Monday, January 22, 2024
Are American Kids Old Enough?
When “Old Enough,” the Japanese reality television show from the early 90s, came to Netflix last year, American audiences were introduced to amusing and at times hilarious video clips of toddlers running errands around town while a camera crew followed them. The show, known as “My First Errand” in Japan, was even spoofed on Saturday Night Live with the toddlers replaced by pathetic twentysomething boyfriends.
The concept of the show Old Enough has me thinking, as both a parent and a teacher, about the expectations we have or don’t have for children at various ages. Certainly the ages at which we bestow responsibilities are inherently arbitrary. At age five we’re ready for school, and we should be reading by age eight. We can operate motor vehicles at sixteen, vote and serve in the military at eighteen, buy and consume alcohol or marijuana at twenty-one, and rent a car or hotel room at age twenty-five. Obviously many people can handle these at the designated age, while many others are ready somewhat earlier or far later.
The latest news from studies about Generation Z, the kids aged eleven to twenty-six, is that they are trailing previous in classic markers of adult responsibility. For example, fewer kids are choosing to get a driver's license at the age of sixteen. Fewer teens have jobs these days, and that has always been a hallmark of growth and maturity. Some delays may be positive – fewer are drinking earlier and more abstain longer from sexual activity. But the concern is that the current generation of young people are unusually risk-averse to the point of being limited in their ability to navigate the adult world.
Some people blame the helicopter and snowplow parenting that has become the standard of new parents over the past twenty years. New York Sun writer Lenore Skenazy raised the ire of parents and critics back in 2008 when she allowed her nine-year-old son to ride the subway home alone from Bloomingdales in Midtown Manhattan. She wrote a column about shopping with her son and then giving him a Metro card, subway map, and $20, telling him she’d see him when he got home. He made it home safely, of course.
Many readers responded positively, noting the freedom they had in childhood, while others rabidly chastised her, criticizing the decision as reckless and even negligent. In her column Skenazy wrote about her feelings toward people who wanted to charge her with child abuse: “Half the people I've told this episode to now want to turn me in for child abuse. As if keeping kids under lock and key and helmet and cell phone and nanny and surveillance is the right way to rear kids. It's not. It's debilitating — for us and for them.” There is much truth to her insight.
Skenazy actually got off easy, despite nationwide media attention, compared to the parents in Connecticut who were literally arrested for letting their children walk a few blocks to Duncan Donuts. Skenazy wrote another column about Cynthia Rivers of Killingly, Connecticut, who was arrested along with her husband after neighbors apparently called the police about young children walking unescorted. While the charges were dropped, the parents were later also investigated by DCFS for child neglect.
The show Old Enough is quite telling as much for what it says about the society as it does about the individual kids or families. In Japan, elementary school students regularly take public transportation and high speed trains by themselves to school, or even to places like Disneyland. NPR reporter and writer T.R. Reid documented numerous stories like this in his book Confucius Lives Next Door. In many countries throughout Europe and Southeast Asia, the transition between childhood and adulthood can be smoother because it’s not complicated by the age of adolescence. Young people are often in apprenticeships and working full-time by age sixteen.
In fact, American society may actually harm kids more through being overly cautious and convincing them they are not old enough. Robert Epstein, an editor at Psychology Today published a book about the subject called The Case Against Adolescence – Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen. Basically, Epstein suggests that childhood and specifically adolescence is a uniquely contemporary invention which actually hinders development of children in becoming adults and productive members of the community. Research suggests that for many young people, isolation from responsibility and separation from the adult world results in teens not actually learning to be adults.
Friday, January 19, 2024
Did a Robot Write This Column?
As I sat down at my computer in early January, I planned to share a few musings about “embracing change and navigating the rapids of life in colorful Colorado.” Of course, just like the unpredictable weather up in the Rockies, life has a way of throwing curveballs our way, especially when a publication deadline is looming. So, as I stared at a blank Google Doc, I decided to investigate the phenomenon of ChatGPT.
Technology such as ChatGPT needs a prompt to give it direction, and it allegedly produces “original” writing in the style of other writers. This ability is based on scanning the internet for previously published work, of which I have plenty. So, I prompted the AI software with my name, the words “voice” and “style,” and I added the word “Colorado” for geographical reference.
I instantly received a short essay about standing at the cusp of a new year, reflecting on the inevitable truth that change is as much a part of our lives as the sunshine on a crisp Colorado morning. Whether we’re dealing with the ups and downs of the job market, the ever-shifting landscape of relationships, or the unexpected challenges Mother Nature herself throws our way, change is the one constant we can count on. That change, at least in regards to this column, was some of the most superficial, cliched, and cheesy writing ever done in my name.
Alas, it was then my challenge to take that computer-generated column of babbling nonsense and craft it into something resembling a column. I mean, we all must embrace change, and as a writer and writing teacher, the use of AI is inevitable, so we might as well get used to it. That’s the Colorado spirit, to be sure. Whether it’s a small-town business reimagining its offerings to meet the demands of the modern era or a community coming together to support one another during tough times, our state exemplifies the spirit of resilience.
Of course, just like our favorite hiking trails winding through the mountains, life’s journey is full of twists and turns. As I embraced the unexpected, I thought I should also ask the computer to share some thoughts about education, which is the primary focus of my column. The column is called “Unpacking the Backpack,” suggesting these columns will explain the issues and nuances of public education, such as the complicated nature of how to deal with AI and ChatGPT.
Now, I don’t claim to have all the answers — I’m just a humble observer. So, I asked AI to dive into the bubbling cauldron of thoughts swirling around public education. Apparently, public education is a bit like a hike up a majestic Colorado mountain. It’s challenging, rewarding, and sometimes you might stumble on a loose rock, but the view from the top makes it all worthwhile. Our schools are the training grounds for the next generation of thinkers, dreamers, and doers – the very fabric that weaves our community together.
As a parent and teacher, I’ve seen the strengths and challenges our public education system faces. It’s a complex landscape, much like the diverse terrain of our state, and it requires thoughtful consideration and collective effort to navigate successfully. The educators who dedicate their days to nurturing young minds are like trail guides, helping our students navigate the twists and turns of knowledge and critical thinking. It’s a tough job, and they deserve our admiration as well as the resources and support to help them do their best work.
Of course, just as Colorado weather can be unpredictable, so too are the disparities in our education system. The gap between schools with ample resources and those facing challenges can be as wide as the Continental Divide. It’s time for our communities to ensure every student has access to quality education, regardless of their ZIP code. We need to foster creativity, critical thinking, and adaptability – skills that will serve our students well in the ever-changing landscape of the 21st century.
As we ponder public education in Colorado, we need to come together to discuss, debate, and ultimately shape the education system we want for our kids. We are the stewards of their future, and our decisions today will echo in the halls of tomorrow. And while I still don’t have all the answers, I will say this about education, writing, and ChatGPT – this is undoubtedly the worst I column I have ever not written.
Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Who’s the College Applicant?
As the December college admissions dates approach, I’m struck by Didion’s insight that too often the college application process is more about the parents than the kids. Didion explains the wisdom she realized decades after her college disappointment. As a successful writer at that point, she explained, “none of it matters very much … these early successes, early failures.” In pondering her cousin’s struggle, Didion hoped people could “find some way to let our children know this … [because] finding one’s role at seventeen is problem enough, without being handed somebody else’s script.”
Didion’s advice was mirrored recently by writer Allison Tate in a piece for the Washington Post titled “College Admissions are Tough Enough – Parents, Don’t Make it Any Worse.” As the mother of two college-aged children, Tate recalled angst-filled conversations she’s had with young people about applying to college. They wonder if they should start a club, if they’re taking the right classes, if their parents will be proud of them if they don’t get into the right school. One student mentioned a college he liked and which was a good fit, but then lamented, “I can’t apply there. My dad says it’s not a good school.”
Too often, successful, high-achieving students who just want to get into “a good college” are left feeling inadequate and disappointed in their accomplishments. Just for perspective, there are roughly 6000 post-secondary institutions in the United States, and more than 3000 degree-granting colleges and universities. So, when students aim for the top ten percent of colleges, they have literally hundreds of options. Even on the most selective lists, there are more than thirty schools in the top one percent. Sadly, however, too many people believe there are really only a few that are even worth considering.
This misleading and myopic view of higher education has spawned an entire industry which exploits the anxiety of the college admissions process. Many people believe they can, or must, play the college admissions game by getting advice from specialized college admissions counselors. However, unless there’s some sort of corrupt deal-making like in the Varsity Blues scandal a few years ago, none of these counselors are actually getting a kid into the college. It’s more likely the private college counselor industry is simply preying on the insecurities of families who have been led to believe their child is not going to get into a good college, or better said “the right college.”
This obsessive pursuit of admission to the right school was the focus of a recent New York Times article on elite colleges. The impetus was an interview with actress Felicity Huffman who went to jail for her part in the college admissions scandal. In a statement that is “both shocking and illuminating,” Huffman justified her actions by saying “I felt like I had to give my daughter a future.” The pressure that led an affluent, well-connected celebrity to pay someone to “fix” her daughter’s SAT score reflects the mystifying actions some parents will take to gain an advantage to their children’s college process.
New York Times writer Frank Bruni has researched the college admissions process, and he is particularly critical of ideas like a “good college” or “the right school.” Bruni, who turned down Yale University to attend North Carolina, published his findings in his book Where You Go is not Who You’ll Be. Alison Tate believes terms like “reach school,” “dream college,” and “safety school” should be abolished from any authentic conservation about colleges between students and their parents. Seriously, what child would be proud and excited to attend their safety school?
As Didion pointed out years ago, growing up is hard enough without the pressure of “the right school.” Several years ago I listened to a parent of a graduating senior give some advice to the parents of incoming freshmen who were about to embark on their high school career. “Remember,” she said, “you’re raising a child, not a college applicant.”
Monday, December 4, 2023
It’s Probably the Cell Phones
A recent column for The Villager
“Hey! Look up! Stop texting and just walk.”
The number of times teachers these days have to say that to students simply to avoid a collision in the hallway is truly staggering. Gen Z and now Generation Alpha are so glued to their phones they can barely look away for a few minutes walking from one class to another. And, of course, the minute they arrive in their classrooms before the bell, they sit at their desks hunched over the screen again, scrolling an endless stream of addictive media.
NBC News recently reported on the overwhelming digital stimulus kids are bombarded with every day. According to a report from Common Sense Media, the average kid and teenager receives nearly 300 messages or notifications every day. Some users report getting as many as 5000 in a twenty-four hour period. That sort of sensory and emotional overload simply can’t be beneficial to the brain. Jim Steyer, the CEO of Common Sense Media, laments how young people "literally wake up and before they go to the bathroom, they're on their phone.”
The problem – truly a sociological epidemic – has become so pervasive and detrimental that the state of Florida recently passed legislation virtually banning the use of cell phones, especially the social media app Tik-Tok, by students during class time. All districts must develop clear specific policies which prevent the use of cell phones by students during school hours unless directed to use them for instructional purposes. And, of course, in places where students have laptops or computer access, the cell phone is completely unnecessary at school. In signing the bill, Florida governor Ron DeSantis noted social media “does more harm than good.”
The incessant presence of cell phones is clearly playing a key role in social problems with teens. Noah Smith, a researcher and columnist for Bloomberg media, notes a strong correlation between rising rates of unhappiness in teens and their pervasive cell phone existence. From rising absenteeism to stagnant academic results to stunning levels of reported anxiety and depression, along with an overwhelming ennui and sense of detached hopelessness, there’s little doubt kids are struggling in ways they haven’t before.
While many people blame the isolation of the pandemic for teen mental health issues, Smith’s analysis of the data suggests the problems began to rise exponentially in about 2012, which is about the time smartphones became a common accessory for people. Psychologist Jean Twenge agrees, naming the young people of today “iGen,” the title of her book which is subtitled “Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy – and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood.”
Tik-Tok is undoubtedly fueling dissatisfaction with the world, especially among young people. A New York Times story recently suggested “Tik-Tok economics” is the reason young people fret about the economy despite key indicators trending positive. In fact, one social media creator has even coined the phrase “Vibecession” to reflect the economic despair young people are expressing on social media in contrast to positive economic news. And research suggests young people predominantly get their news from Tik-Tok, using it as a search engine more than Google.
Years ago on Conan O’Brien’s talk show, comedian Louis C.K. gave an amusing but sincere explanation for why he wouldn’t get his daughter a cell phone. He decried what he called “the forever empty,” which is our constant need for stimulus and validation. People continuously reach for their cell phones because they can’t be alone, having lost the ability to simply “be yourself and not be doing something.” This constant craving for entertainment or distraction or validation consumes people so much they can’t even sit in their cars at a stoplight for forty-five seconds without reaching for their cell phone. From the dentist’s office to the barber shop to the line at the post office, everyone is scrolling.
Cell phones are not going away, but we can take a few basic steps to decrease the corrosive influence they have on our lives. One simple bit of advice – ok, it’s kind of a directive – that I give my students everyday is to simply not walk with their cell phones in their hands. Put it in a pocket or in their backpack. Stop texting, stop scrolling, stop Snapping, stop streaming, and just walk.
As everyone takes a few days off this week to celebrate Thanksgiving and hopefully reconnect with friends and families, let’s try to leave the cell phones out of it.
“Hey! Look up! Stop texting and just walk.”
The number of times teachers these days have to say that to students simply to avoid a collision in the hallway is truly staggering. Gen Z and now Generation Alpha are so glued to their phones they can barely look away for a few minutes walking from one class to another. And, of course, the minute they arrive in their classrooms before the bell, they sit at their desks hunched over the screen again, scrolling an endless stream of addictive media.
NBC News recently reported on the overwhelming digital stimulus kids are bombarded with every day. According to a report from Common Sense Media, the average kid and teenager receives nearly 300 messages or notifications every day. Some users report getting as many as 5000 in a twenty-four hour period. That sort of sensory and emotional overload simply can’t be beneficial to the brain. Jim Steyer, the CEO of Common Sense Media, laments how young people "literally wake up and before they go to the bathroom, they're on their phone.”
The problem – truly a sociological epidemic – has become so pervasive and detrimental that the state of Florida recently passed legislation virtually banning the use of cell phones, especially the social media app Tik-Tok, by students during class time. All districts must develop clear specific policies which prevent the use of cell phones by students during school hours unless directed to use them for instructional purposes. And, of course, in places where students have laptops or computer access, the cell phone is completely unnecessary at school. In signing the bill, Florida governor Ron DeSantis noted social media “does more harm than good.”
The incessant presence of cell phones is clearly playing a key role in social problems with teens. Noah Smith, a researcher and columnist for Bloomberg media, notes a strong correlation between rising rates of unhappiness in teens and their pervasive cell phone existence. From rising absenteeism to stagnant academic results to stunning levels of reported anxiety and depression, along with an overwhelming ennui and sense of detached hopelessness, there’s little doubt kids are struggling in ways they haven’t before.
While many people blame the isolation of the pandemic for teen mental health issues, Smith’s analysis of the data suggests the problems began to rise exponentially in about 2012, which is about the time smartphones became a common accessory for people. Psychologist Jean Twenge agrees, naming the young people of today “iGen,” the title of her book which is subtitled “Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy – and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood.”
Tik-Tok is undoubtedly fueling dissatisfaction with the world, especially among young people. A New York Times story recently suggested “Tik-Tok economics” is the reason young people fret about the economy despite key indicators trending positive. In fact, one social media creator has even coined the phrase “Vibecession” to reflect the economic despair young people are expressing on social media in contrast to positive economic news. And research suggests young people predominantly get their news from Tik-Tok, using it as a search engine more than Google.
Years ago on Conan O’Brien’s talk show, comedian Louis C.K. gave an amusing but sincere explanation for why he wouldn’t get his daughter a cell phone. He decried what he called “the forever empty,” which is our constant need for stimulus and validation. People continuously reach for their cell phones because they can’t be alone, having lost the ability to simply “be yourself and not be doing something.” This constant craving for entertainment or distraction or validation consumes people so much they can’t even sit in their cars at a stoplight for forty-five seconds without reaching for their cell phone. From the dentist’s office to the barber shop to the line at the post office, everyone is scrolling.
Cell phones are not going away, but we can take a few basic steps to decrease the corrosive influence they have on our lives. One simple bit of advice – ok, it’s kind of a directive – that I give my students everyday is to simply not walk with their cell phones in their hands. Put it in a pocket or in their backpack. Stop texting, stop scrolling, stop Snapping, stop streaming, and just walk.
As everyone takes a few days off this week to celebrate Thanksgiving and hopefully reconnect with friends and families, let’s try to leave the cell phones out of it.
Monday, November 6, 2023
The New SAT is a Joke
This week's column for The Villager.
As an AP English teacher and a former standardized test coordinator, I have ample reason to complain about the College Board, the non-profit organization responsible for the SAT, the PSAT, and Advanced Placement (AP) classes in high school. The most significant concern for teachers is that AP classes have a proscribed, limited curriculum because the class is focused on passing a single national exam. Teaching to a single test limits the content and skills teachers can emphasize. As for being a test coordinator, don’t even get me started on the days of my life spent on hold with College Board’s customer service line.
Those concerns, however, pale in comparison to my disappointment in College Board’s decision to change the format of the SAT and PSAT tests and to switch to an all-digital test. When the state of Colorado’s contract with College Board comes up for renewal, the state should immediately cut ties with the company and switch back to the ACT for state testing. The new SAT and PSAT tests can no longer be trusted as an accurate measure of a student’s reading ability and potential to understand complex materials at the college level. In fact, the new SAT can no longer be considered a reading test at all.
The new test format is inherently easier, but also inauthentic as a legitimate measure of literacy. According to information provided by College Board, the new digital format is shorter than the paper version. The SAT is now two hours, rather than three, and it has 56 fewer questions. Simply based on averages, fewer questions decreases the margin of error. Students can get fewer questions wrong and still receive high scores – except of course for College Board adjusting the difficulty level. That’s because the test is now adaptive – meaning as students shift sections, they receive more or less challenging questions based on their success in the first module.
However, the most egregious change is in the question format. In the past, students would read long passages and answer ten or so comprehensive questions about each passage to reflect their full understanding of broad ideas and individual language choices. The new test, however, has no long passages. Students read short pieces of just a couple sentences or so, and they answer a single question. As a veteran English teacher and writer, I do not understand how College Board can in any way claim to colleges and universities that their test measures a student’s ability to read and comprehend complex materials. Because they are no longer reading passages. And, I haven’t even delved into changes to the math test which eliminated the “no calculator” section.
Forbes magazine recently spoke with Shaan Patel, MD, MBA, and founder/CEO of Prep Expert SAT & ACT Preparation, about the changes to the test. In no uncertain terms, Patel explained that College Board is simply a business, and changes are designed to increase profits. According to Patel, “The College Board purposely makes the SAT easier with every redesign because it wants more students to take the SAT.” The AP exams, which are used to grant college credit, are also getting easier at an alarming rate. For example, according to released data, the pass rate for the AP English Literature exam was 43% in 2021. Yet, just one year later, the pass rate in 2022 had risen to an astonishing 77%.
Clearly, the College Board is not really an educational services company. It’s simply a major international business focused on making a lot of money. It’s mystifying that the company is granted non-profit status, especially when CEO David Coleman reportedly had a $2.5 million salary in 2020. And profits continue to grow. The company has radically decreased its costs by eliminating paper tests, yet they still charge the same price. With no paper or transportation costs, they can eliminate huge numbers of workers. Heck, at this point, the College Board could be run by three tech bros in their dorm room or parents’ basement. And, honestly, with these changes that feels like the case.
While there will always be legitimate concerns about the predictive factors of any standardized test, the ACT is certainly now more authentic than the SAT. Thus, states, school districts, and universities should reconsider the faith they place in SAT tests. Now, if we could just convince the ACT to extend the time for its reading tests.
As an AP English teacher and a former standardized test coordinator, I have ample reason to complain about the College Board, the non-profit organization responsible for the SAT, the PSAT, and Advanced Placement (AP) classes in high school. The most significant concern for teachers is that AP classes have a proscribed, limited curriculum because the class is focused on passing a single national exam. Teaching to a single test limits the content and skills teachers can emphasize. As for being a test coordinator, don’t even get me started on the days of my life spent on hold with College Board’s customer service line.
Those concerns, however, pale in comparison to my disappointment in College Board’s decision to change the format of the SAT and PSAT tests and to switch to an all-digital test. When the state of Colorado’s contract with College Board comes up for renewal, the state should immediately cut ties with the company and switch back to the ACT for state testing. The new SAT and PSAT tests can no longer be trusted as an accurate measure of a student’s reading ability and potential to understand complex materials at the college level. In fact, the new SAT can no longer be considered a reading test at all.
The new test format is inherently easier, but also inauthentic as a legitimate measure of literacy. According to information provided by College Board, the new digital format is shorter than the paper version. The SAT is now two hours, rather than three, and it has 56 fewer questions. Simply based on averages, fewer questions decreases the margin of error. Students can get fewer questions wrong and still receive high scores – except of course for College Board adjusting the difficulty level. That’s because the test is now adaptive – meaning as students shift sections, they receive more or less challenging questions based on their success in the first module.
However, the most egregious change is in the question format. In the past, students would read long passages and answer ten or so comprehensive questions about each passage to reflect their full understanding of broad ideas and individual language choices. The new test, however, has no long passages. Students read short pieces of just a couple sentences or so, and they answer a single question. As a veteran English teacher and writer, I do not understand how College Board can in any way claim to colleges and universities that their test measures a student’s ability to read and comprehend complex materials. Because they are no longer reading passages. And, I haven’t even delved into changes to the math test which eliminated the “no calculator” section.
Forbes magazine recently spoke with Shaan Patel, MD, MBA, and founder/CEO of Prep Expert SAT & ACT Preparation, about the changes to the test. In no uncertain terms, Patel explained that College Board is simply a business, and changes are designed to increase profits. According to Patel, “The College Board purposely makes the SAT easier with every redesign because it wants more students to take the SAT.” The AP exams, which are used to grant college credit, are also getting easier at an alarming rate. For example, according to released data, the pass rate for the AP English Literature exam was 43% in 2021. Yet, just one year later, the pass rate in 2022 had risen to an astonishing 77%.
Clearly, the College Board is not really an educational services company. It’s simply a major international business focused on making a lot of money. It’s mystifying that the company is granted non-profit status, especially when CEO David Coleman reportedly had a $2.5 million salary in 2020. And profits continue to grow. The company has radically decreased its costs by eliminating paper tests, yet they still charge the same price. With no paper or transportation costs, they can eliminate huge numbers of workers. Heck, at this point, the College Board could be run by three tech bros in their dorm room or parents’ basement. And, honestly, with these changes that feels like the case.
While there will always be legitimate concerns about the predictive factors of any standardized test, the ACT is certainly now more authentic than the SAT. Thus, states, school districts, and universities should reconsider the faith they place in SAT tests. Now, if we could just convince the ACT to extend the time for its reading tests.
Friday, October 27, 2023
School Board Candidates Have Much to Learn
My recent column for The Villager focuses on issues raised in a few school board races here in southeast Denver.
Discussing public education with people reveals an odd dichotomy – a majority of Americans have a negative view of education while at the same time viewing their own schools and personal education positively. That’s not surprising in a society which has nothing but contempt for politicians and politics in general while simultaneously re-electing 92% of political incumbents. Americans often criticize every politician and school in the country … except their own.
As ballots were delivered last week, and Coloradans considered local races and statewide initiatives, the school board elections in the south Denver metro area have been drawing attention. Two local school board candidates have created a website to explain their vision for how they would “fix schools” in their district. For them, it’s pretty easy – just identify the good teachers and have the “not-as-good” teachers simply copy their lesson plans and mimic their behavior after watching a video of the good teacher in action.
There are two problems with this seemingly logical solution – one, it begs the question by suggesting teachers don’t already practice collaboration and modeling as part of their professional development; and two, it’s already been proven not to work. Back in 2012, the Gates Foundation had a similar idea called the Measures of Effective Teaching. Gates spent $600 million trying to identify, quantify, and replicate what it means to be a good teacher.
After several years of study, the Rand Corporation concluded the experiment simply made no difference. That makes sense when looked at practically. For example, we’ve all watched master chefs work culinary magic on the Food Network yet failed to replicate those dinners ourselves. Most of us understand that watching a master do something successfully and even following the exact recipe for the dish does not always work out so well in our home kitchens.
Comparing schools and districts can also be misleading, though some candidates like to do that in their campaigns. Case in point: the stark contrast in test scores at two middle schools in the Cherry Creek District – The Challenge School and Prairie Middle School. Challenge, for voters who are unaware, is a magnet school for gifted and academically advanced students. It’s not a neighborhood school any student can attend, but instead a “magnet” which draws top students from around the district. Students must apply and are tested for advanced abilities prior to admission. By contrast, Prairie is a neighborhood school that serves any student in its boundaries.
Additionally, it’s worth noting the poverty rate for Challenge is 13% whereas the poverty rate at Prairie is 71%. Poverty is a significant consideration in judging schools for one simple reason – the most significant and accurate metric for predicting academic success is the socioeconomic status of the parents. Wealthier students simply perform better in school than students living in poverty. There are myriad reasons for the disparity, and while it doesn’t suggest poor students cannot be academically successful, it does warrant close consideration.
All school board members and candidates are rightfully concerned about test scores. That said, there’s never been a time all students achieve at or above grade level. In 2002, Congress and President Bush passed an education reform bill with a goal that 100% of students would be proficient by 2014. Clearly, that didn’t happen, for it’s only in fiction like Garrison Keillor’s famous town of Lake Wobegon that “all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.” And regarding literacy scores, it’s worth remembering that Rudolph Flesch published “Why Johnny Can’t Read” in America way back in 1955.
We should admire anyone willing to run for public office in hopes of improving their communities. However, we should also expect all candidates and elected officials to have deep familiarity with the schools they would represent. I urge all candidates for local school boards to begin by becoming actively involved in their schools. For example, they should spend time attending accountability meetings at the school and district level, as well as board meetings and the PTCO.
In fact, I would like to see school board members actually work in schools. I believe it would be enlightening if school board members were expected to have a substitute teacher license and work in the schools of their community at least one day a month. As one school board candidate acknowledged during a recent public forum, “I’m still learning a lot about the district.” Spending actual time in schools is a good place to start.
Discussing public education with people reveals an odd dichotomy – a majority of Americans have a negative view of education while at the same time viewing their own schools and personal education positively. That’s not surprising in a society which has nothing but contempt for politicians and politics in general while simultaneously re-electing 92% of political incumbents. Americans often criticize every politician and school in the country … except their own.
As ballots were delivered last week, and Coloradans considered local races and statewide initiatives, the school board elections in the south Denver metro area have been drawing attention. Two local school board candidates have created a website to explain their vision for how they would “fix schools” in their district. For them, it’s pretty easy – just identify the good teachers and have the “not-as-good” teachers simply copy their lesson plans and mimic their behavior after watching a video of the good teacher in action.
There are two problems with this seemingly logical solution – one, it begs the question by suggesting teachers don’t already practice collaboration and modeling as part of their professional development; and two, it’s already been proven not to work. Back in 2012, the Gates Foundation had a similar idea called the Measures of Effective Teaching. Gates spent $600 million trying to identify, quantify, and replicate what it means to be a good teacher.
After several years of study, the Rand Corporation concluded the experiment simply made no difference. That makes sense when looked at practically. For example, we’ve all watched master chefs work culinary magic on the Food Network yet failed to replicate those dinners ourselves. Most of us understand that watching a master do something successfully and even following the exact recipe for the dish does not always work out so well in our home kitchens.
Comparing schools and districts can also be misleading, though some candidates like to do that in their campaigns. Case in point: the stark contrast in test scores at two middle schools in the Cherry Creek District – The Challenge School and Prairie Middle School. Challenge, for voters who are unaware, is a magnet school for gifted and academically advanced students. It’s not a neighborhood school any student can attend, but instead a “magnet” which draws top students from around the district. Students must apply and are tested for advanced abilities prior to admission. By contrast, Prairie is a neighborhood school that serves any student in its boundaries.
Additionally, it’s worth noting the poverty rate for Challenge is 13% whereas the poverty rate at Prairie is 71%. Poverty is a significant consideration in judging schools for one simple reason – the most significant and accurate metric for predicting academic success is the socioeconomic status of the parents. Wealthier students simply perform better in school than students living in poverty. There are myriad reasons for the disparity, and while it doesn’t suggest poor students cannot be academically successful, it does warrant close consideration.
All school board members and candidates are rightfully concerned about test scores. That said, there’s never been a time all students achieve at or above grade level. In 2002, Congress and President Bush passed an education reform bill with a goal that 100% of students would be proficient by 2014. Clearly, that didn’t happen, for it’s only in fiction like Garrison Keillor’s famous town of Lake Wobegon that “all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.” And regarding literacy scores, it’s worth remembering that Rudolph Flesch published “Why Johnny Can’t Read” in America way back in 1955.
We should admire anyone willing to run for public office in hopes of improving their communities. However, we should also expect all candidates and elected officials to have deep familiarity with the schools they would represent. I urge all candidates for local school boards to begin by becoming actively involved in their schools. For example, they should spend time attending accountability meetings at the school and district level, as well as board meetings and the PTCO.
In fact, I would like to see school board members actually work in schools. I believe it would be enlightening if school board members were expected to have a substitute teacher license and work in the schools of their community at least one day a month. As one school board candidate acknowledged during a recent public forum, “I’m still learning a lot about the district.” Spending actual time in schools is a good place to start.
Friday, October 13, 2023
The Village Loses a “Third Place”
How dumb does a landlord have to be to drive out a Starbucks? That sad story is this week's column.
The first time I walked into the Starbucks at Belleview Square was in March of 2003, during the epic blizzard which left four feet of snow across the metro area. I’d flown into Denver the night before – my first ever trip to Colorado – to interview for a job at Cherry Creek High School. The English coordinator Steve Kascht let me know that after four days of snow, everything was closed except King Soopers and the local Starbucks, so that’s where we’d meet the school principal, Dr. Kathy Smith.
The buzz in the store that day was palpable, and not just because of the caffeine. People were emerging from days stuck at home, excitedly catching up with friends, sharing stories and updates from the storm clean up. As I interviewed for my job, Kathy’s daughter and several friends – all students at Creek – came into the store and stopped by our table. When Kathy needed to take a phone call and Steve went to refresh his coffee, I sat and chatted with the kids about what I do as a teacher. When Kathy returned and asked how it was going, her daughter looked at her and said, “Hire him, Mom.”
Clearly, the local Starbucks is a rather special place for me, as it is for so many. From playing board games with my kids during winter breaks, drinking hot chocolate and peppermint mochas, to my Friday morning coffee walks with the admin team at Cherry Creek, to Thursday afternoons in the summer when the kids got ice cream and the adults sipped iced lattes on the patio, that store is a pretty special place. It’s a part of our community. And now, it’s being taken away.
The Creek community and Greenwood Village was dealt a serious blow last week when a sign appeared in the store window announcing Starbucks would permanently close on October 13. After more than two decades in the same location, one of the most stable, popular, and successful businesses in the area is closing. To patrons of the store, that makes no sense. According to a representative from Regency Centers, which is the property owner and landlord for Belleview Square, the lease was up, and the parties were unable to reach a deal. And so we lose a beloved “Third Place.”
The Third Place is a sociological term for social environments that are separate from the two primary places in most people’s lives, home and work. These social places are integral to a sense of community and civic engagement. They are gathering spaces for friends and families in the tradition of the public house, or pub, and since the time of the Enlightenment, the local coffee house has been an integral part of our society.
Writers like Robert Putnam in his book Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital (1995) and Ray Oldenburg in The Great Good Place (1989) stress the importance of these places to maintain civic ties and social engagement that contribute to a thriving society. In establishing what sociologists call a “sense of place,” gathering locations promote and cultivate a sense of belonging.
In this regard, commercial property owners have a responsibility beyond simple commerce – they are stewards of the community. While I was not privy to the negotiations that failed, it seems fairly obvious Regency has failed its duty to the community of Greenwood Village and Cherry Creek. I can’t imagine after twenty-five years as loyal renters that Starbucks made unreasonable demands. In fact, word on the street is that Starbucks did not want to leave, but the landlord made staying untenable. I’ve heard from a third party that Starbucks confirmed they could not reach an agreement, indicating they “need to make a profit.”
Thus, I would not at all be surprised to learn Regency raised the rent beyond a reasonable rate simply because they can. A reasonable rate for a coffee shop, a business with a slim revenue margin, is a pretty obvious number. And after two-plus decades at that location, I’d think a stellar company like Starbucks knows its business. Ultimately, everyone loses in this case. Starbucks loses a prime location. Regency loses rent during the time the store is vacant. No other coffee shop will survive there if Starbucks can’t. So, the community can expect the space to turn over numerous times.
Empty storefronts are never good for a community, and this wound seems self-inflicted. I know as a member of the community, I would rather see Regency leave than Starbucks.
The first time I walked into the Starbucks at Belleview Square was in March of 2003, during the epic blizzard which left four feet of snow across the metro area. I’d flown into Denver the night before – my first ever trip to Colorado – to interview for a job at Cherry Creek High School. The English coordinator Steve Kascht let me know that after four days of snow, everything was closed except King Soopers and the local Starbucks, so that’s where we’d meet the school principal, Dr. Kathy Smith.
The buzz in the store that day was palpable, and not just because of the caffeine. People were emerging from days stuck at home, excitedly catching up with friends, sharing stories and updates from the storm clean up. As I interviewed for my job, Kathy’s daughter and several friends – all students at Creek – came into the store and stopped by our table. When Kathy needed to take a phone call and Steve went to refresh his coffee, I sat and chatted with the kids about what I do as a teacher. When Kathy returned and asked how it was going, her daughter looked at her and said, “Hire him, Mom.”
Clearly, the local Starbucks is a rather special place for me, as it is for so many. From playing board games with my kids during winter breaks, drinking hot chocolate and peppermint mochas, to my Friday morning coffee walks with the admin team at Cherry Creek, to Thursday afternoons in the summer when the kids got ice cream and the adults sipped iced lattes on the patio, that store is a pretty special place. It’s a part of our community. And now, it’s being taken away.
The Creek community and Greenwood Village was dealt a serious blow last week when a sign appeared in the store window announcing Starbucks would permanently close on October 13. After more than two decades in the same location, one of the most stable, popular, and successful businesses in the area is closing. To patrons of the store, that makes no sense. According to a representative from Regency Centers, which is the property owner and landlord for Belleview Square, the lease was up, and the parties were unable to reach a deal. And so we lose a beloved “Third Place.”
The Third Place is a sociological term for social environments that are separate from the two primary places in most people’s lives, home and work. These social places are integral to a sense of community and civic engagement. They are gathering spaces for friends and families in the tradition of the public house, or pub, and since the time of the Enlightenment, the local coffee house has been an integral part of our society.
Writers like Robert Putnam in his book Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital (1995) and Ray Oldenburg in The Great Good Place (1989) stress the importance of these places to maintain civic ties and social engagement that contribute to a thriving society. In establishing what sociologists call a “sense of place,” gathering locations promote and cultivate a sense of belonging.
In this regard, commercial property owners have a responsibility beyond simple commerce – they are stewards of the community. While I was not privy to the negotiations that failed, it seems fairly obvious Regency has failed its duty to the community of Greenwood Village and Cherry Creek. I can’t imagine after twenty-five years as loyal renters that Starbucks made unreasonable demands. In fact, word on the street is that Starbucks did not want to leave, but the landlord made staying untenable. I’ve heard from a third party that Starbucks confirmed they could not reach an agreement, indicating they “need to make a profit.”
Thus, I would not at all be surprised to learn Regency raised the rent beyond a reasonable rate simply because they can. A reasonable rate for a coffee shop, a business with a slim revenue margin, is a pretty obvious number. And after two-plus decades at that location, I’d think a stellar company like Starbucks knows its business. Ultimately, everyone loses in this case. Starbucks loses a prime location. Regency loses rent during the time the store is vacant. No other coffee shop will survive there if Starbucks can’t. So, the community can expect the space to turn over numerous times.
Empty storefronts are never good for a community, and this wound seems self-inflicted. I know as a member of the community, I would rather see Regency leave than Starbucks.
Tuesday, October 10, 2023
In Defense of the Oxford Comma
To comma or not to comma, that is the debate in the world of writers and writing teachers. Few grammatical issues get English teachers as worked up as the optionality of the Oxford comma. While many writers, educators, and organizations deem the use of the comma simply a style issue, one at the whim of the writer, others stand their ground on the sacrosanct necessity of the punctuation mark. In the professional world, the primary advice on using the comma is to simply be consistent. I, however, respectfully disagree.
For the uninitiated, the Oxford comma, also known as the “serial comma,” is the final comma before the conjunction in a list, or words in a series. For example, “I am a writer, a teacher, and an artist.” The final comma before the word “and” is the Oxford comma. As a traditionalist and a product of an old-school Catholic education, I’m an ardent, uncompromising proponent of the Oxford comma. Sister Brennan would never forgive me for deeming grammatical rules to be arbitrary and loose, the very antithesis a rule.
For comma proponents, there doesn’t seem to be any logical reason to eliminate the mark. In technical writing, or more specifically business documents and legal paperwork, the comma can be a game changer. For as long as I’ve taught English, specifically grammar mechanics and usage with an eye toward standardized test prep, I have always heard praise and support from one very specific group of parents – those who are attorneys. Commas matter a great deal in the legal profession.
I can’t tell you the number of times that parents who are lawyers make it a point to thank me for teaching grammar and specifically punctuation. As they tell me, in legal contracts a single comma added or eliminated can be of monumental importance. The example I always share with my students is specifically related to inheritance of property.
Say three sisters – Elizabeth, Jane, and Lydia – have rather wealthy parents who pass away after a long and illustrious life. At the reading of the will, the following is stated: “The estate shall be divided among Elizabeth, Jane, and Lydia.” In that situation, family harmony is likely preserved when each sister receives an equal share of 33.3%. However, minus the Oxford comma when “The estate shall be divided among Elizabeth, Jane and Lydia,” there is a potential conflict if parties read that to mean Elizabeth receives 50% and the other two get 25% each.
These hypotheticals, of course, have real world implications as well. That was the case in 2018 with a legal dispute in Portland, Maine between Oakhurst Dairy and its drivers. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the missing comma in a contract created enough uncertainty that the court must side with the drivers, resulting in the company paying out $10 million in settlement. There are numerous other cases of “costly commas” throughout legal history, and with such a precarious distinction, it poses the question of why might anyone leave the issue up to chance.
Some people speculate that the optional use of the comma began with the media, specifically print journalism. With the Associated Press Stylebook officially standing on the side of eliminating the comma, it seems the journalism field certainly has influence. The financial argument comes down to a matter of cost – eliminating the comma literally saves ink. To those outside the field, the cost of ink for a single comma seems miniscule and insignificant. However, when a publication like the New York Times prints millions of copies, that ink adds up.
While eliminating the comma could save money on the front end, let’s hope they don’t end up losing far more in a legal dispute that hinges upon the presence of that punctuation mark. As an English teacher whose students take ACT, SAT, and PSAT tests, I’ll continue to encourage the use of the comma. In standardized test format, the serial comma has long been the standard. If they’re going to err on the side of caution, I advise using the comma.
Clearly good grammar and punctuation can save a lot of money. More importantly, though, it can even save lives. For example, don't forget there’s a huge difference between the sentence, “Let’s eat, Grandma” and “Let’s eat Grandma.” And, of course, no one would think twice if they learned, “Joe likes cooking, his family, and his dog.” However, if they were to learn that “Joe likes cooking his family and his dog,” well then …
Wednesday, September 27, 2023
Lights, Camera, Teach!
Latest column for The Villager. I've been thinking about this idea for a while now. Wondering if there might be a book in here somewhere.
“Oh, Captain, my Captain.”
In 1989, those words launched a thousand teaching careers. The movie was Dead Poets Society, the star was Robin Williams, and the quote – from a Walt Whitman poem eulogizing Abraham Lincoln – was the dramatic high point of the classic inspirational teacher movie. That beloved genre, filled with heartwarming stories of passionate educators guiding reluctant young people to academic success and self-discovery, is a time-honored institution in film and television.
The primary draw of these movies is the shared common experience of viewers. Everyone has a favorite teacher, and most people have a story about one who made a difference, opened their minds, turned them around, and even changed their life. We all have that one class, that one year, that one teacher, that one moment which is an indelible and heartwarming memory to share. And that’s one key reason the inspirational teacher story is so popular and is remade so many times.
The earliest on-screen version of this familiar story is probably Goodbye, Mr. Chips, first made in 1939 and remade in 1969. The next two most well-known versions of onscreen teacher heroes both featured Sydney Poitier. In 1955, he starred as a tough kid and reluctant, rebellious student in the Bronx who is ultimately inspired by the tough love of his teacher. Poitier returned to the genre at the front of the classroom in 1967 as the tough love teacher who brings a group of British hooligans to education and maturity through self respect in the classic To, Sir, with Love.
The 1980s and 90s can be considered the Golden Age of the great teacher film with a seemingly endless string of heroic public servants inspiring groups of ambivalent and rebellious youth through a mixture of tough love, witty banter, and mutual respect. From Richard Dreyfus finding his true calling as a music teacher, not a musician, in Mr. Holland’s Opus to Michelle Pfeiffer and Hillary Swank playing the savior teacher to inner city youth in Dangerous Minds and Freedom Writers, every year seemed to produce another rendition of the same old story. And the inspirational, but often wise-cracking, teacher hero is not just on the big screen. Going back to the 1970s, television has seen numerous iterations of the hero Welcome back Kotter to Abbot Elementary.
The primary problem with the classic teacher movie is a predictable formula based on false narratives and unrealistic expectations. The teacher wins over a bunch of disengaged, unmotivated kids and inspires them to love learning and excel in a very short time. That’s true even when the films are based on true stories, as in Stand and Deliver, where it appears the teacher Jaime Escalante takes a group of underprivileged students with no math background, and in one year inspires them to take and pass the AP Calculus exam. In fact, Escalante built his program over many years with students who’d shown an aptitude but had never felt they belonged in the class.
In Dead Poets Society the students are urged to “seize the day” and “make their lives extraordinary,” but writer Elizabeth Grace Mathew suggests “the boys were actually thriving before Mr. Keating got there.” They were, in their own small ways, rebelling as all adolescents do, but still achieving. Their inspirational teacher actually leads them to tragic results. In a New York Times column, teacher Tom Ford cautioned viewers that “It’s as if all the previously insurmountable obstacles students face could be erased by a 10-minute pep talk. This trivializes not only the difficulties many real students must overcome, but also the hard-earned skill and tireless effort real teachers must use to help those students succeed.”
The inspirational teacher stereotype has even been held up to brilliant mockery in films like Bad Teacher starring Cameron Diaz as the title character who is motivated to push her students to success on state tests simply to fund her breast implants, which she hopes will win her a wealthy husband so she can quit the job she actually hates. In an article for The Atlantic, writer Eleanor Barkhorn actually praises Bad Teacher as “Finally, a film that takes down the destructive myth of the hero instructor.”
There is much we can learn and be inspired by through fictional teachers in film and television. There are also many destructive myths and misleading assumptions rooted in the inspirational teacher story. So, keeping in mind that these stories are first and foremost simply entertainment, we should all remember it’s never as simple as Lights, Camera, Teach!
“Oh, Captain, my Captain.”
In 1989, those words launched a thousand teaching careers. The movie was Dead Poets Society, the star was Robin Williams, and the quote – from a Walt Whitman poem eulogizing Abraham Lincoln – was the dramatic high point of the classic inspirational teacher movie. That beloved genre, filled with heartwarming stories of passionate educators guiding reluctant young people to academic success and self-discovery, is a time-honored institution in film and television.
The primary draw of these movies is the shared common experience of viewers. Everyone has a favorite teacher, and most people have a story about one who made a difference, opened their minds, turned them around, and even changed their life. We all have that one class, that one year, that one teacher, that one moment which is an indelible and heartwarming memory to share. And that’s one key reason the inspirational teacher story is so popular and is remade so many times.
The earliest on-screen version of this familiar story is probably Goodbye, Mr. Chips, first made in 1939 and remade in 1969. The next two most well-known versions of onscreen teacher heroes both featured Sydney Poitier. In 1955, he starred as a tough kid and reluctant, rebellious student in the Bronx who is ultimately inspired by the tough love of his teacher. Poitier returned to the genre at the front of the classroom in 1967 as the tough love teacher who brings a group of British hooligans to education and maturity through self respect in the classic To, Sir, with Love.
The 1980s and 90s can be considered the Golden Age of the great teacher film with a seemingly endless string of heroic public servants inspiring groups of ambivalent and rebellious youth through a mixture of tough love, witty banter, and mutual respect. From Richard Dreyfus finding his true calling as a music teacher, not a musician, in Mr. Holland’s Opus to Michelle Pfeiffer and Hillary Swank playing the savior teacher to inner city youth in Dangerous Minds and Freedom Writers, every year seemed to produce another rendition of the same old story. And the inspirational, but often wise-cracking, teacher hero is not just on the big screen. Going back to the 1970s, television has seen numerous iterations of the hero Welcome back Kotter to Abbot Elementary.
The primary problem with the classic teacher movie is a predictable formula based on false narratives and unrealistic expectations. The teacher wins over a bunch of disengaged, unmotivated kids and inspires them to love learning and excel in a very short time. That’s true even when the films are based on true stories, as in Stand and Deliver, where it appears the teacher Jaime Escalante takes a group of underprivileged students with no math background, and in one year inspires them to take and pass the AP Calculus exam. In fact, Escalante built his program over many years with students who’d shown an aptitude but had never felt they belonged in the class.
In Dead Poets Society the students are urged to “seize the day” and “make their lives extraordinary,” but writer Elizabeth Grace Mathew suggests “the boys were actually thriving before Mr. Keating got there.” They were, in their own small ways, rebelling as all adolescents do, but still achieving. Their inspirational teacher actually leads them to tragic results. In a New York Times column, teacher Tom Ford cautioned viewers that “It’s as if all the previously insurmountable obstacles students face could be erased by a 10-minute pep talk. This trivializes not only the difficulties many real students must overcome, but also the hard-earned skill and tireless effort real teachers must use to help those students succeed.”
The inspirational teacher stereotype has even been held up to brilliant mockery in films like Bad Teacher starring Cameron Diaz as the title character who is motivated to push her students to success on state tests simply to fund her breast implants, which she hopes will win her a wealthy husband so she can quit the job she actually hates. In an article for The Atlantic, writer Eleanor Barkhorn actually praises Bad Teacher as “Finally, a film that takes down the destructive myth of the hero instructor.”
There is much we can learn and be inspired by through fictional teachers in film and television. There are also many destructive myths and misleading assumptions rooted in the inspirational teacher story. So, keeping in mind that these stories are first and foremost simply entertainment, we should all remember it’s never as simple as Lights, Camera, Teach!
Thursday, September 7, 2023
Artists ask Where’s the Money?
This week's column for The Villager:
“Like, where’s the (bleep)in’ money?”
Leave it to hip hop icon and pop culture philosopher Snoop Dog to clarify the issue regarding the streaming of digital content and the related labor strikes by writers and actors that has currently brought film and television production to a screeching halt. As the nation took the day off this week in honor and celebration of labor, it’s worth pondering the very real labor situation happening in the entertainment industry. For a segment of workers who contribute nearly $100 billion to the economy every year, the issue of compensation in a rapidly changing world of artificial intelligence and digital streaming is a watershed moment.
Snoop Dog went a bit off script recently while at a Milken Institute event where he was on a panel discussing the fiftieth anniversary of hip hop culture and rap music. As the panel discussed his career and the business side of hip hop and the recording industry, Snoop paused to pose a simple logical question. “I mean, can someone explain to me how you can get a billion streams and not get a million dollars? That don’t make sense to me. I don’t know who … is running the streaming industry, if you’re in here or not, but you need to give us some information on how …. to track this money down ’cause one plus one ain’t adding up to two.”
Snoop noted how when he began his career, there was a tangible way to track the money. If the record company sold a million albums at $9.00, then there was a set amount of money and the artists received their percentage. Snoop and countless other artists now ask how data can show that people watched, say, 300,000 hours of a show, but the artist isn’t receiving commensurate money for that huge consumption of the goods.
Streaming of digital content, as opposed to the sale of CDs, is the problem which first arose in 1999 when the company Napster established the practice of digital file sharing. This was much like illegally copying cassette tapes in the 70s and 80s, only easier and far more extensive. But Steve Jobs and Apple’s innovation of iTunes leveled the playing field. Jobs and Apple, while making millions with their new technology, also guaranteed artists they would receive payment for downloads. That was a game changer – and one more example of a true visionary. Jobs was a ruthless businessman, but he also had the spirit of an artist.
The actors and writers are striking for numerous reasons. Working in the arts can be a precarious position because it’s rarely a full time job with a company providing benefits year to year. Thus writers and actors depend on the income of residuals during the time between gigs. And if the company continues to make money from the product during that time, the artists should as well. When Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David sold the syndication rights for Seinfeld, they earned a staggering sum of $225 million. That, of course, is evidence of just how much more money the networks made by endlessly showing reruns. That’s why just two years ago, Netflix paid $500 million for Seinfeld, NBC Universal paid $500 million for The Office, and WarnerMedia paid $425 million for Friends. Clearly, these networks make huge outlays for content, knowing they will earn massive returns on their investment.
In the era of data science, the industry has the ability to track penny for penny how much a piece of art is earning. They also have a responsibility to be transparent in their use of new technologies, including streaming and AI, another aspect of the strike. One problematic development is the industry’s use of AI to regenerate images and likeness of an artist, but suggest that it’s not really the artist so doesn’t deserve compensation. Author Jane Friedman had a truly dystopian moment earlier this year when someone used AI to write books in her style and subject matter and begin selling them on Amazon in her name. Initially Amazon refused to take them down, though the company shockingly relented when her professional organization intervened on her behalf.
As a writer and teacher of literature, I know all too well the value of the creation and the history of compensation for writers and artists. In the spirit of Labor Day, it’s worth talking about fair compensation for workers, especially creators. Artists deserve their share, especially because there is no art without them. As Snoop Dog would say, “that’s fo’ shizzle.”
“Like, where’s the (bleep)in’ money?”
Leave it to hip hop icon and pop culture philosopher Snoop Dog to clarify the issue regarding the streaming of digital content and the related labor strikes by writers and actors that has currently brought film and television production to a screeching halt. As the nation took the day off this week in honor and celebration of labor, it’s worth pondering the very real labor situation happening in the entertainment industry. For a segment of workers who contribute nearly $100 billion to the economy every year, the issue of compensation in a rapidly changing world of artificial intelligence and digital streaming is a watershed moment.
Snoop Dog went a bit off script recently while at a Milken Institute event where he was on a panel discussing the fiftieth anniversary of hip hop culture and rap music. As the panel discussed his career and the business side of hip hop and the recording industry, Snoop paused to pose a simple logical question. “I mean, can someone explain to me how you can get a billion streams and not get a million dollars? That don’t make sense to me. I don’t know who … is running the streaming industry, if you’re in here or not, but you need to give us some information on how …. to track this money down ’cause one plus one ain’t adding up to two.”
Snoop noted how when he began his career, there was a tangible way to track the money. If the record company sold a million albums at $9.00, then there was a set amount of money and the artists received their percentage. Snoop and countless other artists now ask how data can show that people watched, say, 300,000 hours of a show, but the artist isn’t receiving commensurate money for that huge consumption of the goods.
Streaming of digital content, as opposed to the sale of CDs, is the problem which first arose in 1999 when the company Napster established the practice of digital file sharing. This was much like illegally copying cassette tapes in the 70s and 80s, only easier and far more extensive. But Steve Jobs and Apple’s innovation of iTunes leveled the playing field. Jobs and Apple, while making millions with their new technology, also guaranteed artists they would receive payment for downloads. That was a game changer – and one more example of a true visionary. Jobs was a ruthless businessman, but he also had the spirit of an artist.
The actors and writers are striking for numerous reasons. Working in the arts can be a precarious position because it’s rarely a full time job with a company providing benefits year to year. Thus writers and actors depend on the income of residuals during the time between gigs. And if the company continues to make money from the product during that time, the artists should as well. When Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David sold the syndication rights for Seinfeld, they earned a staggering sum of $225 million. That, of course, is evidence of just how much more money the networks made by endlessly showing reruns. That’s why just two years ago, Netflix paid $500 million for Seinfeld, NBC Universal paid $500 million for The Office, and WarnerMedia paid $425 million for Friends. Clearly, these networks make huge outlays for content, knowing they will earn massive returns on their investment.
In the era of data science, the industry has the ability to track penny for penny how much a piece of art is earning. They also have a responsibility to be transparent in their use of new technologies, including streaming and AI, another aspect of the strike. One problematic development is the industry’s use of AI to regenerate images and likeness of an artist, but suggest that it’s not really the artist so doesn’t deserve compensation. Author Jane Friedman had a truly dystopian moment earlier this year when someone used AI to write books in her style and subject matter and begin selling them on Amazon in her name. Initially Amazon refused to take them down, though the company shockingly relented when her professional organization intervened on her behalf.
As a writer and teacher of literature, I know all too well the value of the creation and the history of compensation for writers and artists. In the spirit of Labor Day, it’s worth talking about fair compensation for workers, especially creators. Artists deserve their share, especially because there is no art without them. As Snoop Dog would say, “that’s fo’ shizzle.”
Thursday, August 31, 2023
Teacher, or just Presenter?
This week's column for The Villager:
Sometimes I worry that I’m not a very good teacher.
It’s not that I’m inexperienced or unskilled or lacking in knowledge of my course content and basic ideas on pedagogy, curriculum, and instruction. After thirty years in the classroom, both in public and private schools in the United States and abroad, I am undoubtedly a veteran educator. And as one of the most experienced honors and AP teachers in the English department of one of the nation’s top high schools, I think I can claim to be pretty good at my job.
However, there are times when I wonder whether I am just a talented presenter of information. When a teacher works at a high achieving school in a well-run district with a supportive community and scores of highly motivated students, the distinction of truly exemplary teaching can be more difficult to discern. Granted, in an environment with high expectations and exceptional results, the consumer is no doubt attentive to the product being offered. And that expectation to be excellent in order to maintain a tradition of excellence is a great motivator for an educator.
After many years of successful teaching with positive feedback from students, parents, colleagues, and administrators, I have no doubt that the content and instruction I provide is well received. And in classes that have a national test as a benchmark, I can be pretty confident that the results I am helping students achieve are appreciated by the stakeholders in the game. At our high school’s recent Back to School Night, numerous students from previous years came to see me, and that was one of the more validating feelings an educator can get. When they come back to see you, when they want to simply check in and say hello, you know you’ve connected as a teacher.
However, self reflection is, I believe, one of the most important tasks of any teacher. Effective educators must ask whether the students are achieving because of the instruction, or regardless of it. Engagement is the key. Carol Jago, an esteemed teacher and education researcher, has long noted that there is a difference between a fun classroom and an engaging one. In an engaging classroom, learning will happen. In a fun one, that’s not necessarily the case. At the high school and college level, especially among high achieving students, it can be all too easy to lapse into the role of lecturer. And, while in the era of TED Talks, engaging presenters can be seen as impressive and engaging, the presenting of information is not actual teaching.
As I’ve noted before, I am an English teacher, but I don’t like to think that I simply teach English. I teach kids. I teach the skills of English to kids. But the students are the objective – teaching them. I teach them how to read, write, and think. There is a huge difference between teaching a subject and simply assigning material. Being a responsive educator is about teaching the kids in front of us, as opposed to simply talking about our subject. In planning lessons, teachers are tasked with three important questions: What do we want them to know? How will we know when they know it? What will we do when they don’t?
That last question is where many educators fall short. What do we do when the students fall short of our goals? While a student's education ultimately resides with them and their individual efforts, effective educators do not simply present the information and hope for the best. It’s when students struggle that true educating, the art of pedagogy, comes into play. Cris Tovani, the author of “I Read It, But I Don’t Get It,’ has noted the importance of continuing to actually teach the skills of reading throughout school. Sadly, when many kids struggle to discern information from text, they are told to just read it again more carefully.
There are two key models for education – the Sage on the Stage versus the Guide on the Side. While I believe strongly in direct instruction and the idea of the teacher being the expert in the room, I also know that simply standing in front of the classroom and presenting information is not necessarily effective teaching. As the old teacher adage goes, school is too often a place where children go to watch adults work. If they just sit and listen to information, research suggests they won’t actually learn much.
Tuesday, August 29, 2023
A Mathematician’s Lament
In a column for Education Week, writer and teacher Larry Ferlazzo assembled a series of essays promoting the idea of “Art in Every Class.” As an educator, writer, artist, and art aficionado, I was intrigued by that idea.
Art plays a significant role in children’s brain development, and it can be an engaging way to connect students with new content. I’ve used various forms of art in my high school English classes for years. From writing an analysis of a painting to demonstrating knowledge of a subject by crafting sketch notes instead of an essay, my students benefit from art as part of their learning. I’ve even asked my students to do an interpretive dance of a piece of literature.
Of course, many people inevitably wonder how visual arts apply to STEM subjects. Sure it can be relevant and valuable to bring art into humanities classes, which are generally more focused on right-brain creative thinking, allowing for open interpretations. But how about math and science, especially subjects like algebra or physics? With the exception of geometry, most people would not consider math to be a remotely artsy subject. Mathematician and professor Paul Lockhart, however, disagrees.
Lockhart laments the state of mathematics education in America because it fails to promote the beautiful art of math. In 2002, he first published a twenty-five page essay which he called “A Mathematician’s Lament,” and it became the talk of the math world in higher education when it was published on the blog for the Mathematical Association of America. A passionate math student, Lockhart had dropped out of college when he became bored and disillusioned by the way math was studied and taught. In pursuing his own math research, he was later accepted by Columbia University where he earned his Ph.D.
Lockhart’s criticism of math education is not unusual. USA Today recently reported that a majority of American parents are not happy with how math is taught in their children’s schools. That’s not surprising, as national and international test results often suggest American kids struggle. More than 30% of Americans report not liking math and believing math is a natural skill people are either good at or not. Of course, the counter is that vast majorities of Americans report liking math in school. The problem may be in the nature of the instruction geared toward assessments and basic computation, rather than an emphasis on discovery and creative thinking.
Lockhart’s lament emphasizes that distinction. He explains how "The first thing to understand is that mathematics is an art. The difference between math and the other arts, such as music and painting, is that our culture does not recognize it as such." In Lockhart’s world, math is a beautiful exploration of relationships, not a sequential drilling of definitions, formulas, and equations in isolation. The puzzling nature of math can and should be one of the key engagement strategies. Kids love puzzles and riddles and games, and a focus on the fun in those challenges is one way Lockhart encourages a return to joy and discovery in the math classroom.
Of course, the problem for teachers is pressure that mistakenly leaves little time for fun. In commentary for US News & World Reports, Elie Vanesky attempts to explain why “The United States is so Bad at Math.” And, to be honest that assumption is not an entirely accurate statement. Vanesky does not intend to bash teachers for poor instruction. Instead, he challenges the very nature of the system that hems teachers into a singular focus on standardized tests. Rather than looking at test scores and criticizing teachers for failing to teach, he wants “to be very clear that the problem is not with our teachers. The problem is with the way math must be taught in school because of the emphasis on the very exams on which students underperform.”
As an English teacher, I might be inclined to say I don’t like math. But actually I do – I read about it all the time. Books like “When Godel Walked with Einstein,” a collection of essays on math, and “How Not to Be Wrong: the Power of Mathematical Thinking” by Jordan Ellenberg fascinate me, and I love reading about math’s practical relevance. Many people enjoy television shows like NUMB3RS or movies like Hidden Figures because the math is inherently intriguing and enlightening. And it is truly an art form. Thinking of it that way could be the key to changing American’s attitudes toward math class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)