New Policy for Dept on Ed Civil Rights?

"So, can a teacher have a Christmas tree and a crucifix on his/her desk?"

As we approach the "holiday season," which of course includes Christmas, the annual questions about religious holiday displays on public property will once again flare up on news commentary and social media. There are clear guidelines for what can be deemed acceptable displays, but those are always going to be contextual based on the time, place, and people. And these questions are part of a larger socio-cultural question about civil rights in schools that spans a range from Christmas songs to reading lists.

At the federal level it appears there will be some changes in how the US Dept of Education handles such issues, with the emphasis moving to "individual complaints rather than systemic problems."

WASHINGTON — The Education Department wants to narrow the scope of civil rights investigations at schools, focusing on individual complaints rather than systemic problems, according to a document obtained by The Associated Press. Under the Obama administration, when a student complained of discrimination in a particular class or school, the education agency would examine the case but also look at whether the incident was part of a broader, systemic problem that needed to be fixed. Proposed revisions to the department's civil rights procedures, distributed last week among civil rights officials at the department, remove the word "systemic" from the guidelines.

It seems unimaginable to me that we still debate reading lists and are "banning" books like Fahrenheit 451, but apparently that's where we still are.

"The World is Too Much with Us ..."

In these times, these strangely complicated, yet oversimplified times, it's worth looking back to the 18th century for some insight from the masters. Is our progress really a regression? Do we "lay waste our powers" when we spend too much time "getting and spending"? Is there something we can learn from "heading out under the open skies and listening to Nature's teachings"?

The World Is Too Much with Us

The world is too much with us; late and soon,

Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;

Little we see in Nature that is ours;

We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!

This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon,

The winds that will be howling at all hours,

And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers,

For this, for everything, we are out of tune;

It moves us not. --Great God! I'd rather be

A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;

So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,

Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;

Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;

Or hear old Triton blow his wreathèd horn

Ponder and get back to me.

Does Bill Gates Ignore the Family Connection?

In reading a bit of commentary from The Villager, a community newspaper in southeast Denver, I ran across an interesting bit of ed-reform criticism from writer Joneen Mackenzie, who publishes a regular relationship column for the paper. Mackenzie's piece about how "Families Play a Key Role in Child's Success" calls out Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation for ignoring and excluding the role of family relationships as they seek to reform and improve public education. Specifically, she references and summarizes an article by Ian Rowe of the Fordham Institute that criticizes Gates and all his "investments" in ed-reform because of his "Neglecting to mention family structure and stability—and, more importantly, omitting any strategy to use schools to strengthen those levers—undermines the very ability of all of us who have committed our lives to improve outcomes for children." 

This important factor in the academic success of children is a complicated bit of sociology, and it poses a challenging dilemma for anyone attempting to improve educational outcomes for students whose lives outside of school not only fail to support an academic focus but more than like subvert and compromises them. The tough conversation also wades into complicated socio-cultural arguments about the importance of two-parent homes and the ability of all parents to adequately contribute to their children's education. If we're being honest, we can't fix or solve the challenges kids face outside of their school time. Or can we?

We Need Electricians more than Business Majors

About a month ago I helped coordinate and host a career fair at our high school, and the information students can glean about careers is incredibly important these days. Nearly two dozen trade schools, contractors, and career association reps provided information to our students about working in culinary arts, cosmetology, plumbing, landscape design, auto-body repair, and electrical trades. In chatting with a representative from the electricians apprenticeships, I was surprised (well, not really) to learn that a journeyman electrician with several years experience and working forty hours a week can pull in as much as $80,000 annually. And there is no drought for work in Colorado - in fact, there is a shortage for this sort of skilled labor, and job vacancies with impressive salaries abound. Some electricians who are willing to travel and stay at job sites for 2-6 months or longer can expect to pull down high six figures (even reaching $200K) because contractors are so desperate for skilled electricians that in some places they pay time-and-a-half for the first forty hours a week. At a time with the average family income in the United States hovering around $54K, and a time when the average college student is carrying loan debt of $30K or more, the news on opportunities for electricians needs more prominence. And, rather shockingly, one of the primary reasons for such a shortage of laborers is the inability of people to reliably show up for work five days a week and be able to pass a drug test. Yes, thanks to marijuana legalization, it seems everyone who could or would work in the trades can't be trusted to actually do the job. Now, that's truly sad.

Edward Luce & the "Time to Start Thinking" about the "Retreat of Western Liberalism" and making "America Great Again"

It's hard to believe that Edward Luce first warned of the risks to American greatness and the "retreat of Western Liberalism" way back in 2011 with his first book Time to Start Thinking. That was back when Mitt Romney was squaring off against Barack Obama in a smart, well-argued presidential campaign between two clear-thinking and respectable leaders who simply had different ideas about the challenges facing American society in the twenty-first century. What happened to that? Oh, to go back to a time when we argued about whether Russia was a friend or enemy. It seems so quaint.

The challenges facing American society on the multiple fronts of economics, finance, politics, culture, and world vision are not beyond us if we're willing to think long and hard about them as we debate who we are and how we got here. And that quest for clarity and truth can certainly be helped by the erudite views of a (somewhat) objective observer without the baggage of American identity politics. Enter Edward Luce, columnist for the Financial Times and writer of several books on geo-politics and finance. Luce has the education and insight to offer critical analysis of our economic sector and the misplaced emphasis on corporate spreadsheets rather than wages and spending power. He also has some pretty powerful revelations about our misunderstanding of what our own military leaders think in regards to their mission and their budget.

In Time to Start Thinking, Luce covers in-depth "The Lonely Middle Class" and its struggles to survive amidst growing automation, innovation, and re-direction. Sadly, Americans continually look to Washington and politics as the source of our troubles, but the reality is that our society has frayed throughout a decreased sense of community, a misguided understanding of economics, an outdated approach to education, and a refusal to align downturns in finances and employment with the true deciders in those areas.  Perhaps the best part of Luce's books is found in his opposition to including a checklist of policy suggestions which will repair our present and improve our future. Those have become all too cliche. Instead his book simply offers important history and perspective to consider.

Greenwood Village Zones Out the Middle Class

Well, in light of last night's election, I will lamentably post my recent piece of commentary published in The Villager about life in the Village.

When my family moved to Greenwood Village, we joked that “the Village zones against tornadoes.”

It seemed like every storm headed south or north of the Tech Center.

Zoning in GV is no small matter, as anyone who has remodeled knows, but it used to be about property, not people. Voters should scrutinize plans which zone against small businesses and middle-class earners, as the opposition to mixed-use development near the Landmark did.

While some residents seem to prefer high-rise offices or empty lots over small shops, restaurants and homes, others prefer pragmatic review of individual projects, rather than rigid rejection of any new buildings or residents.

To be clear, no City Council candidates or residents are actually “pro-density,” and it’s disingenuous to argue they are. No one seeks “high-density urbanization” that brings crime to neighborhoods, traffic to the streets and undesirables to our community and schools. Such exaggerated fear mongering should be viewed cautiously by voters.

In reality, we need rational discussion about community development. Greenwood Village is a city of 15,000 people with a small-town feel and ample parks amidst a thriving corporate sector in the Denver Tech Center. Yet, areas around I-25 have outdated property that could be updated to feature open spaces, restaurants, offices and housing, including single-family homes, townhouses and condos. In fact, that was the vision behind the Landmark, a mixed-use area quite popular with residents, despite those unsightly residential towers.

Last year at a local charity event, a councilmember told me, “I want single-family homes, not condos.” Perhaps unintentionally, he revealed an inclination to exclude people like me from his city. As an educator earning a middle-class income, I probably can’t afford a house in Greenwood Village, but I value living in the neighborhood where I teach, and I can afford my townhouse near school.

Middle-class Americans earn between $50-100,000 a year, making it tough to buy houses. By opposing any multi-family housing, some residents seem intent on excluding teachers, police officers, firefighters, healthcare workers and city employees from living in the very neighborhoods they serve.

The Village has rarely seen such controversy over our sense of community. There was no outcry over new houses on One Cherry Lane and no opposition to the subdivision built just west of Peoria. No candidates fought the new development just south of Belleview.

So, what has happened to our Village and what caused such harsh reactions to community development? Why have we seen such vitriolic comments about our public servants and our neighbors? Village residents should ask themselves, who are we as a community? Is Greenwood Village closed? Or can we reach a civil compromise that promotes responsible growth while preserving the Village?

If the free market prices consumers out of a neighborhood, that’s a natural effect of capitalism. But if government zones to ensure that exclusivity, well, that’s just sad.

Perhaps some residents would prefer to just build a wall around Greenwood Village

No, We Don't Need a Class Called "Life 101"

If you are on Facebook, you have probably seen a meme about schools needing a "mandatory class called Life 101" that teaches basic skills everyone should know. It looks something like this:

Often these pics get plenty of likes, and the post asks if you agree. Well, I don't. Not at all. And I'm a bit annoyed by the ridiculous implications of this idea.

No, we don't need a "mandatory class" for arbitrary skills that should be taught at home by parents, if they even need to be taught at all. First of all, who "balances a checkbook anymore"? Online banking and statements pretty much handle that. And if someone feels kids need to know that, then teach it yourself. It takes about five minutes, and I learned from my dad when I was about twelve years old. And, changing a tire or changing your oil? No. Not many people need to know that, and practically no one does that themselves anymore. I would bet 90% of the people who "like" this meme have never done either of those tasks. And, they don't balance checkbooks, sew buttons, or grow their own food either.

The primary issue I have with these posts is the complete abdication of parenting skills and the absolving parents of any responsibility for teaching their children any life skills. If the parents don't know it or can't teach it, it's probably not that important anyway. The arbitrary premium that people are placing on these skills and tasks is completely out of whack with reality. I'll bet right now there are thousands of men and woman in their local ER saving lives, and they probably can't change their own oil. But they don't need to because they spent their time developing an expertise in something a little more significant - like how to jump-start the heart of someone in cardiac arrest.

Geez! The kind of "internet wisdom" that goes around these days baffles me.

What Happened to Middle Class Stability?

America news and media is certainly not at a loss for discussions of economic insecurity - from declining upward mobility to ballooning health insurance costs to tax reform and/or "tax cuts for the rich" - the issue of class warfare has been running heavy through the American psyche lately. And, I'm not entirely sure what is getting better, what is getting worse, and what the true extent of the narrative is. But for those interested in exploring, a couple recent headlines caught my attention.

More than a decade and a half ago, investigative journalist and writer Barbara Erhrenreich spotlighted the struggles of America's working poor to make ends meet. The seminal and thought-provoking Nickled and Dimed explored the challenge of getting by on minimum wage, and Erhrenreich provided real world insight with her immersion in the struggle, working numerous entry-level jobs while living (barely) in hotels and low-rent apartments. That issue has been given an update with a somewhat surprising focus on similar and growing struggles among middle class American workers who are often college-educated with experience in careers, rather than just jobs.

Writer Jessica Bruder brings attention to "casualties of the Great Recession" in her new book-length investigation of the new breed of homeless people living in the cars or RVs while they criss-cross the country doing seasonal work for companies like Amazon.com during the holiday season. Bruder's work, Nomadland: Surving America in the Twenty-First Century, offers stories of a struggling segment of the population who are facing the prospect of never retiring as they simply hope to get by until their bodies simply wear out.

As far as human inventions go, retirement is shockingly recent, and proving fragile. A fringe idea until the 20th century — and one that outraged many — it took tenuous hold in the United States in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. Today, only 17 percent of Americans imagine they will be able to afford to stop working someday.“Nomadland,” by Jessica Bruder, an important if frustrating new work influenced by such classics of immersion journalism as Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Nickel and Dimed,” looks at one strategy older workers have devised for “surviving America.” Tens of thousands have traded in their homes for “wheel estate.” They are “the Okies of the Great Recession”: grandparents living in school buses and vans seeking seasonal work cleaning toilets at campgrounds, picking blueberries in Kentucky, sometimes for wages, sometimes for just a parking spot — “not necessarily paved but hopefully level.”

Books about the rising "gig economy" have coincided with interesting discussions about the middle class and what that even means in America anymore. In my own town of Greenwood Village, CO, there is a debate about the prospect of "high density housing" and "urbanization" that is fueling an intense City Council election. In a place like GV, where the "average" home price is north of $1 million, the challenge for middle class earners to find housing is becoming truly strained. Of course, in a neighborhood where homes can reach $10+ million, the idea of middle class seems almost absurd. The Denver Post recently reported on the concept when it asked "Is $100,000 a middle class income in America?" Growing up in small town Illinois in the 1970s, I have a hard time talking about $100K as middle class and "middle class suburban" homes going for $1.5 million.

Who knows where this goes next?

Why Does The Athletic Want to Ruin Sports Journalism

Let's start here: I still subscribe to my local newspaper, The Denver Post, and I will for as long as it exists, knowing as I do the integral role that newspapers and print journalism play in maintaining our communities, society, and republic. My mother was a print journalist (reporter, editor, and features writer) for thirty years, and I grew up with a respect for the industry and a warmth in my heart for the sound of the newspaper landing on the driveway each morning. Thus, it was with profound disappointment and a genuine bit of queasiness that I read this morning (in the print version of the New York Times) about radical entrepreneur named Alex Mather and his plan to destroy local sports journalism and monopolize sports reporting.

“We will wait every local paper out and let them continuously bleed until we are the last ones standing,” Alex Mather, a co-founder of The Athletic, said in an interview in San Francisco. “We will suck them dry of their best talent at every moment. We will make business extremely difficult for them.”

My first - and lingering - response was "Geez, what a tool."

Mather, who is 37, and his partner Adam Hansmann, a green 29, plan to gut local newspapers of their premier sportswriters by hiring them away to work at a subscription sports site, The Athletic, which they intend to ultimately be the Amazon or Neftlix or Spotify of sports journalism. The "vulture"-like strategy of luring away the talent from print sources that face a shrinking market amidst free online content and amateur-reporting on blogs and open sites like Bleacher Report is certainly a workable business model. Mather and Hansmann know they can poach the reporters and use venture capital to absorb losses until the original bundle-service news source, the newspaper, folds. At that point, they hope to have the monopoly on quality sports writing, and they are banking on millions of current sports writing fans being willing to pay yearly fees for sports news.

It could work. But it will more than likely ruin local news organizations' ability to continue providing content, and then fade on a naive and unsustainable model. Then it will leave consumers mostly willing to accept mediocre reporting from whatever source their social media friends post.

Sadly, both Alex and Adam are still too young and under-educated to understand that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Do Students Need Four Years of English .... or homework?

I once taught in a school where a single research paper in English class, including the creation of "fifty note cards," was an actual graduation requirement. It was a stupid idea at best, but it more likely bordered on educational malpractice.

As an English teacher with a passion for teaching reading and writing and roughly twenty-five years of experience in the classroom, I probably shouldn't be asking this, but do high school students really need four years of high school English class? It is a pretty standard mantra nationwide that high school graduation requirements include an indisputable "four years of English" and then variations of two to four years of math, science, social studies, foreign language, and the fine/practical arts. And, I'm thinking that this conventional wisdom is naive at best, but probably more ineffective and even detrimental to the K-12 education process in this country. It is, of course, colleges and universities that drive this requirement, or expectation, (which is really a mandate). But let's be honest:  if a student took five years of math, four years of  science, and two or three of English, social studies, and fine arts, would he be "less prepared" for college and university classes?

Of course not.

Granted, the general roles of reading  and writing in the success of college students cannot be disputed. Certainly, "Composition 101" remains the flunk out course for so many colleges nationwide, and if a student can't read and understand his textbooks or write decent essays and research papers, he will truly stuggle and probably not finish his degree, which is a very real problem in this country. That said, the expectation that four years of English class will solve the problem and equip students with all the study skills they need to be successful is a bit of an exaggeration, if not an actual absurd assumption. Merely taking four years of English in high school is not a guarantee of college readiness, and students may cultivate reading and writing skills just as effectively in a social studies or science class. It's undeniable that many high school classes nationwide simply aren't that challenging - and a high school creative writing class won't automatically included a quality and rigorous workload of college prep writing. And, over several decades I have been frustrated and disappointed by knowledge of students who "didn't graduate" because they had all their credits except one semester of English or a single research paper. It's simply ridiculous.

For far too long, I have worried about the expectation and understanding that the high school English class is the only place where students actually learn to read and write. They should be learning those skill in all the content areas. Few English teachers, I believe, would disagree with me. Yet, if the understanding is that students learn the skills of reading and writing and thinking in all classes, then we must let go of the misguided belief that all students need more English classes than any other curriculum, core or otherwise.

Of course, this won't end until colleges and universities ease their dictatorial control of the classes that they mandate high school students must take in order to be "college ready."

Let's start an honest conversation about "what students really need to know."

Oh, and to be true to my post title: we need to cut down on the homework at the high school level. School should be like Disneyland because the classroom is "where the magic happens."

Who is trying to "Save Our Village" - and from What?

Who’s Trying to “Save Our Village,” and From What?

Last week many voters in Greenwood Village received a mass email endorsing a slate of candidates for City Council from the “Save Our Village” campaign. It expressed a desire but inability to “reach everyone … to talk about our issues and values” and asked for help in “urging your neighbors to vote for our candidates.” Yet, the one important piece of information it lacked is any explanation of “Why?” An online search for Save Our Village revealed a bare-bones website, which contained no members’ names, no platform, and no list of issues. In fact, the tab for the organization’s “Vision” contained no information at all. So what are those issues and values, and who exactly is Save Our Village?

As informed community members, we should question why an anonymous PAC is sending a mass email promoting candidates with no explanation of their experience, platform, views, or positions on pertinent community issues. In fact, there is no mention of any specific issue on the agendas – past or future – of Greenwood Village City Council. Most voters know the previous Save Our Village group was organized on one specific issue – the proposed re-zoning of the Orchard Area. Clearly, voters voiced their opinion on that issue, and it’s now time to move on and return to discussion of numerous issues facing the Village in coming years. Yet, if the websites of some candidates are used as a measure, Save Our Village seems to be reigniting the divisiveness of that vote and pursuing election based on a fear of property development.

The phrase Save Our Village also requires greater clarity from this group and candidates. Certainly, many residents know the original platform opposed changes to the city’s Comprehensive Plan to allow mixed-use development, including space for residential units, small businesses like restaurants and shops, and community space. Yet, many residents believed the vote was about allowing one “high density housing” plan, and they rejected it based on that assumption. Voters expressed fears about subsequent traffic congestion, though traffic is far more impacted by the 70,000 commuters to DTC than it is by residents. Voters also expressed concerns about overcrowded schools, though no data supports that claim, especially west of I-25. In fact, no one seems to acknowledge that the Landmark Towers are “high density” housing, and no one connects them to school enrollment problems. All these concerns are valid, yet far too many are based on misinformation. And candidates or PACs who warn of “high density urbanism” and pledge to uphold “Village Values” should be careful with such hyperbole and loaded words.

Additionally, if candidates are directly involved in the organization, voters deserve transparency on those associations. Currently two SOV-promoted candidates seem to be directly connected. Specifically, the address on the email for the group appears to be Dave Kerber's house, and Jerry Presley had directly responded to emails to the group. Thus, it appears Kerber and Presley may have organized what seems to be a third-party PAC which they in turn use to anonymously endorse themselves. Now, that may not be illegal or unethical in some people’s views, but it certainly seems a bit suspect to an average voter. At the very least, it lacks the necessary transparency desired by voters and promoted by candidates.

Voters might also consider greater scrutiny of the candidacies of Dave Kerber, Jerry Presley, and Anne Ingebretsen over the precedent it would set. Each of these people is a long-standing community member who has served on City Council. Yet, as most voters know, Greenwood Village has term limits for the Council and Mayor’s office. While a loophole allows the law to be circumvented for candidates to serve non-consecutive terms, that is hardly the spirit of term limits. Granted, these three individuals have experience in public service. However, in a city of fifteen-thousand people, voters should be able to find new, qualified voices to help the Council stay fresh and avoid the downside of unchecked incumbency.

Voters should be curious about who SOV is. Are they connecting the election to the referendum? If so, how and why? What is their ultimate goal? What are those “issues and values?” What is this yet undisclosed “Vision?” Will they disclose who the organizing and leading members are? Will candidates and members make themselves available in public forums? Village voters deserve some transparency.

NOTE: A shorter version of this commentary appeared this week in The Villager 

"When Am I Going to Use This?" - What Really Matters in Class

"When am I going to use this?"

A student's question about the usefulness of school content and curriculum is always a challenge for contemporary educators because many of us must face the reality and answer honestly - "Never," we might say. "You will never directly use this knowledge about The Great Gatsby or this skill for multiplying a polynomial or this diagram of cell's structure or this information about the Battle of Antietam." Education doesn't work that way - it's not all utilitarian. However, some of it can be, and for many of us, it's our hidden curriculum, or those little tidbits of information, insight, and life skills that we use to frame the rest of our lessons. For me, those tidbits might be healthy living choices or personal financial literacy. *

Just two weeks, as I shopped in Home Depot for light bulbs, a man walking past stopped and said, "Mr. Mazenko? Is that you?" He was a former student from nearly fifteen years ago, and as we talked about the class and what he remembered, he told me, "Save 10% and invest in a mutual fund. That's what I remember most. Every kid should do what you told us." Now, I taught him junior English, so much of our class was about appreciating The Great Gatsby and writing argumentative essays and sharpening grammar skills for the ACT/SAT.  But I also used to give regular book talks, and we'd often read short pieces from the newspaper that were challenging and relevant. So, when I brought in a Market Watch piece from the Wall Street Journal that advised people to "Save 10%" and I recommended kids read books like David Bach's Automatic Millionaire, it resonated with kids. In fact, many kids will tell me, it's this mini-lessons and supplements to the curriculum that make all the difference.

Anecdotes like this are why opportunities such as Digital Promise are so valuable in education today. The opportunity for competency-based learning opportunities on sites like Bloomboard-Digital Promise is part of the new innovations in education that allow learning and mastery of anything, anytime, anywhere. The digital age has the potential to be the great democratizing influence on education because no information is off limits. Anyone with digital access can learn as much as he or she wants by using online platforms. And, beyond simply accessing and learning the information, people have the opportunity to earn micro-credentials. At the Bloomboard-Digital Promise site, students and teachers have the chance to learn and earn up to twenty financial literacy micro-credentials. In many ways, the access to information and micro-credentials could be the key to expanding not only knowledge but certifications and access to careers.

Competency-based learning and digital access to content, curriculum, knowledge, and skills is the foundation of innovative education. I've noted before my criticism of concepts around seat-time and Carnegie units as the indisputable gatekeeper for education and certification. The work of groups like Digital promise is one step to increasing access and expanding knowledge.


* This is a sponsored post