasizing College Degrees

"Too many people are going to college," noted Charles Murray in his book Real Education.  Yet, the persistence continues with teachers, counselors, principals, parents, politicians, and billionaire philanthropists promoting a college degree as the path to riches and happiness, as well as the cure to all that ills society.  I wrote about this in an article for the Post a couple years ago after Bill Gates set as a goal "by 2025, 80% of students would earn a four-year bachelor's degree."  What a "brilliant" [sic] idea.  But only if Microsoft is going to hire all these overeducated, over-credentialed people.

Considering only 29% of Americans currently have a bachelor degree, and many are seeking work, and the nation has four million unfilled jobs in skilled labor, the proposal for 80% earning a degree - amassing the spending and debt associated with that - is patently absurd.  For a successful businessman to make such a claim, I truly question his knowledge of society, economics, and the future.  And, herein  is the problem for students and families as they consider options and the logic of pursuing a degree.  With this in mind Jeff Selingo asks in an article for The Chronicle "Are Career-Oriented Majors a Waste of Time?"

Most of the evidence from the workplace seems to imply that the current focus on degrees for all is an incredible waste of time and money.  While Selingo claims not to be in the "don't-go-to-college" crowd of people like Charles Murray, perhaps more of us in education should be.  Certainly, there is nothing wrong with higher education, and in a perfect world the well-paid mechanic could wax philosophic about Socrates and Shakespeare while helping his son with his calculus homework at the same that a neurosurgeon could fix a nice meal as well as teach his daughter how to change the O-ring on the toilet.  However, certain practical questions lead us to avoid shooting for these utopian visions and instead focus on what real progress we can make in the education and employment world.

Too many students are pursuing higher (and expensive) education on the belief that they will "get a better job."  Yet, there is not only no guarantee of that, but far too many will end up working in jobs (saddled with student loan debt) that never required a degree - or at least didn't in the past.  The number of jobs that didn't - or shouldn't - require a degree is shrinking, and that's not good for anyone.  For, there is no reason that the upper levels of high school or career training can't provide adequate skill and knowledge for many jobs - especially clerking and service-oriented work.

Granted, "Saying no to college" is not an admirable solution if the system itself won't change.  Sadly, if employers continue to use the college degree as a screening device - even for jobs such as a bank teller - then America is going to face a serious crisis in its ability to fund all this education.  Meanwhile, electricians can continue to make $50K a year, and millions of jobs in skilled labor go unfilled.