"Creating People On Whom Nothing is Lost" - An educator and writer in Colorado offers insight and perspective on education, parenting, politics, pop culture, and contemporary American life.
Disclaimer - The views expressed on this site are my own and do not represent the views of my employer.
Rosie O'Donnell tells an amusing story of when she first met her partner, Kellie Carpenter. Rosie had just baked a fresh batch of chocolate chip cookies when Kellie came over to her house. Casually, Rosie asked her if she wanted a cookie, and Kellie said, "No, I'm not hungry."
Rosie was taken aback. Not hungry?
"Who has to be hungry to eat a cookie," Rosie asks in dismay as she recounts the story. "At that point," she goes on, "I was a little suspicious of her."
No one needs to be hungry to enjoy a cookie ... or a pie.
The genre of the "Boy Band" has produced as much memorable satire as it has great music, and the groups of young men responsible for the product have always made themselves targets for the inevitable criticism. The latest group to sit atop the charts and occupy the hearts of teens and tweens - and plenty of other fans as well - is the British band One Direction. After breaking sales records with their first two albums - and generating some great hype with singer Harry Styles dating (and being dissed on the Grammys by) Taylor Swift - One Direction has staked a claim to pop fame and fortune. Despite the groans from music purists, One Direction has filled its niche nicely. It set a new music video record with the release of the song "Best Song Ever." And, they made a great decision to poke some fun at themselves - and their genre - with a clever video about the filming of the One Direction movie.
The classic dual-casting where each band member plays himself and the role of a "Hollywood persona" they are mocking - even as the band literally occupies and profits in the very world they parody - argues these singers are not unaware of how they are perceived. Certainly, critics could mock them for feeling the need to portray themselves as not buying into or being a part of the very culture they inhabit - as in "we would never do that ... we would never wear that." Perhaps they are trying distance themselves from their genre. Perhaps they have an insecurity that needs to claim they are not a classic Boy Band. Perhaps they shouldn't need to unroll a poster of actual concert footage of themselves dressed "normally" with the statement, or plea, "This is us." Obviously, the outfits and the choreography that they eschew are simply varying degrees of the kind of packaged product that Boy Bands have always represented. Clearly, the dancing they do is the very thing they say they wouldn't. But being able to laugh at yourself ... and then going on doing what you do is, in some way, admirable ... or at least amusing.
As far as songs go, "Best Song Ever" is a classic boy-band-commercial pop song. There is no doubt about that. Of course, there's nothing really wrong with that either, and the young men of One Direction seem perfectly at ease with the roles they are playing.
College costs have, undoubtedly, become the albatross around the necks of American parents and students. With education debt passing $1 trillion, it's clear education is becoming the next economic bubble. And, there seems to be little doubt that higher education will soon be priced out of reach for most Americans - or it will be accessed for a price that will never return the value of the investment. Much has been written about the rising costs and the question of whether higher education is worth the cost. Yet, those arguments are countered with claims that nearly every student needs post-secondary education to have any chance at a financially successful and secure life. Robert Samuels - president of the University Council for the American Federation of Teachers - challenges, criticizes, and exposes the problems with the cost of higher education in his book Why Public Education Should be Free. Samuels makes a compelling argument for fully-funded higher education by looking to success stories like Finland:
According to Pasi Sahlberg'sFinnish Lessons, there were five major components to Finland's success: (1) all education became public and free; (2) teachers became well compensated and highly trained; (3) education became interactive and experienced-based; (4) students at an early age received individual attention; and (5) in high school, students were able to choose a vocational track or an academic track. It is my contention that we can apply to higher education in America many of the same educational reforms that were used in elementary and secondary education in Finland. Of course, funding higher education for all students would seem to be an insurmountable cost. That is until you look at the actual figures. And then the idea becomes more intriguing.
If we multiply the number of students in each segment of public higher education by the average total cost, we discover that the cost of making all public universities free would have been $97-billion in 2009-10, with an annual cost of $33-billion for all community colleges—or a total of $130-billion.
While $130-billion seems like a large figure, we need to remember that in 2010, the federal government spent more than $30-billion on Pell Grants and $104-billion on student loans, and the states spent at least $10-billion on financial aid for universities and colleges and an additional $76-billion for direct support of higher education. Furthermore, looking at various state and federal tax breaks and deductions for tuition, it might be possible to make all public higher education free by just using current resources in a more effective manner.
The value of a college degree and the feasibility/necessity of anyone investing in it, including the federal government, is still up for debate. On an individual basis, each consumer has to ask himself Are College Degrees Worth the Money?
I am not voting for any of the pilots in the Food Network's finale of the Next Food Network Star. And, if I could offer any advice, I would recommend no one else votes either. To begin, none of these finalists - Demaris or Rodney or Russell - is remotely close to a "Star." And I would never watch any of their shows. I hope America votes its dissatisfaction with the choices by simply not voting. And, I'm not the only one who is disappointed in the Food Network.
To be sure, the only one who really has a marketable point of view is, truly, Demaris Philips. However, her focus seemed to shift - and really come out of nowhere - in this episode with her sudden emphasis on "teaching men how to cook southern cooking" which she strangely revered to as "the food of love." What? Really? At least she didn't shimmy this time - though watching her flirt (or actually attempt to flirt and simply embarrass herself) was uncomfortable at best. And it reminded me of the first few episodes when I never thought she'd progress. As far as her culinary offerings are considered? In the post-Paula Deen world, do we really need another overweight southern woman cooking unhealthy food and trying to pass it off as acceptable with a wink, a smile, and a "ya'll"? I don't think so. It simply doesn't work for me, and while I'd rather see her win than the men, I was quite unimpressed with her pilot. Just not smooth or watchable.
The only thing Demaris has going for her is that the men, however, were worse. Russell did not impress, simply because it appears his only true talent and innovation - despite his seven culinary sins - is bacon, bourbon ice cream. Didn't we see this before? Does he have any range as a chef? Certainly, he has more talent and knowledge than someone like Rodney, but his inability to move past the word "awesome" is somewhat pathetic. And, finally, Rodney and his "pie style," which he inexplicably keeps claiming is "sweeping the nation" continued to be a mess. He is simply uncouth, unsophisticated, untalented, and unwatchable. Seriously. This show revealed one thing to me, and it's that I severely over-estimated the taste and judgment of people like Bob Tushmann and Susie Fogelstein because where they claimed to see "charm" or "entertainment," many of us simply see a rather annoying and crass individual who thinks he can ride the words "brother" and "fricken'" and "pie style" for an entire episode. Since when did low class, unsophisticated, and abrasive come to mean "charm"?
It really doesn't matter who wins next week because Demaris, Russell, and Rodney are definitely not Food Network Stars. Here's hoping for a much better round of finalists next season. Instead of this season's cast of amateurs, I would have liked to see the Food Network focus on giving some past runners-up a second chance. I still think the network missed a great opportunity when they didn't give Michelle from last season her own show called Michelle's "My New England." That was a cook who had class and talent and would have been worth watching.
Even for those who didn't "come-of-age" in the 1980s, that era is considered the Golden Age of the coming-of-age films, whether it's comedy or drama - or more likely both. We largely have John Hughes to thank for that, though people such as Cameron Crowe and Amy Heckerling have a lot to do with it as well. As a teacher I am both pleased and amazed that, when polled, contemporary teens cite John Hughes films like Sixteen Candles and Breakfast Club as the movies that most resonate with them and reflect their lives. Those films are twenty-five years old - and they still matter. They matter and they are still popular because, simply put, they are true.
Having grown up in the 1980s, I was privileged to see most of the great teen films in the theater. And it's worth noting some quality films that preceded Hughes' work. No can argue with the premiere position that Amy Heckerling's Fast Times at Ridgemont High holds in the genre. I also have to give a nod to the Bill Murray classic Meatballs. And this is not to say there haven't been a smattering of teen films in the post-Hughes era that didn't also serve the genre well. Some of the best post-'80s films that treat adolescence and the loss of innocence honestly - yet in an entertaining manner - are Ten Things I Hate About You and Amy Heckerlings Clueless.
Recently, there have been several films that accurately capture the ethos/pathos of the classic teen films. One of the best is Easy A, which did justice to the genre by very openly paying homage to John Hughes and the 80's era films. Some of the references are so very Hughes-esque that to not blatantly refer to the allusions would have almost seemed cheesy. Yet, instead the movie comes off as a great teen film. Notably, the writers of these recent films clearly grew up on Hughes' films and are determined to honor the indelible stamp that Hughes put on the teen film. Last year'sPerks of Being a Wallflower by writer-director Stephen Chbosky was an admirable work. In fact, the novel was so good that I long resisted seeing the film, that is until I realized that Chbosky was directing and that he was a screenwriter before he became a novelist.
Now, in the waning days of summer, Hollywood has brought us two films that may just signal the return of the coming-of-age movie. The Way Way Back and Spectacular Now appear poised to bring back the classic teen film in the spirit of John Hughes. Both of these films have that poignant intimacy with our insecurities that are testament to the great coming--of-age films. Though I have yet to see The Spectacular Now, I have seen the trailer and it actually aired when I went to see The Way Way Back. The latter is a truly sweet and thoughtful story of angst and loss of innocence in a summer by the shore. The film uses several great motifs and metaphors during the story of Duncan's summer of maturity. And, fans of the movie Meatballs will definitely respond to the role played by Sam Rockwell, better known as the villain from Iron Man 2. Rockwell's portrayal of Owen, the waiting-to-grow-up slacker who manages the water park Water Whizz where Duncan takes a part-time job, is the glue that holds the film together. The character of Owen is a classic re-casting of Bill Murray's Tripper Harrison, right up to his adolescent pining for the more mature female manager with whom he flirts, but must ultimately grow up to actually connect with. Rockwell's Owen is every bit as entertaining as Murray's Tripper, with a constant stream of quotable one liners that make him cool and lovable while also exposing his immaturities. Overall, Rockwell and his portrayal of Owen guide the film much as Owen guides Duncan's path to individuality, and, on that path, The Way, Way Back becomes an endearing addition to the time-honored genre.
And, of course, I'm still looking forward to the story of ... The Spectacular Now.
[Cram school teacher/tutor] Kim Ki-hoon earns $4 million a year in South Korea, where he is known as a rock-star teacher—a combination of words not typically heard in the rest of the world.
The quest for effective teachers - and appropriate teacher compensation - is at the heart of education reform in the United States. People are just as likely to complain teachers are grossly underpaid as they are to question the "lavish" benefits that teachers receive, especially in terms of pensions. Having taught English in Southeast Asia for many years, I am familiar with the "cram school" - or hagwon- economy in which teachers can earn high salaries in preparing students for high school and college entrance exams.
Of course, that's nothing like the business model Kim Ki-hoon and the hagwon Megastudy have created. Kim has developed a highly respected reputation for creating effective study videos that hundreds of thousands of students access for roughly $4 and hour. He has parlayed that into a publishing industry as well, and he is earning millions of dollars a year - the type of money reserved for rock stars and athletes in the United States. The hagwon industry has received plenty of press in the past, and it's not news that teachers can earn top salaries, though it's primarily an after-effect of Korea's and Southeast Asia's incredibly high stakes standardized testing.
However, the WSJ focus asks whether the "freelance teacher" model common in Asian countries could be adapted to the United States to improve schools. Obviously, the argument is that the better teachers with the better videos earn more money. This "free market" approach to teacher pay is not a surprising focus from the conservative Journal. However, the application of such models in America begs the question of equality in systems and education focus in Asia and the United States. Such a high stakes emphasis on prepping for tests is less significant here. To be sure, test-prep companies like Kaplan and Barrons make a tidy profit preparing kids for SAT, ACT, etc. However, the teachers for these programs are quite replaceable, not earning rock star reputations like Kim Ki-hoon. And, let's not forget the free access to many videos on sites such as KhanAcademy.com
Of course, there is a part of the "freelance teacher" concept that I believe can and should be cultivated in the United States. If the focus of education is on accumulation of knowledge and mastery of skills, rather than a naive emphasis on seat time, grade levels, and Carnegie units, then much could be made of a private enterprise industry where teachers impart skills in knowledge in the most accessible and effective formats. Specifically, this could be considered an a la carte education system in which students and parents access what they want and need. This could be appealing to many in the homeschooling and unschooling movements. It may not be a bad thing for students to access school on a hourly or unit basis, rather than a year. For example, I know of parents who would willingly homeschool their children in all but a few areas. And there's probably nothing wrong with that.
So, I don't know about a system of hagwon with the best teachers earning millions, but the United States could certainly adapt a more freelance approach to education.
As if we didn't have enough to worry and argue about with the debates about gun ownership and the George Zimmerman verdict and Lauren Green's embarrassing interview of Reza Aslan, the issue of race and blaming people for their challenges hit front and center on CNN the other day with African-American anchor Don Lemon oversimplifying race and poverty in America. While Don Lemon may have thought he was contributing to a complex issue, he simply ignited an argument that puts people in corners. While it is certainly worth sifting through the complexity, there are some important things to remember about what Don Lemon got wrong about race and poverty. For a brief and concise explanation - with some fluent spoke word philosophizing - check out New York DJ's Jay Smooth's video commentary:
Simply put: starting a discussion or basing an argument on the issue of "sagging pants" or any other superficial issue of appearance is simply absurd. That sort of thinking gets us nowhere, and actually takes us back a few steps ... or decades.
For the sake of argument, here is the clip of "what Don Lemon said," as well as his follow-up discussion after being criticized:
Pardon my language, but FoxNews host Lauren Green is a bitch. She is either a truly hateful bigot, or she is incredibly ignorant and merely pimping out her interviewing to appease a bigoted audience. Now, for all who disagree with my politics, I am not saying MSNBC hosts aren't also biased and even nasty to interview subjects. In fact, I think Lawrence O'Donnel's behavior is truly embarrassing at times. But Lauren Green's behavior is atrocious, not to mention colossally ignorant.
Seriously, what is wrong with this woman. Clearly, she has a hateful agenda that has since come under fire. She is clearly a person who doesn't do her research. And, in terms of interviewing people there is plenty of hypocrisy in her attack on Reza Aslan's "authority" or even right to write or speak about Jesus and Christianity. Truly, I am baffled by the attempted intellectual grilling of a scholar by a woman who has a bachelor degree in music and whose first big accomplishment was a beauty contest. This is clearly an example of the type of programming that leads to racism, bigotry, stereotyping, and hatred. The question is why an uneducated woman like Lauren Green would choose to inflict such bigoted animosity. What is wrong with her? What happened that led to such contemptuous behavior. Does she simply think it is her job? If it's all for a paycheck, she may be a worse person than I originally thought. Oh, and Lauren Green? The phrase you were looking for is "posing the question," not "begging the question." If you're going to interview people on an international news network, you should probably be educated on the basic rules of logical fallacies that you feebly attempt to interject into your interviews for credibility. To educated people you look even more foolish. Of course, you really couldn't do much worse than interviewing a scholar on his area of expertise and coming off looking like an idiot. Or like a bigot. Mark Twain once said, "Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." In this case, an airhead like Lauren Green has even proved Mark Twain wrong. Lauren, save some self respect and apologize before shamefully walking away.
Tonight was the most disappointing episode of the Next Food Network Star I have ever seen. Nikki Dinki - food blogger and YouTube online chef - was eliminated for the most baffling of reasons. Alton said she lacks "food authority." And Rodney is a food expert??? Nikki didn't know what a pilaf was, and Rodney's food was undercooked and tasteless. Rodney calls himself "the Pie Guy," and he undercooked his pie crust. That's enough to be eliminated on Chopped. Yet, Nikki goes home. That was ridiculous.
Alton Brown, you were foolish on this one. Giada De Laurentiis, where was your voice? And, Robert Irvine, I am incredibly disappointed in you. Robert, your show Restaurant Impossible has always been about improving food and style and presentation. I've written about how your show impresses with its intent to emphasize quality. And your choice to keep Rodney "More-Flour-on-Me-Than-the-Pie" is a disturbing departure from everything your show claims to emphasize. If Rodney Henry cooked and acted on your show the way he performs on Next Food Network Star, you would chastise and even mock him, and then you would teach him techniques and proper kitchen behavior.
Nikki can become more of a food authority - but Rodney will never have class or maturity. And he doesn't know food. Rodney is no food authority. He will never be anything more than a buffoon. Keeping Rodney "Pie Style" Henry around simply means the Food Network is looking for a clown. They are appealing to the lowest common demoninator. And that's just sad, especially for a network that has brought the world's attention to some of the finest culinary artists in the world. Rodney Henry on the same network as Bobby Flay or Tyler Florence or Giada or Alton or Mario or Geoffery Zakarian or Morimoto is a culinary abomination. Clearly, Nikki Dinki has star power and great potential, and she will go on to have her own successful show and brand - Meat on the Side.
Going in to this week, I was convinced the finalists would be Nikki and Stacy or Nikki and Demaris. Never did I believe Nikki would go out for something as minor as her supposed shortcomings this week. In fact, her concept - Meat on the Side - is the only fresh and unique idea that the Food Network could immediately produce and broadcast. Alton Brown even said specifically that - her show is ready to produce. I am seriously considering not watching next week's episode of the Next Food Network Star. For the next two weeks, I may watch the last few minutes to see who goes on. And I will never watch a show with Rodney Henry on it.
Poor, misguided, foolish, and inexplicable choice on the Next Food Network Star tonight. I seriously question the integrity of the judges on this one. Are Alton Brown and Robert Irvine secretly food slobs? Are their kitchens actually as messy and inconsistent as Rodney? Was there some personal issue with Nikki that we don't understand?
The decision to eliminate Nikki Dinki and keep Rodney Henry is truly tasteless and indefensible.
I don't know if the "Rent is too damn high," but I know that high school starts too darn early. As I've noted before, if we really want to implement effective school reform, we should first Start Later to Ensure Educational Progress. The research continues to support and validate concerns that staring school before 8:00 has a negative impact on student attendance, achievement, and even graduation. Alas, it is really all about money and bus/activity schedules. Those are the worse reasons for making policy decisions. So, here in Colorado, I can imagine we will continue to start school at ... gasp! ... 7:10 in the morning.
That's what I always tell my students when they are curious about the most common of questions - "What do you regret?" We all look at our lives in hindsight, and of course we think about "what ifs" and "I wish I had" and, more importantly, "I wish I hadn't ..." That is, I guess, natural. However, regrets are not only a waste of time, but also a dismissal of the possible long term benefit or value that comes from a short term mistake or loss.
I truly love my life and where I've ended up. And I have to conclude that everything that has happened in my life led me to this point. For example, I had planned to join the Marines out of high school. I thought I'd do four years and then go to college. Alas, poor eyesight and bad knee ligaments and asthma disqualified me from service. A huge disappointment at the time. Yet, I went to college where I met my beautiful wife - the love of my life - and had two wonderful children - the joys of my life. And none of that would have happened had I gone in the Marines. Now, certainly, I would have been on a different path and may have been just as happy in that one had I joined the Marines. But, the reality is, I am thrilled with the results of my choices and the events that have happened. So, I can't really regret anything that has led me to where I want to be.
These thoughts remind me of a great line from the song Beautiful World by Colin Hay.
And still this emptiness persists Perhaps this is as good as it gets When you’ve given up the drink and those nasty cigarettes Now I leave the party early at least with no regrets I watch the sun as it comes up I watch it as it sets Yeah this is as good as it gets.
The idea of living my life with no regrets is very appealing and satisfying. And the idea of "leaving the party early" with no regrets resonates with a lot of people. Going back to middle school, I can recall worrying about "missing something" if I wasn't at the right party or there at the right time or with the right people ... etc. All those "right" designations are such a bunch of myths. Leaving the party or deciding what to do that is "right for me" is one of the most important states of mind to have. We must always be willing to learn from setbacks and disappointments. And I do belief in the value of self reflection and the examined life.
The battle over the necessity - and potential downsides - of summer vacation will never end, just as the myth of the "agrarian model" as the reason for summer vacation never seems to go away. I'm still surprised by the large number of educated people who believe that America's history of summer vacation was based on schools letting kids out to work on the farm. That's simply not true. However, a different argument opposing summer vacation has reared its head in recent years as pundits and education reformers target low student achievement and achievement gaps. The argument against summer vacation is based on theories of the summer slide. Basically, students exhibit "learning loss" during their time off in the summer, as their skills weaken and their knowledge lessens due to the stagnation of not being in the classroom. The subsequent problem is that teachers spend a considerable amount of class time at the beginning of the year reviewing the previous years lessons and re-sharpening academic skills. This "slide" is greatest at our lowest socioeconomic levels and among our student populations with the most significant achievement gaps. And that disparity fuels criticism that summer vacation perpetuates and even worsens in equality. At least that's the claim of Slate's economics writer Matthew Yglesias who says Summer Vacation is Evil.
Well ... that's a bit much.
Certainly, the issue of the summer slide is real and prevalent among some student populations. And, there is no doubt that it can be "a disaster for poor children" because they do not have access to the summer enrichment opportunities such as camps and organized sports/activities enjoyed by their more affluent peers. And many of the summer activities enjoyed by kids are a huge financial drain on families that could save this money - for college? - if kids were just in school year-round. However, it is a bit narrow to gauge the value of summer vacation simply based on the "amount of schooling" lost - for those measurements are only one factor in a person's overall well-being. It's simply problematic to only look at data that can be measured on standardized assessments the way too many studies do. We should not only value and measure a child's development based on what happens in a classroom and measured according to classroom/academic scales. And, summer vacation is not evil and not a time of loss for many children. In fact, there is great value in experiences such as camps and organized sports and summer employment and independent studies and extracurricular activities and family vacation time and, simply, un-organized and free-spirited play. Rather than simply bashing summer vacation and criticizing it "something nice for teachers," it's probably a better idea to look for ways to engage all populations in "summer learning." It doesn't have to be school. Or it doesn't have to be year-round classroom time for all students. Let's consider the ways to address the summer slide inequality by simply expanding summer enrichment opportunities for all kids.
Summer vacation is not based on agrarian schedules. Summer vacation is not a bad idea. And, sorry Matt Yglesias, summer vacation is not evil.
