How Educated Are We?

As we struggle through this bizarre year, and worry quite honestly about what is being missed and who is falling behind and what the fall out will actually be, I think we need to scrutinize every bit of data and truly reflect on what is really going on in schools. And what has been for the past fifty years ago. So, here are a few things to consider:

As of 2020, we can assert that the US is more educated than ever before:
90% of people 25 and over have graduated high school. In the 1940s it was 24%
Additionally, approximately 70% go onto 2-4 year college
And, according to Gallup Polls 82% of parents are satisfied or very satisfied with their child’s education, as well as their own education. 50% are satisfied with the education system in America. So, that’s kind of like congressional approval ratings, right? Everyone despises Congress, but not their own representatives.

It’s also worth noting that in many ways, kids are learning more than ever before. For example,
The standard 9th grade math class is Algebra I, but many students now finish that in middle school. I took AlgebraII/Trig in 11th grade, but my daughter took the same class in 8th grade. And my son took AP Calculus in 8th grade. Today, nearly a million students take calculus every year. And, perhaps the most impressive development is Advanced Placement classes offered by the College Board. AP Classes are college classes taken in high school.

In 2018 = 1.25 million 2018 grads took 4.2 million AP exams. 40% of class took at least one AP out of 38 possible AP classes. My AP English Lang & Comp students regularly do the type of writing I didn’t achieve until graduate school.

Just some things to consider about the state of education.

Cabinet Posts, Pete Buttigieg, Ben Shapiro, & the Politics of Nonsense

So, in another entry about the abysmal state of infotainment in political talk show commentary that is literally hurting America, I have to say I'm as disappointed in Ben Shapiro of the DailyWire as I am in Tucker Carlson of FoxNews. Their schtick represents a genuine emptiness in both Gen X and Millennial conservatism, and that's a real shame because they are both smart, well-educated men with a gift for commentary. It's their choice of subject matter that lacks depth and authenticity. Case in point - these recent Tweets from Shapiro:

• For the record, my four-year-old son also loves trains. He should not be Secretary of Transportation.
• I proposed to my wife in her college residential housing. This does not mean I should be either Secretary of Education or Housing & Urban Development

Now, on a purely logical and rational basis, and in a theoretical sense as well, I agree with the insinuation about President-Elect Joe Biden's nomination of Pete Buttigieg for Secretary of Transportation. I don't believe he is qualified to lead that department, certainly not like the current secretary Elaine Chao. And I don't believe Mayor Pete is the best choice for that role. Of course, I understand the politics of building a cabinet and the often dubious nature of the word "qualified" for some of those positions. I think Pete Buttigieg is a brilliant young man who has an impressive education and record of professional experience. And I think he is a skilled politician who will bring an important voice and degree of insight to the Biden Administration. Truly, in terms of patronage jobs, I think an ambassadorship would have been a great role. 

But what about the politics of Shapiro and his denigration of Biden's picks?

The problem is the inconsistency of the standard from which he's criticizing. If Shapiro hadn't been silent for the past four years in regards to the qualifications of cabinet members, he might be pursuing a legitimate line of debate. And it's an interesting and important discussion to have. But he has been silent and complacent even when equally or more egregious appointments of unqualified people for cabinet posts have been conducted by the Trump Administration and the McConnell Senate. So, obviously Shapiro doesn't really care about cabinet posts and qualifications or experience in those roles. Thus, his current line of social media attacks and podcast rants simply emphasizes how he's really just a political hack trying to score points, views, and hits on social media. And again, like with Tucker Carlson, that's a real shame. We need to be better than this. And both Shapiro and Carlson are smarter than that. Sadly, they remind me a lot of the kid I was at eighteen, talking big politics with mostly bluster in my briefcase. And, that's the problem -- they've never grown beyond that.

And, as I've written this, Shapiro tweeted again about Trevor Noah and Stephen Colbert interviewing Obama and Biden, and we're right back where we were in 2004 with Tucker in the Crossfire. Shapiro ironically notes he is "happy our age of entertainment-first politics is drawing to a close." In fact, he is just another textbook example of entertainment-first infotainers who obfuscate issues and genuine debate or discussion in pursuit of ratings, money, viewership, and, of course, power. Truly, as I noted before, I believe both sides are hurting America, and the Don-Lemon-Rachel-Madow-Lawrence-O'Donnell versions are every bit as deleterious as the Carlson-Ingraham-Hannity-Shapiro lane. And, really, if we want to talk qualifications or experience, does Ben Shapiro truly feel justified in challenging and criticizing people like Buttigieg? He shouldn't. And he ought to be a bit embarrassed by his attempts to demean a rather successful and influential politician. The four-year-old playing with trains comparison and the college dorm reference were just silly. That's not quality commentary; it's simply juvenile hectoring.

The tradition of conservatism running back to Barry Goldwater and Russell Kirk deserves far better than what Shapiro and Carlson are selling to audiences today. And that is hurting America. And it is a real shame. Let's hope someday, Shapiro and Tucker Carlson will stop following the legacy of media clowns like Morton Downey Jr., Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, and will instead look to conservatives like David French, Jay Nordlinger, David Frum, and Ross Douthat for guidance on generating reasoned, rational arguments that promote positive discussion.

 

Baseball Doesn't Need the DH, the Shift, or Progress of any kind -- It's Perfect

"There has been lots of progress in my lifetime, but I'm afraid it's headed in the wrong direction," said Ogden Nash on April 4, 1959 in The New Yorker. "Progress may have been all right once, but it's gone on too long."

I'm thinking about those poetic and prophetic words as I consider baseball, America's pastoral sports tradition and the forces of progress that seek to change, nay "improve" it. And I'm having none of it. When America's past time undergoes changes in terms of rules and tradition in the next few years, it will be just one more symptom of the creeping shadow of progress on that one thing that "reminds us of all that was once good, and could be good again." And in the short term, it will also be just another lingering side effect of the Covid pandemic that led to a shortened major league season and the sly imposition of the designated hitter on the National League. 

In today's Denver Post, old school small ball manager Bud Black discussed changes in baseball and conceded that he is coming around to support the addition of the designated hitter. That really hurts a purist and a traditionalist like me. Though Buddy did please me by also saying he would consider rules preventing the shift. I've never liked the DH, and the shift is new enough that I had to pause for a while to consider its benefit and authenticity. And I don't like it either. The shift, to me, is simply the absurdist silly end result of the over-reliance on tech and computer algorithms in managing an old game, a tradition reaching back to the nineteenth century. Thus, just like rules in football against illegal formations, ineligible receivers, and illegal men down field, a rule against the shift would preserve the tradition laid out by the inventors of the game with sound reason and good intention all those years ago. We need not improve on the nearly perfect geometry of the field and the established positions.

While the addition of the DH across both leagues this season was grounded in common sense rationale of health for players, the addition of it universally is driven not by safety but by money. Progressive forces and bean counters assert the game must evolve in order to keep audiences engaged, that it must liven things up to appeal to younger generations. That, of course, is a nonsense argument outside of the nature of sport and competition, if only because it's not really about improving the game but increasing ticket sales and television ratings. For the notion that baseball is slow and boring has always bemused me, as I sit through endless stretches of downtime on Sunday afternoons watching football which, to be perfectly honest, has very short spurts of action in between long stretches of standing around. The simple reality is that there are many things we don't need to improve, and wouldn't bother trying if the business side weren't involved. For didn't we all grow up playing endless whiffle ball games that could stretch for hours? If you don't understand this, then, for the love of the game, watch The Sandlot, and do it soon.

Writer and public intellectual William F Buckley once said, "A conservative is a person who stands athwart history, yelling Stop!" And these days we have far too few people who ask whether this innovation or that development is actually such a good idea. I recall hearing of the reasoning behind Howard Schultz's decision to buy back his controlling ownership of Starbucks. Basically, the corporate owners had been focused on endless expansion, opening more stores and developing more new products, all in pursuit of ever-increasing quarterly profits and shareholder prices. And while Wall Street financiers will always take that route, sometimes the purists like Schultz realize that most of us just want a good cup of coffee, and we want it to taste like coffee.

Is the World Causing Learning Disabilities?

I've been in education too long to not wonder whether our technological world is a factor in, if not the outright cause, of many learning disabilities we see in far too many young kids. Granted, there is a strong argument that these disabilities have always been present, and society is simply getting better at identifying, diagnosing, and accommodating for them.  From dyslexia/dysgraphia to ADD/ADHD to processing speed disparities to anxiety and more, there is no doubt that every year it seems more kids struggle with learning from conditions that literally inhibit them from accessing curriculum and learning on a level playing field.

I think a lot about cognitive psychology and its ability to explain what is going on, and when I think about cog-psyche, I always think about Dan Willingham, who has taught me much about how people learn and the importance of core knowledge in building brain development. The simple truth for me is there is very good reason that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends zero screen time for kids under the age of two, and for no more than thirty minutes a day until the age of six. The negative impact of these blue-LED, two-dimensional light shows on young brains is just not a good idea. And truly, it doesn't seem like anyone legitimately says such tech is a good idea -- at least not since the days the mother who parked her baby in front of the TV for hours at a time, and made millions off of what could only be a truly unsettling lack of parenting. The whole idea creeped me out.

Think about human development and the slow methodical way that humans learn to understand the world. They spend the first three-to-six months literally on their backs looking up at the world, taking it all in, processing info at incredible rates, and building synapses like wildfire. The world is a three-dimensional place, and the brain needs vast amounts of time to synthesize all the information and stimuli. 2D flashy lights are not what the world is or should be, and taking away from the basics of depth perception can't be anything but deleterious for kids. Rather than playing with a cell phone or tablet, babies need to be staring at something like this:

They should be playing with toys, not tech. And I worry that parenting choices made mostly out of convenience, distraction, and naivety are literally hurting their kids' brains. And they may be a root cause of learning disabilities.

Tucker Carlson: Still Hurting America

So, I am just continually disappointed by Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, and that's a real shame because I honestly thought he had a lot of potential to generate authentic discussion and debate. Tucker is a smart, clever, well-educated guy who has a loyal audience and a broad platform for socio-political discussion. Yet, just as Jon Stewart admonished him for on CNN's Crossfire in 2004, Tucker Carlson simply uses his show to mislead and enflame his viewers and ultimately just hurt America. After all these years to grow into a thoughtful and reasoned conservative voice, Tucker instead just collects his lavish salary by obfuscating issues, stifling reasoned discussion, and increasing animosity and division. That hurts us all.

And it doesn't have to be that way. But it will until Carlson finally grows up.

Case in point is his monologue and show opener from last week during which he appeared to criticize "crony capitalism" and decry the deceitful, if not corrupt, corporate practices that have reaped record profits during the pandemic and financial crisis. Specifically, Carlson took aim at companies like Amazon, Google, Netflix, Goldman Sachs, & Walmart for profiting off a financial meltdown while working class Americans struggle, facing low wages and lost jobs, and small businesses fail to keep up. It was a rather populist message (to draw on Bill O'Reilly's traditional misappropriation of that term) that would seem to put Carlson at squarely at odds with the Republican Party, the Trump White House, the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017, free market conservatives, his own views from the early 2000s, and his time with the Daily Caller.

Carlson sternly calls out the excesses of these corporations and their lobbyists, noting "these people are a disaster for capitalism" as we all know the "rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer." Yet, he then deftly shifts blame for the privileged power those entities have to the Democrats and Progressives, and calls up the looming spectre of socialism to distract viewers from the root causes of the problem and instead promote even greater support for the GOP platform and Republican fiscal policies that ensure the current disparity he claims to oppose will continue. He even pretends to call for a "one-time Covid fee" (or tax) applied to their profits, which could then be redistributed to American workers and small businesses in need of a bail out. As if. Tucker Carlson acts as if he truly wants the federal government to tax one company's profits and give them to others. A few questions:

• Which party would more likely support and implement such a plan?
• If House Speaker Pelosi drafted and passed such a plan, would McConnell get it through the Senate? Would President Trump sign it?

Tucker further clouds the issue and misdirects his viewers by attacking his most recent favorite target, Rep. Alex Ocasio-Cortez. AOC is the type of legislator who would actually support and pass his Covid fee, and he would subsequently rail against her socialist agenda. That's obvious. But more troubling is the seething hypocrisy in his attacks on the young Congresswoman. For he urges his viewers to "laugh at" AOC because she is a "vacuous idiot." That sort of insult is embarrassing at the minimum. But to worsen the obfuscation, Carlson disparages AOC as "a rich girl narcissist." Let's clarify:

• Tucker Carlson makes $6 million a year. He is worth $30 million
• AOC makes $174,000 a year. She has a net worth of $100K

My head is truly spinning from the manipulation and misdirection. To be honest, Tucker Carlson's nightly rants and pseudo-discussions of politics are truly just sad. Far from being a reasoned political analyst who is legitimately interested in debate, Carlson is simply nothing but a shock jock who is preaching to the choir ideas he doesn't even truly understand or actually believe just to make money.

And, I want to be clear: I am not a supporter of AOC in terms of her political views or legislative agenda. In fact, almost like one of her fellow freshman Congressman Rep Tim Burchett  of Tennessee, who counts her as a friend, "I don't agree with a doggone thing she says." And I also believe that it's not just Carlson who is "hurting America" with his brand of infotainment. The entire news commentary genre is bad for the country, and it has been harming discourse and dividing communities since the early 2000s. Truly, I also believe that Don Lemon is hurting America in many of the same ways the Fox News commentators are. Thus, it's just disappointing. And I wish Tucker would realize, like Jon Stewart tried so earnestly to convince him years ago, that he could be helping. And he'd still be the successful TV personality he is. 

Tucker, please. We're asking you. "Stop hurting America."

*Update:

Since I've posted, Tucker has spent three nights ranting about Jill Biden having an education doctorate.

I'm just shaking my head. Such a shame.

Dolly Parton - Comin' by it natural

 Sarah Smarsh didn't set out to write a book about Dolly Parton or about the socio-cultural significance of country music, but that's exactly what happened when in the midst of the 2016-17 political season, she was researching and writing a lot commentary about the white working class and the complicated nature of Red State politics, conservatism, and the Republican Party. Those topics are easily over-generalized, and a deeper understanding of them is the focus of Smarsh's first book, Heartland; a Memoir of Working Hard & Being Broke in the Richest Country on Earth. That book was along the same vein as another white working class memoir, J.D. Vances' Hillbilly Elegy, which was recently turned into a film.

The Dolly Parton angle came to Smarsh when she learned of a fellowship offer from the music magazine No Depression to research and write about "the sociocultural significance of a roots music genre." The result of her work is She Come by it Natural: Dolly Parton & the Women Who Lived Her Songs. I'm looking forward to reading this for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that I, like Marsh, have been feeling recently that "country music is rarely given consideration as a sophisticated art form." In fact, I have been considering some similar research of the beautiful nature of storytelling and the narrative art of country music. 

My interest has been sparked, and my connection to country music has been inspired by the recent arrival of a new country station in Denver, 106.7 The Bull.

* Thanks to John Williams of the New York Times for his profile.

Start Saving for Retirement when you Turn 18

While it may seem a bit boring to talk about, it's never too early to start saving for retirement. I've been advising my students of that for nearly twenty years -- as soon as they start earning money, they should make a practice of saving 10% of everything they earn, and they should start paying themselves first by opening a Roth-IRA as soon as they have earnings to save. I first learned those lessons from my dad who advised me in my twenties to start investing some extra money I'd made while teaching abroad, and I refined them for my students after reading David Bach's The Automatic Millionaire. Based on Bach's book and a short column from the Market Watch in the Wall Street Journal about the magic of compound interest, I developed a quick financial primer that I used as an intro to class early in the year. I've learned since that some of my students, now approaching their thirties, have been saving since high school. They're not the only ones. Elizabeth Harris of the New York Times profiles three twenty-something Millennial/GenZers who have already started saving for retirement.

When Dray Farley was 15, he watched a video his favorite gamer had posted on YouTube. But it wasn’t about Call of Duty.

“It was how to get rich in 22 years, and the general math and concept of compound interest, the snowball effect, and how eventually your gains are making gains,” Mr. Farley said. “And that’s what first got me thinking about retirement accounts.”

Mr. Farley, now 21 and completing his final semester at Cornell, knows his middle and high school gaming habit was an unlikely path to an interest in saving and investing. But after his own college experience and internship were disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic last spring, he said he valued saving even more.

Stopping the next Virus before it Starts

 While some people fear the Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been rushed to the market and perhaps developed too quickly, it's important to know they were basically designed by mid-January, a little more than a month after the first infection was identified in Wuhan. That's the way that immunology, virology, and medical research works. And we must remember that reality and use that model to plan for the next outbreaks long before they ever happen. That means like right now. 

Basically, we benefited from the research which was begun back in the early 2000s in response to the SARS and MERS outbreaks, which were also coronaviruses, or of a similar background. Unlike the yearly flu vaccines the medical community develops in response to different influenza strains that arise each year, the Covid antidotes don't use weakened or dead viruses but instead rely on the genetic sequence and train our bodies to recognize and nullify the virus whenever encountered. 

And with that concept, the medical community led by the CDC, NIH, and WHO must invest in research to predict future threats and develop vaccines that can be adapted for whatever virus arises. That sort of planning and preparation will of course require coordinated national and international response teams funded by governments, foundations, and pharmaceutical companies. For that to happen we need strong leadership and trust in the medical community. Let's hope that happens.

Losing Weight & Getting in Shape during the Pandemic

I lost weight and improved my fitness during the pandemic, especially during the height of quarantine. And apparently that's an anomaly as I'm learning through reports of Weight Gain & Stress Eating in the Pandemic. The need for comfort food and the isolation and extended downtime we've all experienced since early last March have led to a new phenomenon -- "the pandemic fifteen." But that wasn't my experience, and the key to it was sticking to routines. 

I am truly a creature of habit, and I really depend on my rituals to keep me sane. So, when the quarantine hit, and with it the urge to cocoon with Netflix, booze, and baked goods, I knew I needed to stick to my habits if I was going to avoid weight gain and less fitness. And, that was all the more necessary with the rise of "Zoom Happy Hours," which I joined even when they happened on nights I normally don't drink. I'm mostly a weekend imbiber, so even a glass of wine on a Wednesday or Thursday is usually a sign of giving in to temptation or needing a stress reliever after a tense day. 

So, in quarantine and since then, I have limited adult beverages and sweets to a Thursday-Sunday window. And I start the week with an intermittent fast on Mondays and Tuesday -- so just lunch and dinner. And I ease back into a bit of indulgence by Thursday. By Friday night, all bets are off, though only after I've completed a workout. And working out became a new challenge when the gym and pools closed down. My workouts are my own cross-fit interval training on Tuesday and Wednesday. I take Mondays and Thursdays off, but I always get in 2-3 miles of walking on those days -- another must during quarantine because I was used to get 10-14K steps a day on my 82-acre school campus.

So, the key was routine. I just set a plan and willed myself to it. It actually brought and kept a sense of normalcy in my life, and I ended losing 4-5 pounds and feeling better.

Rita Moreno Writes Opposite-Handed

 In this week's edition of Spry Magazine, an incredibly spry and zestful 89-year-old Rita Moreno offers tips on how she stays so fit and mentally sharp. Beyond playing a lot of games like Scrabble and Rummicube, which I love, she also said:

I do things with my opposite hand as well. I write with my left hand at least three times a week. When I first started it as a brain exercise, it looked like the handwriting of a psychotic person. But I’m very good at it now, and it’s rather pretty handwriting. At least four times a week ...

That activity really intrigued and impressed me, and it's something I want to try and add into my life. For the past year or so, I have been trying to learn the piano, and in the early days, I was amazed at how hard I had to think and concentrate on my fingers. As the movements became more familiar, I could feel my mind changing just a bit. Drawing and painting has had the same effect, especially because I hadn't really done either since elementary school. 

The idea of writing opposite handed reminded me of a goal or desire to improve my normal handwriting, and perhaps even "try my hand" at calligraphy and graphic design. These are all great activities to, of course, stay mentally sharp as we age; but equally importantly they are also ways to enrich our lives. So, I am going to try and remember to do more of this.

Living Artfully & the Wisdom of Georgia O'Keefe

 For a while now, I have known I would like to have more art in my life, in my consciousness, in the way I view the world. Living artfully has been a goal for a few years now, and to that end I've tried to bring more art into my life and into the world. I'm trying to play piano, I have a sketch book, and (until the pandemic hit last March), I started taking art classes again for the first time since probably elementary school. And looking to and learning about artists is a key to help us see the world like an artist and live artfully. Websites like Artsy are great places for this guidance, such as "How to be an Artist, according to Georgia O'Keefe."

As I look with admiration, awe, reverence, (and yes even a bit of envy), I know its naive to believe the works are in any way effortless. They are a lot of effort, and, as O'Keefe notes, "the notion that you can make [or be] an artist overnight is a fallacy." Great artists don't just happen with a flash of brilliance but instead are created through the school of experience. O'Keefe was a great model, an artist who did it all naturally, yet worked incredibly hard at it. And the best advice she had was open our eyes and observe the world with a passion and intensity.

I've always loved the idea of "seeing the world like an artist," and I always reveled in the fruits of the way artists see the world. 

Math Rock Music - Yep, it's a thing

 I thought I knew quite a bit about rock music, especially in terms of genre (though I'm still looking for a clear difference between country and indie folk music - other than I know it when I hear it). But in terms of music trivia, I can still learn new things, as I did while reading a great piece of Gen X era cultural commentary. Jason Diamond, a pop culture critic in Brooklyn, has written The Sprawl: Reconsidering the Weird American Suburbs, and having grown up in the Chicago suburbs which I know well, he offers an insightful take on something so seemingly innocuous we forget its a thing, except perhaps around election time. 

In the course of looking back on one neighborhood of his youth, specifically the one that coincided with the end of his parents marriage and questions about what could have been, Diamond mentions the 90s indie band American Football as the perfect soundtrack for driving old streets of Buffalo Grove, IL and waxing nostalgic about a time and place that doesn't exist anymore. One of the band's founders was from BG, and the band formed downstate in Urbana, home to the University of Illinois. Recognizing the name, but not being able to place the sound, I looked into the band and ran across the a reference to them as a prime example of the sub-genre "math rock." That was intriguing, and digging into it was fun.

With a strong connection to the 90s sub-genre "emo," math rock is distinctive for its unique rhythms and time signatures. So, rather than the standard four beats per measure, or 4/4 time, math rock might groove on something odd such as 7/8 or even 13/8 time, which is really funky to think about but makes a lot of sense when you listen to some songs. The songs also don't necessary follow the verse-chorus-bridge structure, and listening to it, as the song wanders its way through "rhythmically complex" structures, can be an adventure. For me, the quirky guitar riffs and lyric runs just seem to evoke the 90s.

So, math rock. Yep, it's a thing.