"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.
Each year, as kids break free from schools for a little while to pursue the joys of childhood, the issue of "summer vacation" leading to the "summer slide" rears its ugly head again. Time and again, commentators weigh in on the problems of "stopping school" for a couple months when the pools open and the warm weather arrives. The most recent entry comes from Cristina Evans, a teacher, who went to the pages of EdWeek.org with "A Teacher's Case Against Summer Vacation." Evans is focused specifically on the struggles of low-income and mostly urban students who tend to experience academic regression during the months off schools. This is the summer slide.
The case against summer vacation has been made many times, and the carefree break from school has even been called "evil" by some commentators looking to use extremist language to increase readership on a blog post. The reality, though, is a bit different than much of the "history" indicates. To be clear, the existence of summer vacation is not a result of our farming history and the "agrarian calendar" that let kids out in the summer to work in the fields. I have discussed this discrepancy more fully in the past. And the history of summer vacation is not unclear to anyone willing to do a bit of research.
To her credit, Evans doesn't call for a radical end to summer vacation. Instead, she makes a lucid case for shortening it from maybe ten weeks to six or so. And no one is arguing that in schools where a summer slide is evident that we should ignore the problem. However, a blanket argument that summer vacation should be shorter across all schools is misguided. Instead, parents and communities should know the facts for how to effectively use summer vacation for the type of enrichment that prevents summer regression in many kids. The reality is that summer vacation is embedded in our culture, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Seemingly out of nowhere, "STEM" has become a popular acronym for fixing all that ails the US economy. Apparently, the problem has been that America is severely lacking in workers skilled in "Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math." Thus, schools and education reformers - backed by powerful forces such as the Gates Foundation - have responded with the goal of simply producing more people with diplomas in the STEM areas. But, a closer look from the other side indicates that the "STEM Solution" is certainly no panacea for the needs of the American economy and the alleged "crisis in education." Writer Danielle Kurtzleben investigates the complex problems of aligning ourselves with a "nonsense acronym." There is little doubt that most STEM fields have great potential to produce high-earning individuals who can positively contribute to the economy. Yet, the country is as lacking in highly skilled labor as it is suffering from a shortage of biologists or accountants. And, rather than focus on some ambiguous notion of STEM, perhaps American communities should instead focus on helping businesses align with schools to close the "skills gap." And that is only true if the goal and purpose of the education system is simply to provide a pipeline of workers for corporate America. Is it?
For those watching the Common Core & PARCC testing debate in public education, the powerful influence of the Gates foundation has been a force to watch for the past few years. And recent events like the Gates' Foundation letter to the New York Times and the calls for a Congressional investigation into the influence of Gates and the burden of standardized testing have certainly chummed the waters. This week, I weigh in at Salon.com with an analysis and some commentary on how "Bill Gates Needs to Drop his Common Core Obsession."
After blogging for years and writing pieces for the Denver Post, this article is my first piece for a national news site. So, I am pretty excited about the opportunity to reach a wider audience.
Fourteen years after the turn of the millennium (Do you remember the Y2K crisis?), it's apparently time to look back at the decade that gave us Seinfeld and Nirvana and Forrest Gump and the OJ Trial and more. It is, apparently, the "Last Great Decade," as the National Geographic channel puts out a documentary look-back at the age of grunge music and dot-com millionaires. It was the time of relative calm between the Cold War and 9/11, and that seems to make it real in a way that the world will never be again. With the changes from the War on Terror and the incredible expansion of our technology, the world will forever after be more surreal than real. And that's the legacy that the 90's offers.
Inspired by NatGeo's look back at the decade - and posing questions about its greatness - many retrospectives will look back at the 90s, as USA Today did recently with a review of some greatest hits from the decade of Yada, Yada, Yada. Focusing predominantly on the pop culture that typifies a decade or era to us, USA notes some big moments:
The OJ Simpson trial was really the beginning of reality TV
An obscure rock band from Seattle, Nirvana released Nevermind and change the face of rock, introduced us to "grunge," and knocked Michael Jackson off his top-of-the-charts perch
Television was "Must See TV" on numerous networks - not just NBC - with innovative sitcoms like Friends, Seinfeld, The Simpsons, and Frasier, and inspired new dramas like ER, Picket Fences, The X-Files, and The Practice
Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls re-introduced the idea of a sports dynasty
One of history's most popular Presidents changed the White House in ways we never would have wanted - Monica Lewinsky - yet left the office to even greater fame and fortune
Rap music came into its own in a way no one really predicted
And the world became fascinated by this little phenomenon called, The Internet
The Nineties were, no doubt, a unique time if only for the transition the decade offered.
Teaching to the test. Test scores. Standardized Testing. Accountability. Tests.
The incredible rise in significance and impact of mandatory standardized testing is becoming the lead story in public education these days. And for good reason - few of us who went through school fifteen and twenty and thirty and forty years ago can understand how significant filling in bubbles has become. As the NEA meets in Denver, and judge dismisses a PARCC-associated lawsuit in New Mexico, the issue of standardized testing and its role in public education is coming to a head.
To that end the Network for Public Education, among others, is calling for Congress to hold formal hearings to investigate the significance, benefit, and burden of mandated standardized tests in public schools. There is no doubt that the impact of No Child Left Behind lingers with the use of standardized tests for schools. As states continue the push to link test scores to teachers' jobs, despite evidence this is a bad idea and virtually worthless, the education field looks to Congress for help.
So, is it time for hearings? Congress likes to have its nose in everything, and it certainly took an interest in "testing" professional athletes for steroid use. If Congress is willing to investigate sports, it should certainly take an interest in public schools.
The problem with the current education reform movement is that it is based on the myth that the American public education system is in a state of crisis and that American students are falling behind the rest of the world. One of the premier voices challenging this "fraud" that is perpetuated on a naive public is Seton Hall Professor Dr. Chris Tienken. Dr. Tienken has been researching, writing, and speaking on The School Reform Landscape.Tienken has serious concerns about the response to "standardize and centrally control public education" through movements like the Common Core standards.
Now, the implementation of Common Core "State" Standards and associated national standardized testing are being implicated in the plan to produce a pre-conceived result that American schools and American students are failing. As the results of Common Core testing in states like New York are released, the data reveals that the tests were designed to create an artificial and arbitrary "pass rate" of 30%. The test results, as evaluated by teacher and education writer Anthony Cody, were intended to guarantee failure as a way of validating the claims behind the current reform movement that schools are in crisis and the Common Core standards and the associated testing apparatus are the solution. Literally, students were set up to fail.
And, that just doesn't seem like good pedagogy or education policy.
So, what if they gave a PARCC test and no one came?
The Common Core aligned PARCC testing consortium took a few more hits in the past couple weeks as two more states withdrew from the group and in another state a lawsuit was filed challenging PARCC's legality and authority. Tennessee is the latest to abandon the much-maligned and controversial testing group after the state legislature passed a law directing the state to quit the group. The anti-PARCC law in Tennessee follows a similar move last month in Arizona. Arizona's governor Jan Brewer wasn't explicitly opposed to PARCC, but she wants the state to avoid impropriety in the test selection process. That potential for impropriety is what prompted a lawsuit in New Mexico with charges of bid-rigging by PARCC and Pearson, Inc. to prevent any competition for the test and testing company. And, this challenge to PARCC's authenticity is also playing out in the South, as Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal is battling with his state education leaders over membership in and use of PARCC. Apparently, the imposition of a national test against the proper channels for competitive bidding is becoming an identifying characteristic of PARCC and Pearson, Inc. Now, the PARCC consortium is down to fifteen members, and these recent challenges indicate more trouble for PARCC may be on the way.
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.
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?"
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.
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."
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."
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.
