Problems with PARCC and Pearson

Again, it's not really about the standards (Common Core State Standards CCSS) - though there should be an understanding of why people are weary of the standards that were adopted by states via their governors and state officials without consultation with their teachers, teachers association, administrators, and parents.

The more serious and substantial concerns are coming from parents and educators who challenge an increasingly intrusive and burdensome system of state (and federal) mandated standardized assessments. More and more parents are taking the serious step of "opting their kids out" of the state assessments, as Kristin Kidd of Colorado recently did when she "Let My Kids [Play] Hooky from School Tests." Of course, it wasn't all tests: her kids took tests like MAPS, DRA2, Explore, and others which did not intrude as much on instructional time, and which aren't being used to create a more collective system of accountability. And, perhaps as important, those tests weren't the sole control of Pearson, Inc.

Despite the claims by Bill Gates and other reformers that the new system of assessment would open up a field of competition to create the best tests, the huge multinational testing corporation (out of Great Britain) has basically devoured the PARCC testing consortium. With dozens of states testing millions of students, this contractual victory is worth billions of dollars to Pearson. And critics are calling foul over the lack of oversight and accountability for the test. Basically, people are wondering who is going to evaluate the tests and their reliability. Because Pearson has more than a few problems in its past regarding the authenticity of its tests.

The reality is that this PARCC testing system (and SmarterBalanced for other schools preferring a vegetable spread to a standardized test) has become a behemoth of control over the nation's schools. And that has happened with very little transparency regarding the tests. As some states have withdrawn and asserted autonomy over their tests, other states like Colorado have faced very close party-line votes that ultimately left the PARCC test and Pearson in control.

Of course, that doesn't mean that students and parents like Kristin Kidd won't fight back next year - and the nation could see a massive parental opt out movement, the likes of which has never been seen.

It's about Sugar & Carbs, not Fat

As I've noted on this blog before - Sugar is the Devil.

As Americans continue to struggle with expanding waist lines - and the heart disease, diabetes, and other associated health risks - it is ever increasingly clear that America's health problems are not about fat. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal reports today, fat in the form of meat and dairy is actually part of a healthy diet. And the weight and health problems arise from sugar and carbs.

This is, of course, not new. For years now, "Scientists have said carbs - not fat - are the biggest problem with America's diet." And while I can recall the "War on Fat" from my childhood in the Seventies and Eighties, I learned very early about the low-fat and fat free scam. When huge and powerful food corporations remove the fat from foods, it seriously affects taste, which they then compensated for by replacing the fat with sugar. The problem is that the body turns the sugar and carbs into fat.

One of the biggest sources of the problem is the corn and grain industry that have successfully become financial behemoths with the inclusion of High Fructose Corn Syrup into nearly every processed food. And they have reaped billions of dollars in profits and government subsidies. Thus, if Americans are really concerned about the state of their health - and corrupt business/government alliances - then they should radically decrease their consumption of processed foods.

Bikers Against Child Abuse

Have you heard of BACA?

I never had either until my daughter came home from school today, and told me about Bikers Against Child Abuse - and organization doing some amazing work for children - "to empower children to not be afraid of the world in which they live."

You Won't Make Great Money as a Novelist

Writing the Great American Novel (the GAN).

It's a dream for many an English major and English teacher. We all see the huge contract with a generous advance, as well envisioning publishing parties in New York with hip people like Michael Stipe and Malcolm Gladwell in attendance. We also envision being able to stop working - teaching or bar tending or landscaping or working in sales - because we all know that published authors make millions of dollars.

Alas, it's really not so.

This week on Salon.com "bestselling author" Patrick Wensink comes clean about how little money he made for his independently published book which spent weeks atop the Amazon bestseller list. In reality, publishing is a complicated industry, and there is really not that much money to be made by selling books.

On Not Going to College, and Not Being Pressured to

Today was senior day at my school, where we celebrated college decisions which must be made by May 1. And, of course, the expectation that our seniors are, in fact, going to college is a pretty obvious expectation at a high achieving school like mine. That said, I have been a critic of the college-for-all mentality for a long time, and I consciously advocate for a stronger career education track, along the lines of many European nations. And, it's not just about students who are "not college material." I think we have a truly in-efficient system, and we send kids on to college for the flimsiest of reasons - earning power.

So, when articles come along that promote alternatives to college, or the standards K-16 track, I tend to listen and promote it.  This week, to coincide with things like "College Day," the New York Times Parenting Blog offers thoughts for When College is Not in the Cards. That can be a particularly hard time for some kids and some parents in certain communities. And that is truly sad. For, sometimes, heading into a career is what a child needs, and sometimes it's just a matter of needing a little time to figure things out - we call that the "Gap Year."

It's important for young people to know that "You Don't Have to Go to College." And to critics who argue that I am just perpetuating stratification in society, I would counter by arguing we would be better served in reforming labor, than we would be in sending everyone to college simply because "college grads make more money." That argument, while statistically true, is flawed and deceptive on so many levels. And it raises the question of whether we'd be better served by looking at the "wage gap."

Anyway, it's worth the discussion - There is plenty of reason that a "college education is not worth it." And, as parents deal with the issue of children who are ambivalent about signing on for a very expensive four years of the very thing they couldn't wait to escape, it's worth listening to voices that say, "I Don't Want My Children to Go to College."

Should Schools Group by Age or Ability Level?

"Teach them where they are, not where we expect them to be."

That adage around adjusting and differentiating instruction has stuck with me for years, especially now that I am a parent. One of the biggest problems and challenges in education is the notion that schools group children by birth date. While there is some validity to determining "what a five -[or eight or ten or fifteen or eighteen]-year-old should know or be able to do, there are wide variances in the reality of children and peer groups. This has become even more complicated in the era of Common Core State Standards, even as many people argue that "Grouping Kids by Age Should Have Vanished with the Little Red Schoolhouse." The idea of a "peer group" is complicated when kids of the same age are at different points. And one should not be slowed down any more than the other should be pushed to move beyond readiness.

It's been a fairly accepted standard that girls mature faster than boys, and for this reason, many critics argue that boys and girls should start school at different ages. Certainly, the growing dominance of females in education seems to indicate some credibility to this view. And, in an era of increased emphasis on standardized tests as the barometer for all that's good in education, there is a problem with testing students outside of what they actually know. Having just come off a spate of mandated standardized tests, I was frustrated by the mis-application of the idea. At my school, we have some ninth graders who are already taking Calculus classes, while others are still struggling with multiplying fractions. Yet, each is required by law to take the ninth grade test where Algebra I is the standard.

What a waste of time for both groups of kids.

That said, society may need to seriously reconsider what a "peer group" is and how we assign and test students. Certainly, there is much evidence to support students being challenged by advanced material. And a student who remains "behind" with all the other students who are "behind" may not catch up. Though perhaps it's better to look at why and how. Advanced students can elevate the game for all classmates .... though they can also dominate and discourage those who struggle. Fortunately, more schools are beginning to consider alternatives and "grouping by skill, not age." It seems that the idea of "ability grouping" which was dismissed - with good reason - as tracking that held down disadvantaged students is now making a comeback.

Surely, there are implications associated with whatever system, such as not grouping by age. But in an era of standardization and people confusing access and opportunity with expectations of uniformity, it's important to understand that all kids are not the same simply because of the year in which they were born.

Should Women Lean In, Lean Back, or Lean at All?

Anybody in education these days knows that young women are doing very well. Women are accounting for a greater percentage of honors classes, college admissions, and graduate degrees. Even though females still trail in their participation in STEM-focused careers, they are making ground. And there are many reasons for this increasing success, not the least of which is their better organizational skills and greater ability to simply do what needs to be done in the classroom.

Granted, the glass ceiling still exists. And even though we may have our first female President, to follow our first Black President, there are still many barriers to leadership positions for women. This can be surprising when more research shows that it is Emotional Intelligence (EQ) and associated skills like empathy and listening that are often keys to success for the nation's CEOs. And with the rise of CEOs like Melissa Meyer at Yahoo, young women are hearing more encouragement to strive for leadership. These words of advice are coming from strong female leaders like Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer at Facebook, who encourages women to Lean In as a way to succeed. Her primary focus is about being diligent and committed to the "will to lead."

Of course, there are counter opinions from women as successful, and none more prominent than the woman who redefined media with the rise of an incredibly significant online newspaper. That would be Arianna Huffington and the HuffingtonPost.com. In a recent article for Slate.com, Hannah Rosin posits that Arianna's advice in her book Thrive: The Third Metric to Defining Success ... is not to "Lean In," but instead to lean back. It is a much more laid back approach to the pursuit of success and happiness.

Either way, leaning in or leaning back, women are definitely moving up.

Who Is Michael Lewis, & Why Should You Care?

It was probably about 2005, when I first ran across the work of business writer Michael Lewis while prowling around a bookstore or library. His book, Next: the Future Just Happened was out in paperback, and I was looking for a new book to be the summer read for our CP English 11 class. Because I've always gravitated toward non-fiction, as many males do, and because the first story is about a fifteen-year-old kid named Jonathan Lebed - the youngest and first to ever be indicted by the SEC for internet stock fraud - I latched on to Lewis' book and sold the idea to our English department. Since then I've read whatever I can by Lewis, and watched him rise to the top of the charts again and again.

Most people who know Lewis know him from his books Moneyball, about the innovation of Billy Beane and the use of sabermetrics to alter the way small market MLB teams like the Oakland A's play the game, or The Blind Side, about the fascinating story of Baltimore Ravens left tackle Michael Ohr who was basically adopted by a white southern woman named Leigh Anne Tuouhy and her family, or The Big Short, in which Lewis tracks how the economic crash of 2008 happened despite obvious warning signs from people like Meredith Whitney and exposes how a few people almost reluctantly made billions from the fall. Lewis is so skilled at what he does and finds the stories he writes about in an almost eerie string of being in the right place at the right time, as as the case for his first book about the financial crash of the 90s called Liar's Poker.

Michael Lewis truly is a writer of zeitgeist-like instincts, and he has seemed to lead quite the charmed intellectual and literary life. He is as interesting a person himself as are the subjects which he continuously brings to light for the public knowledge. That's what led New York Mag writer Jessica Pressler to profile him as one of the most "significant long form journalists" since someone like Tom Wolfe. He does have the ability to touch a nerve whenever he writes, as can be seen by the recent pushback against his most recent book, FlashBoys, which argues that the work of high frequency traders basically means "Wall Street is Rigged." It's words like this that can get him the press - and the ear of senators. But it's his fascinating insights wound into great storytelling that make him such an interesting figure to profile, as Conor Clarke did nearly six years ago for The Atlantic.

Michael Lewis is just one of those names - like Oprah or Elon Musk or Elizabeth Warren or Michael Pollan or Malcolm Gladwell - that well informed people are talking about. And for good reason.

Hill Street Blues - Where Modern TV Police Drama Began

"Hey, hey, hey, ... let's be careful out there."

Those iconic words from Michael Conrad will instantly bring members of Generation X, and more than a few Boomers, to a moment of quiet nostalgia, as we wait for that garage door to open to the sound of those sirens amid a subtle piano melody.

This week, which brings the release of a full 32-CD boxed set of Hill Street Blues, Denver Post TV critic Joanne Ostrow reflects on the modern police drama that set the standard for all the others. Today is, no doubt, a "golden era" for the genre, as shows like The Wire, Homicide, Law & Order, CSI, and others continually dominate the ratings and around water-cooler talk, or Facebook.com posts. But the original work of Steven Bochco really changed the way we watched television, and gave us so many poignant and endearing moments. Bochco was willing to ask tough questions, portray difficult conversations, and challenge TV censors long before it became fashionable - and even absurd - to do so.

The police drama has such a difficult task, to entertain while also philosophizing and humanizing the dark side of society that we didn't used "talk about at parties." And, networks would be crazy not to always carry a crime drama. But for these stories from the street to carry the deep, almost literary, significance of a show like Hill Street is truly something special. As the boxed set comes out, the actors will re-surface to discuss the groundbreaking television and reflect on its time.

For those on the couch, it's time to just sit back, relax, and visit our friends at the precinct one more time.

Are "College & Career Ready" the Same Thing, or Can It Be Either/Or

In the endless debates about Common Core State Standards and PARCC/SB testing and teacher accountability and student accountability and education reform and "fixing public schools," every voice seems to focus on the importance of making sure students are "college and career ready." The implication is that schools, especially high schools, need to be preparing students for both options. However, I am wondering if at times those ideas might be at odds with each other and mutually exclusive. That was certainly one embedded implication of the Harvard-led report Paths to Prosperity. And that seems to be the general consensus of the rest of the world - in education systems that often "outpace us" on PISA tests - where students generally separate onto either a college or career path between the ages of twelve and sixteen. It's like the opening decision in the game of monopoly - Do you choose college or career?  Joanne Jacobs writes about the discussion of "Success paths for all," where she links to several articles on the ideas of common foundation skills and the ideas that "multiple pathways can better serve" all students.

And to further complicate the situation, Valerie Strauss reports on a school canceling the kindergarten's play for the spring in order for the kids to keep studying to become "college and career ready." It's no joke, and the thought of this makes me positively ill. Earlier this year, I attended a public education forum in which a principal/founder of a K-3 charter school was actively promoting the idea of being "college ready." I, of course, questioned him a bit about this emphasis, and he reasonably talked about teaching to a population that almost never thinks about college … for any of its kids. So, there is value in presenting that goal - the same goal that most middle and upper class kids get almost without thinking. But the downside of emphasizing college to five year olds is the justification for canceling recess and the arts and anything other than math/literacy instruction in order to send all kids to college. And that is a problem.

Granted, I understand the need to emphasize to students and families the long term benefit - and earning power - of a bachelor's degree. But perhaps, rather than simply saying that we need to make all kids "college ready" because college grads earn more money, we should instead focus on reforming society and the marketplace so that non-college-educated, but still motivated and skilled people, can earn a decent living.

Thomas Picketty has some ideas about that:

Yeah, that's about right.

The Question of How Much Standardized Testing

The state of Colorado seems ready to commission a task force to study the value, benefit, and burden of standardized tests in public education. The state's Senate Education Committee passed HB1202 yesterday which, if it passes the house and goes to the governor will establish the task force. The issue of increases in standardized assessments has come to a head in Colorado in recent months, as many forces have begun to push back against Common Core standards and, more specifically, the implementation of PARCC testing. While the Democrats in the state legislature have pretty much voted party lines to maintain PARCC, the state Board of Education recently passed a resolution calling for a withdrawal from the controversial national testing consortium. The state's teacher association also passed a resolution to join forces with the anti-PARCC movement, which includes educators and grass-roots parents organizations. And the issue of standardized testing is getting national attention, as many begin to ask, "How Much Standardized Testing is Too Much?"

The GOP and Conservative Right's Racist Rebellious Rancher Problem

It may have seemed, to Sean Hannity and Rand Paul, that defending the "rights" of a simple cattle rancher was the perfect case for the GOP and conservatives. It seemed on the surface that the big bad federal government was pushing this man around, bullying him, and practically extorting money from him. He's a farmer after all, and his cattle are just livin' off the land in good ol' America.

But there's more to the story.

Apparently, Cliven Bundy is a man who refuses to recognize even the existence of, much less the authority of, the federal government of the United States of America. For that reason, he will graze his cattle on federal land while refusing to pay any taxes or fees for that privilege. That makes him a bit of a rebel, and in Hannity's world, America needs to push back against the taxman.

Jon Stewart recently had great fun with this.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

Of course, then things got much worse.