Buy Me a Cup of Coffee

For several years now I have sought to "create people on whom nothing is lost" by providing regular posts of engaging content on issues readers may want to know about. The blog is purely a labor of love - but it is a labor. Thus, if you would like to financially support my writing, please feel free to donate to A Teacher's View by clicking on the Buy Me a Cup of Coffee PayPal button to the right of the blog.  PayPal makes it easy, accepting payment through your account or a credit card.

The Gates Foundation Education Reform Machine

Several years ago in an op-ed for the Washington Post, Bill Gates set a goal of 80% of high school graduates earning bachelor degrees by the year 2025. At the time, I was shocked at the absurdity of the goal from a business standpoint and I wondered, "Is Microsoft going to hire all these highly educated people?" Because the American economy which is supported by 30% of its adults with bachelor degrees certainly can't sustain that level of education with the commensurate salaries to justify it. It just seemed, from a businessman's point of view, to be a terribly poor decision, both inefficient and unnecessary. It just seemed so ... un-Bill Gates-like.

Of course, the nation had to listen - and even many applauded mindlessly - because the idea came from Bill Gates and his Gates Foundation, arguably the biggest behemoth in education reform by sheer vastness of resources and the ability to impose its will. When billions of dollars are on the table, people listen. Even when the direction proves to be misguided. Certainly, the Gates Foundation has had its share of mis-steps, precisely because it is dealing with a very un-business-like issue. The huge investment in smaller schools to improve results is one example. The aligning with controversial people like Michelle Rhee is another. Yet, I don't mean to dismiss or disparage Bill Gates or the Gates Foundation because I firmly believe in the goal they are after. And they are doing many things right. Supporting people like Sal Khan and the Khan Academy is one notable achievement that can't really be bad for education. However, the jury on Gates' positive versus negative impact is still out. This week, The Chronicle of Higher Education weighs in with a slew of commentary on the Gates Effect:

Marc Perry and others question the Gates Effect after the Foundation has spent nearly a quarter of a million dollars on education initiatives.  Notably, not all - or even many - in the education sector are singing the praises of the cash infusion "Some experts have complained that the Gates foundation approaches higher education as an engineering problem to be solved. Most important, some leaders and analysts are uneasy about the future that Gates is buying: a system of education designed for maximum measurability, delivered increasingly through technology, and—these critics say—narrowly focused on equipping students for short-term employability."  There is reason for concern, as education is simply not a business, and there are too many intangibles to turn it into a system of widgets and bean counting.  In another piece Katherine Mangan examines "How Gates Shapes State Education Policy," and this raises concerns about the democratic process to be sure. Certainly, there is no reason to completely dismiss Gates contributions, as the state doesn't have exemplary records on reform. And addressing the unacceptable rates of remediation for college students is a primary goal to say the least. The Chronicle also features an interesting info-graphic on the role Gates and his Foundation have played.  But where is this all really going, asks John Thelin. The Gates' certainly hope to see results for their investment and efforts, if not now then within fifty years of their deaths. So the pressure to produce is driven in a market way that again may compromise the education field. And its those potential costs - and collateral damage - that is the concern of Robin Rogers who worries about The Price of Philanthropy.

The reality is that Gates and the Gates Foundation are the premier force in education reform. So, they must be acknowledged. The Chronicle has done a nice job of continuing the conversation. And, for more critical analysis and links to studies on Gates' goals and success, check out Anthony Cody's insightful piece for EdWeek Mr. Gates Goes to College.

Colleges Offer More Career Prep - Less Liberal Arts

Is the time spent in college about broadening your horizons and developing a liberal arts education - or is it about getting a job? As the costs of college rise - and the job prospects for young Americans remain thin - prospective students and their parents are weighing more critically the luxury of liberal arts studies versus the acquisition of skills necessary to enter a career and earn a living. And this has raised concerns in some circles that the studying of the humanities is a luxury for wealthy kids, while the middle and working class need to forego the study of literature, philosophy, and music to pursue careers in technology, finance, and health care.

In response to the legitimate anxieties of the millenials and their parents, "colleges [are] offering more career prep." That's the analysis from AP writer Beth Harpaz who has discovered "instead of 'Follow Your Passion,' the mantra has become more like, 'we'll help you get a job.'" This is not a surprise to me, and I agree with the emphasis on job skills, even as I hope students can balance that pursuit with their desire to study interesting classes in the liberal arts. These days, numerous writers and consultants are urging students to avoid the follow your passion myth, and there is good reason behind such advice. "Passion," in all its innocuous excitement, leads very few people to careers in life. As a friend of mine has long noted, "We have lives, and we have jobs. Passion is for life, not work." Granted, some people - like me - are passionate about their work. Yet, more people would be better served developing skills and following their talents, rather than letting their passion lead the way. This is the message - Follow your passion and go broke - of Mike Rowe in one of my favorite TEDTalks:

Other great sources of information and advice on the passion versus skills debate are people like Daniel Pink, Cal Newport, and Daniel Coyle.  Newport's book So Good They Can't Ignore You encourages students to work hard at developing skills and talents in areas that interest them. By doing so, Newport believes, students will become highly skilled in jobs which will then become a passion for them.  Daniel Coyle makes the same argument in The Talent Code. And, these days technical skills are highly valued by nearly all companies, and it's important for all people to remain as current and trained in workplace technologies as they can. Chad Bailey offers this information for BusinessDaily on Tech Skills that Employers Want.

Chad May Be Out as the Next Food Network Star

This week on the Food Network's Next Food Network Star, the competent but continually uninspiring work of Chad Rosenthal finally caught up with him, and Chad was eliminated - he will not be** the Next Food Network Star. Chad's inability to really talk engagingly about any food - Bobby Flay's salmon masterpiece or Chad's very own barbecue poutine - led Alton, Bobby, and Giada to conclude Chad was never going to progress - he was never going to be the Next Food Network Star. For a man who has lived barbecue professionally for years - and who is seen saying in the trailers that he can "talk about food like nobody else" - Chad has surprisingly little to say.

Russel barely held on this week - and he will not be the Next Food Network Star either. However, it does appear that he is a slightly better - or at least more interesting and innovative - chef, and there is more potential for him to grow into a marketable personality. Barbecue is pretty generic and well served on the Food Network - cooking with the "Seven Culinary Sins" is something new. Candied bacon and horseradish ice cream are certainly worth taking a look at - though they may belong on Anthony Bourdain's show, as opposed to the Food Network.

Demaris continues to disappoint - though the judges have some sort of misplaced affection for her southern "charm." Though I would certainly not be tuning in to a Food Network Show to learn about green bean casserole - or really anything "southern" that Demaris offers. And I would hope that Demaris' piss-poor whiny attitude would count as a strike against her. That woman complains about every single challenge - it's never exciting for her, only a burden. That is just rather classless, and certainly not "Star" quality.

Rodney continues to be - in the words of Bobby Flay - "a disaster." While his food seems to always be tasty, how hard is it to screw up a mixed berry pie. The thing that bothers me is his absolutely sloppy presentation. His culinary skills and his finished products are always a mess, and I would be turned off as a judge just watching him work. On top of that, his presentations are always annoying and rather low class, and his personal appearance reminds me of the unkempt schlubbiness that was the trademark of the Pop-A-Waffle guys on the Great Food Truck Race. In my world, style counts ... and Rodney has very little.

Finally, both Stacy and Nikki were winners tonight, though it's obvious that Nikki was the top presenter. Bobby overpraised Stacy because of her story, overlooking the fact that she said very little about the actual food. And, the Meat-on-the-Side concept is a heck of a lot more interesting than a Vintage-Modern Kitchen. Though either of these ladies will be competent. The key word being competent - for there are no true stars among this incredibly weak field of food finalists.

** Chad's chance at redemption came in a competition with Lovely. And while Chad wasn't stellar, he - like all other redemption candidates - made a much more interesting dish than Lovely who simply "made a salad." That is not star quality, nor were any of her other dishes. However, Robert Irvine is going to make us wait until next week to see he comes back.  It better be Chad.

The Best Content Curation & Aggregation Sites

Content curation and aggregation is the foundation of much of the internet economy, with revenues generated by readership, links, and advertising. Clearly, Google's AdSense is the top of the game for this, but there are many other companies cashing in on pay-per-click revenue. But where is all this information coming from. As I noted in my earlier post Stephen Rosenbaum has aggregated an insightful analysis in  Curation Nation: How to Win in a World Where Consumers are Creators., and his textbook example of premier curation and aggregation is the Huffington Post, brainchild of media darling Arianna Huffington. Arianna is a great role model for aspiring internet-preneurs, and the story of HuffPo's success by Rosenbaum is worth reading.

So, who else does a great job of curation and aggregation? Here are a few examples of the sites I scan for engaging and informative collections of web buzz.  Consider checking out:

Slate Magazine

Salon

Mediaite

Yahoo News

Talking Points Memo

Real Clear Politics

Instapundit

Politico

And, of course, one of the originals that simply links ... and profits:

The Drudge Report

These are the sites that I check most regularly for news of "what's going on."

It's a Curation Nation - Information is Currency

University of Chicago professor and social critic Neil Postman once said, "The challenge of the 21st century is to turn information into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom." This prescient analysis was an apt summation of the current state of the internet and social media.  For the blogging world, this flood of information - or "content" - is the life's blood of the network. 

For an excellent analysis and understanding of the world we've created - and what that might mean in a business sense - internet afficionados should read Steve Rosenbaum's inspired and insightful Curation Nation: How to Win in a World Where Consumers are Creators., available on Amazon or its own website.  Rosenbaum offers a historical perspective on the entire idea of "curation," which is basically the filtering and re-packaging of all the noise out on the world wide web. Basically, what I am doing now with this entry and its inherent links is "curation" of information about curation.

Michael Jordan Always Better Than Kobe ... and Everyone Else

With the exit of Dwight Howard from the LA Lakers, it also appears to be the last chance for Kobe Bryant to equal the career titles of the man he's always been compared to - and aspired to be (or surpass). That's the analysis from YahooContributor Lucas Bowen in a great analysis for YahooSports. The reality of Kobe's career is that he never secured a title - or even a playoff berth - without a premier big man in the lane, one who was clearing the way for his outside game. Michael Jordan dominated like no other player ever has or will, and he did it with the likes of Bill Cartwright and Luc Longley. It's simply not a reasonable comparison, Bowen writes, and perhaps the exit of Howard from LA can also clear the way for the exit of Kobe and the end of this tiresome discussion. Michael Jordan will always be the greatest basketball player ever.  And, don't even get me started on Lebron James because in that case, there's only one argument to be made:

Ohio School to Arm Staff

The news reports that an Ohio school district has cleared the way to arming its teaching staff if the individuals have a gun license.  This is not, in my opinion, the correct response to the SandyHook shootings, though clearly that is the impetus. Schools should not seek to arm citizenry, but instead should implement a School Resource Officer program in all schools. The program is "well-regulated" and time tested. Certified law enforcement are trained to shoot in a crisis; the average person is not. More than likely, increased gun presence increases the margin of error, and law enforcement officials I've heard do not support a more armed populace as a safety measure - especially in schools. Granted, there is concern that an SRO is not always present or in the right place, for we know that Columbine High School had an SRO on campus.  But procedures have changed since then.  And, for evidence of a trained professional armed guard being the appropriate response to gun violence, I would point to the armed guard who brought down a shooter at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs in 2007.  In this case, it was a trained security officer who saved the day, not the average citizen.  When the average citizen carries a weapon and responds to "trouble," society is more likely to face a situation like George Zimmerman stupidly and irresponsibly shooting an unarmed man out of fear ... and maybe ill will.  As a final thought, I would offer some insightful commentary from Aaron Sorkin's The West Wing.  It's not specifically about schools - but it says something about arming any citizen with the intent of making the world safer or preventing crimes.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKdSGSZfbnA&safe=active

Schools Should Learn from Effective Schools

Granted, there are many problems with simply trying to emulate in one school with a select group of students the same practice, producing the same results, in another entirely different school with a different select group of students.  However, that's not to say we can't learn from success - a point well-made by Greg Anrig - From Health-Care Reform, Lessons for Education Policy.  I don't always agree with Greg, but I like the way he thinks. Interesting findings from a UChicago consortium that studied effective schools:

The consortium identified five key organizational features to advancing student achievement:

• A coherent instructional guidance system, in which the curriculum, study materials, and assessments are coordinated within and across grades with meaningful teacher involvement;

• An effective system to improve professional capacity, including making teachers' classroom work public for examination by colleagues and external consultants, and to enable ongoing support and guidance for teachers;

• Strong parent-community-school ties, with an integrated support network for students;

• A student-centered learning climate that identifies and responds to difficulties any child may be experiencing;

• Leadership focused on cultivating teachers, parents, and community members so that they become invested in sharing overall responsibility for the school's improvement.

There was also research from the National Center for Educational Achievement which offered these common characteristics of successful schools:


The common practices they found in those schools included a high degree of engagement between administrators and teachers in developing and selecting instructional materials, assessments, and pedagogical approaches; embedded time in the workweek for teacher collaboration to improve instruction; an openness among teachers to being observed and advised; close monitoring by administrators and teachers of testing data to identify areas where students needed additional support; and personnel who dedicate time to extensive outreach to parents and coordination with community groups and social-service providers.

Hacking Your Education

The challenges of the 21st century require a new vision and new type of thinking that breaks free of the original models - this is especially true in education.  It's no surprise I am opposed to the rigid K-16 model of education based on "seat time" and the Carnegie unit.  With the rise of MOOCs and concurrent enrollment classes, school systems and communities are starting to see the light and craft innovative approaches to education.  Homeschooling has always bent "the rules," but the Un-schooling model has always fascinated me more.  And this year at the TIE (Tech in Education) Conference in Copper Mountain, Colorado, I learned a great deal more through the story of Logan LaPlante.  Logan's 13-minute TED talk is worth viewing:

Logan was part of a presentation on "Hacking Your Education" presented by Canadian teacher and blogger Michelle Cordy, and that idea has resonated with me ever since.  The idea of "hacking" is not simply limited to nerdy guys spreading computer viruses from their parents' basement. No, not at all. Hacking is about breaking free from the conventions that demand an established path or approach to living and problem solving.  It can be "hacking your life" as a way to be more efficient and - dare I say - happy, or it can be hacking your job or institutions or daily decisions or ... really whatever you want it to be.  In fact, a growing number of people are "hacking their religion" these days, as the rigid institutions of the major religions are leading people to mix-and-match beliefs and describe themselves as "spiritual, but not religious."

A couple of great resources on "hacking your education" are Dale Stephens and Anya Kamenetz, who are innovative writers and thinkers committed to presenting alternatives in a world that is increasingly closing off the traditional pathways to success.  Stephens' book Hacking Your Education should be required reading for everyone who will engage with education institutions in the coming years.  In fact, he reminds of the classic quote from Matt Damon in Good Wil Hunting when the savant janitor schools the Harvard boy, telling him, "You paid $150,000 for an education you could have got for $1.50 in late charges at the local library."  Classic.  And true.  Dale Stephens has established himself with the help of entrepreneur Peter Thiel with the organization and development of a great resource website - UnCollege.  Doing similar work with a comparable message, Kamenetz has been ringing the warning bell for her generation for a few years now since writing Generation Debt.  While that is an interesting, albeit depressing read, I highly recommend her second book, DIY-U: Edu-punks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education. 

Regardless of who you are, the idea of education hacking is worth checking out.  It's liberating, and it's the kind of innovation that not only made America strong, but will lead it into the future.

The Sugar Habit - Ditching a Dangerous Routine

I've noted before a desire to eat healthier and promote better nutrition.  In fact, following the information and conclusions of Dr. Robert Lustig, I once posted that "Sugar Is the Devil," and that isn't too far off the truth.  It is a truly harmful component of the average diet, precisely because it is used to such excess. The sad part of America's sugar addiction and consumption is that so much of it is unintentional, as processed food makers have seen fit to slip sugar into nearly everything we eat, from ketchup to bread.  Often this comes in the form of high fructose corn syrup - which has received plenty of bad press over the years, much of it deservingly so.  For a little more information, summing up a lot of the conventional wisdom on sugar, check out Maura Kelly's piece How to Ditch the Sugar Habit, published in the Fitness Magazine on Yahoo Shine.

Kids Menus Are ... Pathetic

"So ... your kids eat that food?"

It's surprising how often we hear that question when discussing a restaurant with people we know.  My wife and I are foodies, and we enjoy good meals at nice restaurants.  And, we spend a lot of time together as a family, which means our kids enjoy good food as well.  Recently, we had a wonderful meal at The Warming Hut in Breckenridge, Colorado where we dined on beef, bison, and lamb sliders, green lip mussels, bison and chorizo chili, and boar sausage.  It was a fabulous meal - which I accompanied with five pours of nice wines for the "Wine Wednesdays" tasting.  On other days we enjoyed calamari, truffle fries, steamed mussels, and more at great places like Modis and Hearthstone, also in Breck.

My kids enjoyed it as well - especially the boar's sausage.  Yet people are surprised that my kids would eat "that food."  As if it is some bizarre concoction of flavors that would gag an eight or eleven-year-old.  Which brings up the issue of the Kids Menu.  You've seen it - it's the same at every restaurant.  There's grilled cheese, pizza, hot dogs, PBJ, chicken tenders, etc.  The food all tastes the same, and it is nothing but starchy and salty.  How someone can justify paying twelve dollars for a PBJ at a nice restaurant is beyond me.  Yet, people do it because they claim "That's all my kids will eat."

Uh, no.

Kids certainly have more limited and distinct tastes than adults.  The subtlety and richness of many spiced and savory foods are sometimes too much for young palates.  However, there is no reason to simply stuff their mouths with mozzarella sticks and chicken tenders just so Mom and Dad can "enjoy" a nice meal.  Kids tastes develop along with their parents, and if kids will "only eat that," it's much more a parenting issue than one of true palates.