Common Core & PARCC Face Lawsuit Challenge in New Mexico

One of the keys to corporate education reform is that applying the rules of competition and the marketplace will lead to better results in schools. This is the theory behind vouchers and charter schools and anti-union and anti-tenure and national standards and standardized testing and value-added measures and a host of other reforms. Granted, there are numerous problems with applying competition and market practices to an institution that is not a market. And, surprisingly, some market-oriented conservative groups oppose the ability of the market to fix education through national standards. However, I can understand the simple appeal and basic motivation for reformers to believe they can do so.

And, I am pretty sure I've heard Bill Gates argue that competition and market policies are the key to improving educational outcomes. And, I'm also pretty sure Bill Gates never truly wants competition for any of his ideas. So, it's not all that surprising to learn that market forces and competition were ignored in the establishment of Common Core State Standards. And, it's not surprising that a scandal is brewing over the multi-million dollar contracts secured by Pearson, Inc. to draft and administer the requisite standardized tests for the Common Core. In New Mexico, the first legal challenge has been filed, as the American Institutes for Research has caught the ear of a federal judge who supports the claim of "bid-rigging" in securing the $240 million a year testing contract with states administering Common Core tests such as PARCC and SB.

Clearly, the issue of "school choice" is paramount in this argument, as schools should have more than one option for the tests of general standards. It would seem that competition between standardized testing companies such as ACT and SAT and AIR and others would produce the "best tests." But clearly, the people behind Common Core and PARCC are opposed to anyone competing with their "solutions" to public education.

Public Education Is Not Broken - And Bill Gates Should't Be Telling People How to Fix It

So, after I criticized Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation's disproportionate influence on discussions of public education, a friend asked, "But don't you agree that the system is broken?"

No, I don't agree that the system is broken - because public schools are not failing.

Most people criticize public education as a failure, at the same time as they praise their own kids' schools. It's the same story as Americans' faith in Congress - hate Congress, love their representatives.

American public schools educate a higher percentage of the population and send a greater percentage on to college than at any time in history. They do this as successfully as any other industrialized nation, and there is no shortage of college-educated workers for available jobs. And the United States does this with the most diverse population of any country in the world.

On standardized measures of comparisons, American schools are ranked number one in the world when scores are corrected for percentages of poverty. And, there is no evidence that public school systems in other countries are producing any better doctors or engineers or accountants or attorneys or entrepreneurs or salesman or financial analysts or …. well, you get the point.

The challenges faced by American schools are about equity of opportunity, and the problem of a one-size-fits-all system based on college degrees and Carnegie units. The economy and the public education is a complex emergent systems that requires flexibility and adaptability, and that very quality is being compromised by the push for uniformity and standardization from a corporate-model which prizes job training as the primary purpose of education.

It's not.

Alice Waters, Edible School Yards, & School Lunch Controversy

The recent controversy over the National School Lunch Program began with the belief that school lunches could certainly be healthier. If children were going to eat at least one meal a day for 180 days a year, then schools could certainly do better than pizza, french fries, soda, and cookies. And, there is no doubt that many school lunch offerings were atrocious in terms of nutrition, and kids were really being set up to make poor choices. Of course, young people are not going to make healthy choices just because the government tells them to, or seeks to restrict their choices to nothing but the parameters of the arbitrary federal guidelines for healthy eating.  The key to improving the health of young people through diets is to "cultivate" an appreciation for healthy eating.



Now, as schools and the association for school nutritionists push back against the restrictions on calories, fat, sugar, and sodium, Alice Waters - one of the premier voices in healthy eating and the Farm-to-Table movement - is responding with a passionate plea for schools to buy in, rather than opt out. Ms. Water, whose Berkeley restaurant Chez Panisse is holy ground for foodies devoted to fresh, natural, organic meals, became committed to the importance of school lunches years ago. She sees an appreciation for foods and cooking as paramount to our survival as human beings.

One of the most important parts of Alice Waters message - at least to me - is when she explains, "I don't want to tell kids what to eat. I want to win them over."

Did Dr. Oz Sell his Soul for Supplements?

For many years, Dr. Mehmet Oz has been "America's doctor," dispensing free advice on Oprah and then his own show, and publishing books about how to be the healthiest person you can be. Because of his impressive medical career and engaging TV personality, Dr. Oz has gained quite the following because people simply trust his seemingly no nonsense and common sense advice about health and wellness. And he seemed to have a knack for learning about the next big thing in health care, especially when it was information about some great new health approach such as Acai berries or the ancient Chinese practice of qi gong, or the benefit of chia seeds for something other than a "Chia Pet."

It all seemed so great - but Dr. Oz may have gone to far in his promotion of "magical cures" and "easy steps to weight loss." As many less-than-scrupulous marketers began using Dr. Oz's claims to sell potentially worthless supplements to a gullible public searching for a short cut to health, the "Good Doctor" sought to protect himself from companies using his image, name, and claims without permission. So, Dr. Oz went to Washington to let a Congressional panel investigate this issue. And for his trouble, Dr. Oz got an earful from Congressional leaders such as Senator Claire McCaskill who called the doc out for making some rather ridiculous - and unprofessional - claims.

McCaskill read Oz’s words from past segments of The Dr. Oz Show back to him with a clinical formality that underscored their absurdity:

• “You may think magic is make-believe, but this little bean has scientists saying they’ve found the magic weight loss cure for every body type: It’s green coffee extract.”
• “I've got the number-one miracle in a bottle to burn your fat: It's raspberry ketone.”
• “Garcinia cambogia: It may be the simple solution you’ve been looking for to bust your body fat for good.

McCaskill continued, as if reproaching a child. “I don't know why you need to say this stuff, because you know it's not true. Why—when you have this amazing megaphone and this amazing ability to communicate—would you cheapen your show by saying things like that?”

The doctor has some explaining to do in regards to his "flowery" language promoting miracle cures and supplements, which he claims was just part of the entertainment designed to engage an audience. In essence, Dr. Oz was challenged for making claims that he knew weren't exactly true, and Congress called upon him to stop promising miracle cures when he knows there aren't any. The most disconcerting part of this story is that it doesn't appear that Dr. Oz was profiting from the companies who were selling the products he endorsed. He certainly never promoted specific companies, and he wasn't selling his own products. It's almost as if the "good student" mentality led Dr. Oz's ego to a desire to be the guy with all the answers. If there was a miracle cure, then Dr. Oz wanted to get credit for turning the nation on to the information. Even if it was nothing but bad medicine.

There is not miracle cure, especially for weight loss. And while foods/drinks such as goji berries or green tea certainly have value, they aren't what Dr. Oz led people to believe. And, so, in the words of John Oliver, Dr. Oz needs to stop touting these "cures" on a show called Dr. Oz, but he could promote them on a show called "Check this s@#t out with a guy named Mehmet."

Soccer's Growing Popularity in America - World Cup

When I was a young boy growing up and playing soccer in the 1970s, I regularly heard that soccer was going to be hugely popular in the USA by the time I was in high school and college. With so many young people playing the sport, it would no doubt pass at least one of the four major league sports - MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL - and it would join its rightful place as the world's most popular spectator sport. Heck, Pele's popularity alone was enough to make this prediction, right?

Wrong.

For many reasons, soccer has never quite caught on with American fans, and it still trails even hockey in terms of viewership and revenue. In fact, years ago, I made a bet with someone that if soccer even surpassed hockey in terms of popularity in my lifetime, I would pony up big cash. And I've felt pretty confident for a long time that I would never pay up. But the World Cup this year has me thinking. Just like it had during the Olmpics in America in 1984 and 1996, and during the America-hosted World Cup in 1994, the country seems to be catching a little soccer fever.

Of course, whether that ever translates to regular viewership for a professional league remains to be seen. Major League Soccer (MLS) has had some great years recently, averaging about 18,000 fans in stadiums across the country. And in some places, the local teams are drawing as many as 40,000 fans like the Seattle Sounders, and that's probably sustainable to some degree. Of course, popularity is a complicated thing, and I would have to judge at least part of that by revenue - and TV revenue is king. So, the current average salary for a professional hockey player is $2.4 million while the average pro soccer player makes about $150,000.

So, there is still a lot of growth to come.

Next Food Network Star - Kenny Goes Home

Near the end of this week's "Next Food Network Star" on the Food Network, the viewer poll indicated that 75% of viewers would send Kenny home. Thank goodness Alton and Bobby agreed. The owner of a fast-casual Asian restaurant, Kenny Lao just could not compete on the show designed to "discover" a true celebrity chef in the making - a person who can just flat out cook and engage a TV audience while he or she does it. And the first rule of the Food Network is that you have to be a top tier chef. Kenny wasn't even close. In fact, I am curious as to how he ever became a finalist. Was the applicant field truly that weak.

This week's episode of FNS was framed as an episode of "Cutthroat Kitchen." And, that was only mildly entertaining to me - for the concept behind these intense food competitions and the added element of "sabotaging the other contestants" just doesn't indicate great culinary skill to me. That's the problem with trying to keep a network and a series fresh - they have to keep pushing the envelop to fined new forms of entertainment. And it simply becomes too gimmicky at that point. In this week's episode, the challenge of cooking with chocolate bacon or grinding meat in a snow cone machine didn't do much for me. Well, that's not entirely true - because the chocolate bacon worked in favor of Emma, who I think would make a great Food Network Star.

Christopher survived this week, and even thrived. But he will not be a FNS, for he is just too milqutoast to entertain and hold his own. Chris continues to struggle, which is a shame because he is in many ways very entertaining. Sarah didn't annoy nearly as much this week. And Lenny actually really struggled in the food category. It was quite a shock to see Bobby Flay spit out food. I can't imagine what that sopapilla must have tasted like. Of course, Lenny has reined in the crass comments and seems truly humbled. Ultimately, Lenny should not be the next FNS, for he really brings nothing new to the table.

Still like Nicole and Emma the best.

The Spurs Re-Defining Success in the NBA - Owning the Heat

In the NBA playoffs, it's pretty clear that in forty-nine states people are rooting for Tim Duncan and the San Antonio Spurs. And then Miami Heat fans are, of course, casually but not devotedly cheering on Dwayne Wade's Miami Heat, featuring the services, or "talents," of Lebron James. It's been so easy to root against the Heat because of the feeling that this "Dream Team" with a "Big Three" was put together to provide Lebron with a championship team that he could never develop on his own. And the dependence on the "Greatest player on the planet," but one who will never be as good as Michael Jordan, does not endear the team to true basketball fans.

That dependence on a superstar is why the last two victories by the Spurs have been so enjoyable - they represent basketball at its purest as a team game. Certainly, the Spurs have a genuine team of superstars built around a mega-player in future Hall of Famer Tim Duncan. But watching the team play as a unit that passes and passes and passes, but never over-passes, until they get a shot has been so satisfying in the way that would do Hoosier's coach Norman Dale proud. And the team magic of Coach Pop and the Spurs provides hope for NBA fans that the Spurs dominance will lead the NBA in a new direction, away from the Lebron/Carmelo-style, and toward the purity of a Tim Duncan led team.

This idea was well developed in a "hopeful" piece by Denver Post sportswriter Chris Dempsey who is "Hoping the Spurs Spark Better Basketball."

The Spurs play a beautiful game of passing and movement, a work of art worthy of inclusion in The Louvre. It's FC Barcelona, circa 2012. It's jazz. Basketball, as the Spurs have put on display in a demolition job of the defending champion Miami Heat thus far, should look just like that.

And yet their brand of basketball, a free-flowing, constantly moving ballet is the exception to the rule the NBA is transforming into. The game is pushing more toward pop than jazz, steering itself into a formulaic game. Shots should be taken from here, here and here, not there or there. Players should be played in these combinations, not those. 

No exceptions. No improvisation. No jazz. Just pop.

So, here's hoping.

Banksy Returns with a New Documentary - or Does He?

The internationally known and vastly popular graffiti artist Banksy always seems to be one step ahead of all the forces that are interested in his work. The enigmatic artist and filmmaker first fascinated art fans - and frustrated critics - with his Oscar-nominated film Exit Through the Gift Shop. He then responded with a month-long series of "art showings," or publicity stunts, in New York City, which included selling originals of his art work for as little as $60 on the street. The works could actually sell for tens of thousands. And, now, he has teased us again with a short documentary film recounting the New York project, which he posted on his website, implying a longer film was coming.

Now, it's time to wait and see what comes next.

UPDATE:  Banksy is undoubtedly a significant cultural phenomenon, and many people may be intrigued about this fascinating artist. A great resource is the Banksy Art page from a group known as Artsy. 

We strive to make all of the world’s art accessible to anyone online. Our Banksy page, for example, provides visitors with Banksy's bio, over 250 of his works, exclusive articles, and up-to-date Banksy exhibition listings. The page even includes related artist & category tags, plus suggested contemporary artists, allowing viewers to continue exploring art beyond our Banksy page. 

Is Common Core about to Become "Gates-gate"?

Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation seem to be doing some quick damage control lately regarding the Foundation's connection to Common Core State Standards. After a year or so of backlash from parents, teachers, education researchers, and conservative pundits, the pro-Common Core Gates Foundation took the surprising position recently of calling for a two-delay in the use of Common Core-linked tests as measures for teacher and student accountability. The Gates Foundation director apparently conceded the frustrations from groups critical and suspicious of "the Common Core" when she wrote in an open letter to the New York Times:

“ … the best new ideas aren’t self-fulfilling; they have to be put into practice wisely.” She added: “No evaluation system will work unless teachers believe it is fair and reliable, and it’s very hard to be fair in a time of transition. The standards need time to work. Teachers need time to develop lessons, receive more training, get used to the new tests and offer their feedback.”

The timing of the public statement conveniently coincided with a critical Washington Post story by Lindsay Leyton who sought to explain ("expose"?) "How Bill Gates Pulled Off the Swift Common Core Revolution." The implication in the title - and, of course, fleshed out in the story - is that the establishment and promotion and adoption of the "national standards" by forty-five states was the brainchild and pet project of Bill Gates, a billionaire computer mogul and philanthropist who has no educational background or credentials other than having gone to school and dropped out of Harvard. The not-so-subtle criticism of the story is that the Common Core standards, contrary to the all-out PR effort of the Gates Foundation and the Obama administration, were not "states-led" but, in fact, "Gates-led.

On a summer day in 2008, Gene Wilhoit, director of a national group of state school chiefs, and David Coleman, an emerging evangelist for the standards movement, spent hours in Bill Gates’s sleek headquarters near Seattle, trying to persuade him and his wife, Melinda, to turn their idea into reality. Coleman and Wilhoit told the Gateses that academic standards varied so wildly between states that high school diplomas had lost all meaning, that as many as 40 percent of college freshmen needed remedial classes and that U.S. students were falling behind their foreign competitors.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes. Bill Gates was de facto organizer, providing the money and structure for states to work together on common standards in a way that avoided the usual collision between states’ rights and national interests that had undercut every previous effort, dating from the Eisenhower administration.

The story has picked up steam and has been repeated and extrapolated on by many Common Core critics who question the validity of the process by which the standards came to embed themselves in school districts across the nation, even as criticism grew. Teacher and education blogger Mercedes Schneider, who has been tracing the corporate forces that have pushed the agenda, has been critical of Gates' seemingly excessive influence. And, after the WashPost story was published, she asked,
Why Would the WashPost Wait Three Months to Publish a Gates Interview?" There seemed to be more powerful forces at work on a project that by many accounts should have been far more inclusive of teachers and school communities. And the charges of manipulation by Gates and his Foundation extend beyond the simple question of 'backing the standards. In funding PBS programming devoted to promoting the Common Core standards, Gates may have been using the movement to sell software and educational materials. That charge of creating and exploiting a "crisis in education" as a way to hedge the market on materials is the concern of teachers like Joshua Katz who warn of the "Toxic Culture of Education."

Now, the questions about Gates' influence could stretch all the way to the White House, as conservative critics of federal influence on local control of education begin to question whether any laws were broken in the promotion and possible coercion that led to the adoption of the standards across the nation. Stanley Kurtz of the National Review is asking whether it is "Time for Congressional Hearings on Common Core." If the federal government has had any undue influence on establishing learning standards and curriculum for the nation's public schools, then President Obama and his Education Secretary Arne Duncan may find themselves in the middle of "Gates-gate," as that action is specifically prohibited by federal law. And, of course, the president and his billionaire buddy will be targets for criticism on a personal level when they have to explain why Common Core standards are necessary for America's children, but not for their own.

Student Loan Debt - The Scam of the Ivory Tower

Long gone seem to be the days when students could pay their way through four years of college by working full-time during the summers, part-time in the summer, and perhaps assuming a little student loan debt. Now, with the cost of college having gone up by almost 1200% in three decades - more than any commodity or investment - Americans are beginning to ask questions about sustainability. And, for the first time they are beginning to ask "Is College is Worth The Investment?" That question gets some support in a new documentary Ivory Tower from director Andrew Rossi.

Certainly, the American belief in the value of higher education and a college degree is an ingrained value and tradition. However, as more and more students are burdened by crushing debt for degrees (some from for-profit colleges who have exploited student loan policies to coax poor and minority students into pursuing potentially worthless degrees), the policies and costs of higher education are becoming more suspect. And, even as President Obama and congressional Democrats attempt to offer a solution, many argue the efforts are too little and too late - and won't solve the problem anyway.

The suspicion of the system and the belief that the President can do little to alleviate the problems are rooted in the flaws inherent in the system. The problem of rising college tuition is the fault of the colleges themselves, argues Thomas Frank who believes "Colleges are Full of It."As the colleges have competed with each other for an ever more valuable slice of the college student loan debt pool - now valued at a staggering, bubble-busting $1 trillion - they have exploited the country's faith in the value of a degree, and have convinced millions of students to leverage their futures on a piece of paper that may not prepare them for the workplace, won't necessarily guarantee them a job, and which they may never be able to pay off. And, for years there has been evidence that "College is Not Worth the Cost."

As far as plans to fix the problem - no easy task - Jordan Weissman believes that students, and especially Democrats, need to forget the claims and plans of Elizabeth Warren and President Obama and instead give credence to "The Best Plan to Fix the Student Loan Debt Crisis" from a little-known Republican congressman from Wisconsin named Tom Petri. For anyone following the issue, or God-forbid planning on incurring tuition costs in the near future, it is worth doing the research on not only the schools but also the issue of student loan debt.

Do We Need Gifted Education?

In an era of standardization in education, in which all kids must learn and accomplish the same skills/knowledge at the same grade level in all schools from Anchorage to Albany, parents and teachers of "exceptional kids" have reason to be concerned. The issue of advanced learning for "gifted" children is one of those areas where kids who operate outside of the standards could be restricted by the push for standardization and uniformity. The issue gained some national prominence via the New York City schools after commissioner Carmen Farina intervened by diminishing, if not demeaning, the practice of "gifted education." So, the question that follows is: "Do We Need Gifted Education?"

The New York Times took up the debate in its Room for Debate opinion page, presenting arguments on both sides of the issue. Policy writer Hailey Potter sees "gifted and talented education" as nothing short of segregation, and she presents some compelling evidence about the racial disparity in the gifted track of New York schools. Certainly, the disparity she presents is disconcerting, and economist Darrick Hamilton sees the need for "gifted education for all students." Of course, that perspective denies the reality of "giftedness." If everyone is and can be doing it, then it really isn't an exceptionality. And that is the important distinction to be made in education. Just as a special education learning disability requires a different approach, a truly advanced student needs accommodation as well - and has legal right to it.

The counterargument to Farina's and Potter's dismissal of "gifted ed" is presented by Rick Hess. Hess and Bruce Sacerdote acknowledge the existence of giftedness and promote the value in understanding that a ten-year-old who is performing higher level math like Calculus or reading/understanding/conducting research on stem cells or reading and understanding Crime And Punishment is simply "not like other kids," and his education should honor that exceptionality. Certainly, as Mr. Hamilton notes, all kids deserve access to the quality education, and every kid should be encouraged to achieve at the highest level. But if every kid is doing the same thing, it is no longer an exceptionality, and that simply defies reality.

School districts have begun to move away from "tracking," and instead promote more inclusiveness in the advanced classes. And improving the way giftedness is identified and honored is certainly a step in the right direction. But it's important to note that gifted kids should spend their days with age-level peers for many reasons, while at the same time they should be allowed to pursue academia and their intellectual interests to their highest degree. And that can only happen in a system that maintains "gifted education." For, not every kid is going to play varsity, but every kid should be able to play.

And gifted kids should be allowed to excel, for it is in our interest to meet their learning needs, even if those needs are not "Common" or standard. Giftedness is a reality, and acknowledging and honoring it is the right approach for education.

Coke is not "The Real Thing" - Some Negatives on "Buying the World a Coke"

I always really liked Coca-Cola. It wasn't just soda that I enjoyed - because Pepsi did nothing for me, and I would only occasionally go for a 7-up or A&W Root Beer. But Coca-Cola was something special. It may have been that unique flavor that wasn't entirely sweet - but was probably the commercials. No one had a brand like Coke:

Though I rarely drank more than one at a time, I enjoyed Coke so much that I bought stock in the company. This decision was made when I was traveling in some far corner of Vietnam, and I realized you can buy a Coke just about anywhere on Earth.  However, Coca-Cola is a company of much myth and lore, not the least of which is unflattering. There are some pretty disturbing claims made about the ingredients in Coke and their effects on the body. In fact, many people have offered strange, but practical uses for Coca Cola that have nothing to do with drinking a refreshing beverage. And now, a YouTube video from "Crazy Russian Hacker" has gone viral with "What's left when you boil down Coke":

So, it's definitely worth some consideration of just what soda companies - and Coke is the Big Dog, no doubt - are doing to the health of their consumers.