Support for Community Colleges

According to vice-presidential wife, Jill Biden, "Community colleges are the way of the future." Biden, a former teacher at Delaware Technical and Community College and current teacher at Northern Virginia Community College, was in Denver on a visit with her husband, and she offered this insight during an interview with the Denver Post. It's nice to see someone near the Obama administration talking more specifically about this post-secondary option, especially as more high schools push the four-year college track on everyone. While President Obama has said it is his goal that all students seek some secondary education or training, his Education Secretary has been more assertive in focusing on four year colleges. And anyone with any true knowledge of the education system or our economy knows that is naive and myopic. Biden has the experience to speak credibly on this issue, noting the increased enrollment in tough economic times.

Biden said Delaware Technical & Community College, where she used to teach, logged a 30 percent increase in enrollment this year. Enrollment is up about the same amount at Northern Virginia Community College, where she now teaches English as a second language and developmental English for foreign professionals. After watching EMS faculty and students respond to a simulated heart attack in the school's mock street scene, Biden told the group, "I've taught many EMTs, firemen, police cadets and nurses. You all play such a vital role in our communities.

"In fact, we had a fire in our house four years ago. As we were running around in a panic, one of the firefighters waved and yelled at me, 'Mrs. Biden, I'm Harry, remember me from your class?' "

Biden is on the mark. Perhaps, the administration will start letting her give more interviews.

Principals Make the Difference

According to the Denver Post, Principal's persistence sends Lincoln High grad rate soaring. At Lincoln High School - of the notoriously struggling Denver Public Schools - the turnaround rate in dropouts to college applications has been impressive, and:

Part of the reason for the rebound is the school's principal — Antonio Esquibel, a Lincoln alum who grew up about half-mile from Lincoln. He has made it his mission to change the culture for the Lancers. Esquibel has borrowed techniques from successful charter schools, putting an emphasis on attendance, credit recovery and college readiness.

Esquibel has set clear expectations, from attendance to grades, and his enforcement of this pro-academic culture at his school is fundamental to its success. Granted, there is a long way to go. Though the message is clear. A culture of learning is integral to the success of a school community, and that culture is set by the administration.

Got a problem with the school? Start at the top. It's no different than in sports. Failing teams fire their coaches, and successful teams result from strong leadership.

Education Blogosphere

A fond farewell to a strong voice in the edu-blogosphere - Dennis Fermoyle at Public Education Defender posted his last entry on the blog he has hosted since May of 2006. Dennis' blog was one of the first I discovered when I started blogging about education and life, and he was a source of great insight and inspiration for discussions of public education. One of my earliest postings - which was also featured in the Denver Post - challenged Sean Hannity's rant that "the government ruined public education." Dennis posted part of my piece on his blog, plus a link, and he has continually endorsed the notion that I argued - that public education is not only not "ruined," but by and large successful. Dennis signed off today with this long-running sentiment:

I firmly believe that public schools in America are doing a better job than they're given credit for. Oh, we have our flaws--there's no question about that, and I've written about a number of them. When I say we are doing are doing a good job, however, I base that on two basic points.
First of all, in the great majority of public schools around the nation, any kid who really wants a good education can get one. The kids who don't give a rip don't get very much out of it, but the kids who want to go to a vo-tech are able to do that, and the kids really want to get prepared for college are able to do so.

The biggest problem in American public education today is that so many kids don't put much effort into their own education. Some kids are incredibly lazy and irresponsible, and that problem is combined with the fact that the American public does not want to put too much emphasis on school in general and academics in particular. And that leads to my second point: American public schools are giving American parents what they want.

Bill Gates and other business gurus can complain all they want, and say that American schools should be turning out more academic wizards. I'm not saying they're wrong, but that is not what the American public wants. The American public wants their kids to be "well-rounded." That means they want them get some academics, but they also want schools to enable their kids to be be sports stars, and/or work part-time jobs, and to be able to go on family vacations that last a week or more during the school year, and have homecoming and frosty-fest coronations and pep rallies during the school day, and use class time to vote for kings and queens and other things, and to be able to miss a day or two here and there for various other reasons and still get decent grades. Bill Gates might not like it, and sometimes I might not like it, but we are "public" schools, so it's our job to give the public what it wants. And that's what we do.

Finally, my last post wouldn't be complete if I didn't harp on the subject I've harped on more than any other. As good as public education is, it could be so much better. Public school teachers and principals need more power to demand better effort and behavior from our students. The bottom line on that is that it has to be easier to kick kids out. I know how harsh that sounds, but it really isn't. Believe it or not, I am not an old curmudgeon. In fact, I think it's fair to say that I'm one of the most popular teachers in our school. But 35 years as a teacher and coach has taught me that kids understand limits. Make it clear to them that a certain level of behavior and a certain level of effort is required and there will be very few who will have to be shown the door. And for those who are shown the door, allow them to come back and try again next semester or next year if they finally realize that their education matters. I have seen too many bright kids allowed to get by with performing miserably, and I've even seen some end up dropping out because we were so damned tolerant.

Those are some pretty valid points. Thanks, Dennis.

American Princesses

"When women shave their heads, cut out the make-up, and stop wearing high-heel shoes, they will take over the world."

That is how many of my students would characterize one of my standard rants in class each year. While it is a bit of my standard hyperbole, the spirit of the argument is sincere. There is much that girls and women do which adheres to historical subjugation of the rights of women, and there is much in those areas that adhere to control by men. The "princess fantasy," or expectation is another symptom of this dichotomy, and it is making the news lately, especially with the onslaught of marketing from Disney over the past decade. Is this "princess syndrome" a hindrance to the growth and independence of identity in young girls? Or is there a positive
side to the "ideal life" image of the myth?

My students would laugh at the possibility that I could see anything positive about representations of girls and women by Disney. I've written before about my opposition to my children seeing Disney movies - actually they've never really seen any movies. However, my daughter just turned four and received several Barbies from her friends. It didn't bother me, and I concede that much of the opposition to popular culture is overblown. Of course, the standard rational response - of which I am always a fan in any discussion - is the use of moderation and common sense.

We'll see what the pundits and sociologists have to say. I'm not worried about my daughter, or my students, precisely because of the openness and discussions we have.

The Net Generation

Since finishing up Tony Wagner's The Global Achievement Gap, I have been intrigued by some similar insight in two other books - one is Richard Nesbitt's Intelligence and How to Get it, and the other is Bob Pletka's Educating the Net Generation.  I want to discuss Nesbitt's extensive research at some point, but, in terms of Wagner's insight about transitioning schools to a curriculum and training more relevant to their lives, I am intrigued and seeking ways to improve my approach based on his research.  Pletka's point is a high-tech analysis of the concept that we must teach students where they are, not where we'd like them to be.  This is relevant as I seek to incorporate applicable technologies into the classroom without feeling like I'm losing the important content and rigor of the classical education of our school and community.  One example would be a desire to utilize blogging and other cyberspace formats.  While there won't soon be a Facebook page for "Mazenko's English," (though I would love it), I will try to simulate that as much as possible with applications on Blackboard.

One insightful aspect of Pletka's work is the importance of connecting to students in ways that are not only relevant to the way they currently think and communicate, but also to the ways they will do so in the workplace soon enough.  Pleska states:

46% of the variation in the students sense of involvement and belonging is the result of instruction.  Whereas instruction dominated by lectures and note taking is associated with increased rates of disengaged students, lessons that encourage student discussion contribute to their sense of acceptance and membership in school.

While this could be perceived by some critics as "foo foo education" and a pathetic offshoot of self-esteem movements, it doesn't have to be, and I believe it can be integrally linked to rigor and development of core competencies as well as innovation.  It reminds of the "flow experience" that I've written about concerning adolescent male literacy which was so well explained in Michael Smith's Going with the Flow: How to Engage Boys (and Girls) in Their Literacy Learning.  The whole concept reminds me of the descriptions I used to read of Dean Smith's basketball practices at UNC where everything worked like a well-oiled machine.

Total engagement is my (albeit unrealistic) goal. 

Conservative Decline

The drumbeat continues of the GOP's conservatism marching toward the grave. Of course, that is hyperbole, though they've definitely lost their way when the conservative voices are turning on the GOP. They will still vote that way, as they don't want to be in the Libertarian Party, and the The Libertarian Party doesn't want them. Though some may become Obama Republicans. One notable voice - an older version who echoes some of what Brooks and Parker have been saying - is Richard Posner, whose new book decries the GOP's naive understanding of capitalism. I really enjoyed the insight in his latest blog post:

The following comments, I found particularly insightful:

By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of "originalism," the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004.

My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.

By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.

I hope for some pragmatic discussion by people in the GOP, but first they must turn down Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly, and start reading instead.

Country More Centrist Than Before

Well, so much for "Painting the Country Red," as a moderately-selling conservative tome claimed just a few years ago.  Surprisingly, for all the criticism, the results of a new broad survey from the Pew Research Center, the country is becoming more centrist and more independent.  And, those independents are, for at least the time being, siding with the Democrats.  So, again I note, so much for the claims that the GOP lost in the state level, in Congress, and the White House because they weren't conservative enough.

According to the Pew analysis:

On issues, independents' viewpoints don't fit neatly into liberal or conservative frameworks.

This group hews more closely to Democrats than Republicans on social values, religion and national security. But it also is more conservative on several key issues including the economy, partly because of steady defections from the GOP, and more skeptical than two years ago of expanding government assistance, a typically Republican position. More in line with Democratic thinking, most independents support expanded government intervention and regulation in the private sector, albeit reluctantly.

In another GOP trouble spot, the economy has overtaken social values among voters' most pressing concerns. The recession has essentially robbed Republicans of a potent political weapon. The survey also found that the percentage of Americans holding conservative views on family, homosexuality and gender roles has steadily declined over the past decade because younger people are less conservative than older people.

As one of those independents - and one who would have voted for John McCain had he been the nominee in 2000 (potentially the worst GOP decision in a century, if not ever) - I can assert that these comments from Pew are precisely the situation in contemporary politics.  And the GOP simply can't figure this out.

The Myth of the Bachelor Degree

"A degree in economics doesn't really prepare you to understand the economy very well."

These words of wisdom, according to an AP story, come from Josh Donahue, "23, who went on food stamps two weeks after leaving Oregon State University with an economics degree that he hoped to use for a job as a financial analyst. He's living with his aunt and uncle in Grants Pass, Ore., and looking for even a menial job."

Josh is the new poster boy for the massive inefficiency and inadequacy of America's K-16 education system. Clearly, no one in the two decades of Josh's life had any serious talks with him about who he is, what he wants, what he's good at, what a liberal education means, or how liberal arts degrees translate (or don't) into marketable skills. Josh came of age during an expanding economy based on false expectations of wealth, and he figured he'd study econ and then go make a killing selling stocks to middles class Roth IRA holders on his way to becoming the next Warren Buffett. Time for a reality check.

Josh could have majored in accounting or finance or business or engineering - but it seems that people who major in economics as a bachelor degree (with no intention of a masters or Ph.D to teach) simply couldn't get into business or accounting schools. So, they majored in - and probably forked over or borrowed $20,000 to $40,000 for - what has become a virtually useless college degree. Just what did Josh think a "degree in economics" would prepare him to understand, or, more importantly, do for a living?

Why Doesn't the GOP Get It?

Will someone please tell my why the Republican Party continues to believe they lost control of Congress and the Presidency because they weren't conservative enough? The Gallup poll shows the party was losing significance in nearly every demographic group. The most significant place were the GOP lost votes - especially here in Colorado - is among moderate independents. And, the moderate independents switched their support because, in the words of Dan Haley of the Denver Post, the GOP has "become the party of crazy." There is no evidence of the GOP losing support because they had turned their back on conservative ideals. Granted, they did expand government under Bush. But they also stuck with all the same mantras of cutting taxes, neo-con pursuit of a hegemonic agenda in response to 9/11, "family values" which translated to anti-gay and rigidly Christian and pro-life and anti-regulation of business. The American voters saw them as corrupt in terms of their conservative values. But they also saw them as clueless on health care and the problems created by the Iraq War. Clearly, all the polls and research shows they GOP lost no significant votes among the conservatives and reactionaries. They lost among the people who thought they were too right-wing "crazy" and insensitive, or clueless, to the concerns of ordinary working Americans.

Changing Education in Colorado

The Denver Post reports on the changing nature of the economy and efforts by Colorado colleges to adapt to the needs of its students and the market. This seems to follow what I was reading in Wagner's Global Achievement Gap in terms of what the education system is doing to provide the guidance and skills needed in the twenty-first century. While I am a little suspicious of the 21st Century Skills movement in education, I don't deny the need to modify some of the approaches to education and credentialing. In fact, my recent posts and article in the Denver Post address that very need. There is much we can do to be more efficient and effective in actually preparing kids for what they want, and need, to do.

Re-inventing education

Having finished Tony Wagner's The Global Achievement Gap, I am intrigued by many of his ideas.  Though I was critical of what I felt were some generalizations and red herrings earlier, there is much to investigate.  Some of the areas in which Wagner asks valid questions are "testing," "reinventing the education profession," and "motivating today's students" (in different ways than motivating student years ago).  While I don't believe there are fundamental flaws with the system as a whole, I believe Wagner is right when he asks, "what does it mean to be an educated adult in the twenty-first century" and "how do we define rigor in the age of the information explosion" and "how do we create better assessments and accountability systems that give us the information we need."

In terms of testing, I have never been a vigorous critic of standardized testing, though I acknowledge its flaws.  There is such an arbitrary nature to the questions on the exams, especially in terms of content and vocabulary.  Without a standard national curriculum or even state curriculum with a set vocabulary list, there is a problematic component to reading assessment.  Even the AP exams - while they definitely identify academically committed and skilled students - don't necessarily identify clearly the "critical thinking skills" that Wagner proposes and communities and employers demand.

However, Wagner offers some intriguing information on the new Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) which is "an open-ended, ninety-minute performance assessment in which students have to demonstrate their reasoning, problem-solving, and writing skills while attempting to solve a real-world problem."  From the description of this test and system, it seems like a great development in assessment, and its components should become more standard even in the classroom.  It's worth more discussion.   What do you think?

Race to Nowhere

A new documentary film on the education system - focusing on its misplaced priorities and goals
- presents the following insight: "When success is defined by high grades, test scores, trophies - we know we end up with unprepared, disengaged, exhausted, and ultimately unhealthy kids."

The movie, by Reel Link Films, is called Race to Nowhere and it lays blame with all of us - parents, teachers, communities, government, and even the kids. It is a mantra that has been echoed in books such as Jean Twenge's Generation Me and Denise Clark Pope's Doing School. At the same time that some kids are incredibly deficient in school-related skills, others are merely exhausted with perfecting them.

Ultimately, the feeling from this film is something has to give.

Feeling Good About Conservatives

With the seemingly lemmings-off-a-cliff mentality driving the agenda-less GOP these days, it's tough to feel good about conservatism. As they seek to "re-brand" the party on the way to "returning to its ideals," it's just been tough to defend, or even look at, conservatives lately. Thankfully, we still have people like Kathleen Parker and David Brooks to remind us that there can be good, logical, practical, rational conservatism at work in the Republican Party. I've praised Brooks for educating people about "Burke-an conservatism," and I can always count on Parker to take the hot air out of conservative hot-button issues and offer a rational critique, as she does today with her piece on the comedienne Wanda Sykes' comments at the Correspondents dinner. Three cheers for common sense and pragmatism.

Too Many Charters in North Denver

In moves toward school reform, I tend to believe choices such as charter schools and open enrollment are the most feasible and effective ways to bring about change. Vouchers are a trickier issue, as evidenced by the spat in Washington, D.C. Critics of vouchers have reasonably argued that districts and communities should focus on fixing the existing schools, rather than transferring motivated students out and, obviously, "leaving some child behind." In North Denver, however, parents and voters are expressing skepticism of the charter movement, and like many public school supporters pushing the district to fix the neighborhood schools. According to the Denver Post:

Parents and community members in northwest Denver implored school district officials Tuesday to fix their neighborhood schools and were skeptical about a plan to add more charter schools. "Thirty-six percent of the schools are not neighborhood schools now," said Loralie Cole, whose daughter will enter Denver Public Schools next fall. "We have a lot of choice already."

It's an interesting discussion, and relevant to the story in the LA Times about the Green Dot charter schools and the organizers urging parents to call for a revolution. Joanne featured this story with a link to the Times piece. One of the more insightful comments on this issue came form a parent in North Denver:

"New schools and charters are a great choice," said Ricardo Martinez, co-director of Padres y Jovenes Unidos, a community advocacy group. "But we want that kind of excellence at all of our schools. "
"Parents are urged to demand more from ... schools," reports the Times. That says a mouthful, doesn't it.

Problems with Charter Results

David Brooks recent praise of the "Harlem Miracle" is drawing some criticism. Apparently, some think the success of Geoffery Canada's Harlem Children's Zone and Promise Academy is not as impressive as Brooks claims, or at least the scores on standardized tests aren't. Joanne's site has some critical comments like this one from Aaron Pallas on the Gotham School:

http://gothamschools.org/2009/05/08/just-how-gullible-is-david-brooks/

There is also some excellent, and extensive analysis and comments from Corey at Thoughts on Education Policy:

http://www.edpolicythoughts.com/2009/05/sunday-commentary-sale-on-snake-oil-at.html#links

My feelings on charters generally fall in the "whatever works" category, though it appears the judgment of that is equally complex. If Brooks' piece manages to generate some discussion, and it can move at the policy level beyond the soundbites accurately criticized by Corey, then we may be getting somewhere.

Reforming College Expectations

As I've noted before, I am intrigued by the plans for New Hampshire to move to a curriculum that allows graduation at sixteen for students entering associate degree and trade schools, as well as a more rigorous AP/IB-style schedule for students who stay for junior and senior year before applying to four-year colleges. To that end, I wrote a piece of op-ed commentary which was featured as the cover piece for the Denver Post's Sunday Perspective section yesterday.

Strong Schools equal Success

For a long time, the general consensus has been that the number one predictor of academic success was socio-economic success. There were many reasons this was an accepted standard: all the other factors tended to be stronger up the income ladder - higher earning families could provide more parental support with more assistance from generally two college-educated parents who could afford to live near and send their kids to the best schools. However, the success in certain charter school movements is turning much of that logic on its ear, and this is spotlighted this week by David Brooks of the New York Times.

Brooks praises the rather astounding turnaround for students attending Harlem's Children Zone schools like the Promise Academy. These are the brainchild of Geoffery Canada, a man committed to education reform, and one who refuses to accept the conventional wisdom. I saw him several years ago, and I was amazed by his program. Now that he's getting more press, I hope the reality of his success will spread. As Brooks notes:

The approach works. Ever since welfare reform, we have had success with intrusive government programs that combine paternalistic leadership, sufficient funding and a ferocious commitment to traditional, middle-class values. We may have found a remedy for the achievement gap. Which city is going to take up the challenge? Omaha? Chicago? Yours?

NAEP and Comparing Schools

Now that NAEP and state scores are being released, the inevitable comparisons and ranting about the decline of America has begin. While I am in no way saying we are living in Lake Wobegon, focusing on the scores of American high school seniors in NAEP assessments is problematic at best. These tests, like the international TMSS, are completely voluntary, as students are asked to miss class time to take a test that will have no effect on their grades. Often, as my students have noted, the most motivated American students are unwilling to miss class time to participate, and they won't put the extra effort in to a test that means nothing. When students are asked to voluntarily take a zero-stakes test, there must be a consideration for the dubious quality of the results. In many districts nationwide, state test scores have gone down as ACT/SAT/PSAT/AP/IB exam scores have increased. Slate Magazine has an effective commentary on this:

http://www.slate.com/id/2124163/

The comparison to Asian schools is another problem, as it completely discounts cultural differences that lead to a widely different educational environment. The issue of school discipline alone - expectations of students and authority of school personnel to deal effectively with problems - makes a direct comparison nearly impossible and, again, disingenuous. Having lived and taught English in Taiwan for five years, I can assert that the environments simply do not translate. I can picture classrooms of 80-100 students who are sitting still in their chairs and vigorously writing down everything the teacher says, nearly word for word, as the teacher stands with a microphone and reads out of a book. Any disciplinary problem is dealt with immediately and harshly, and disruptive students do not have a “property right” to stay in the classroom. In fact, any non-academically motivated students are eliminated from the school by sixteen at the latest. Thus, their scores do not skew the NAEP and international test results, as they can in the U.S.

Additionally, people who haven't lived in Asia have no understanding of just how vast the cultural differences are and how deeply that can affect school culture and test scores. On the day that junior high school students in South Korea take high school entrance exams, the country shuts down air traffic for a half hour so the testing students can have absolute quiet during the oral part of the English exam. They hold national celebrations in Korea on the day their students take the international tests to promote national pride. Students in Taiwan who don’t test into a college-bound junior high school effectively eliminate their option of college at the age of twelve. Schools in Japan lock their gates at the start of school, and several years ago a high school student who was a few seconds late was crushed to death by the gate that is controlled by a timer. Students in Taiwan leave school at four and go to English and Math/Science cram schools from sometimes six to ten o’clock at night three or four days of week so they get the opportunity to go to an academic high school.

Clearly, there is an ocean (no pun intended) between academic expectations in the different countries. Putting emphasis on an international test that American kids don’t even know what it is and are told makes no difference to their grades or status is not telling the whole story. There is also no causation between high NAEP and international test scores and actual marketplace performance. Great test scores don't necessarily equal great doctors, engineers, teachers, etc. Thus, this data needs to be viewed with a interested, but skeptical eye.

Global Achievement Comparisons

As I've noted before, it is difficult to justify comparing the education systems of different countries because there are countless variables and intangibles that cannot be contrasted to any truly evaluative conclusion. For example, in the beginning of Wagner's Global Achievement Gap, he notes various statistics designed to show how poorly America is doing. For example, he points out that the US high school graduation of rate of 70% trails many countries, such as Denmark which graduates 96%. However, countries such as Denmark only have compulsory education until the age of sixteen. The US allows dropouts at sixteen but graduation is generally two years later. Thus, if the US switched graduation to sixteen, the rate may be as high as others. He argues "only 1/3 of US high school students graduate ready for college," yet the percentage of the population holding bachelors degrees is about 30%, so perhaps that is all that is necessary, or all that the market will bare. Clearly, Wagner is using statistics in absence of any truly meaningful context.

Later, he attempts to provide context by citing a conversation with Christy Pedra, the CEO of Siemens Hearing Instruments. Pedra argues that "questioning techniques" are a major component of her success in her job. She criticizes the public education of her kids - at a top school in Massachusetts - because "They're spending too much time getting kids ready to take [state tests]. And they're measuring the wrong things." Pedra believes that training students to become scientists is about the ability to explore and asking the right questions. She believes it's not about "how much they can retain." However, that's only half the issue. It's about both retention of core knowledge, and using that knowledge to ask even more, or even better, questions. This has been well documented, and blogged about, by Dan Willingham whose book Why Don't Students Like School offers insight into the importance of knowledge prior to and as a component of learning . Willingham's research in cognitive science explains how important "how much they can retain" is in the brain accessing new information.

Clearly, Pedra and Wagner have an understanding that ignores much we know about learning and education. Pedra criticizes the education of her kids, yet I assume a similar education allowed her to rise to the level of CEO. Somewhere, despite standardized testing, she learned to apply those questioning techniques integral to her job. Additionally, I would assume she wants her children to be well prepared for the ACT/SAT which are the gateways to college whether she likes the focus on skills and knowledge or not. Pedra and Wagner make good points, though their primary focus is too narrow and removed from the larger school of cognitive science and learning.

Global Achievement Gap

As I continue to read blogs and encounter discussion, comparing public education in the U.S. and the rest of the world, I recently picked up Tony Wagner's book on the issue, The Global Achievement Gap. While I am only a chapter in, and I concur with Wagner on some assertions, I am still frustrated by the blanket comparisons of separate school systems, especially when they are focused on issues such as international standardized test rankings and graduation rates. Both of these issues are arbitrary in many ways, as well as myopic at best in terms of true evaluation.

One of Wagner's early references that gave me pause was to Thomas Friedman's work in The World is Flat. Friedman has regularly noted in books and columns how America is "falling behind," and he warns that U.S. students will face increasing competition in the "global community." The problem is Friedman, and by reference Wagner, often asserts that the math skills of foreign students give them an advantage as American companies offshore accounting and engineering jobs to countries such as India and China. This is a deceptive claim, as both authors ignore the fact that companies offshore this work, not because the foreign workers are better, but because they are cheaper. Thus, the "crisis" that is discussed in many blogs about students' use of calculators implies that the lack of skills will cost American workers their jobs. The reality might be much simpler - a matter of cost, not talent.

This sort of assertion, which is bought by many commentators and politicians outside of the classroom, does a huge disservice to discussions about education reform.

Tea Party Silliness

As thousands of people across the country hit the streets (apparently with no jobs to distract them) to protest taxes, columnist Debra Saunders offered insight into the odd appropriation of the "Boston Tea Party" allusion. As she clearly noted:

There is a world of difference between 1773 and 2009. Two hundred-plus years ago, Americans risked life and limb protesting a distant and oligarchic system of government that did not represent the good people of Massachusetts.

No doubt many who show up at the Tea Day rallies will argue that they didn't vote for Obama and should not have to pay for his programs. I have news for you folks: Conservatives lost. American voters elected a big spender and, one way or another, Americans will have to pay for his agenda. The Obama tax hikes on Americans earning more than $250,000 have yet to materialize — but when they do, they'll be taxation with representation, a campaign pledge made good.

Even though both Saunders and I disagree with much of Obama's policies, there is something unseemly, even absurd, about current objectors aligning themselves with patriots who risked their lives to achieve representation and the right to protest.

We currently have representative government - thus there is no connection to the Boston Tea Party.

Carnival of Education

The Carnival of Education is hosted this week by Joanne Jacobs. It contains my post about the comparisons between the US education system and those of Europe and Asia.

We're Not Europe/Asia - Should We Be?

Nearly every in-depth discussion of the American education system inevitably turns to the school systems of other countries and the way their students regularly outperform American students on international tests. The question is whether America should look to those schools in terms of improving its system. For example, Joanne Jacobs recently linked to a story about how countries with high scoring students - like Finland and Singapore - have "high quality" teachers. The definition of the term "high quality" is vague, by the way, and there are many other variables involved. The question is whether we should adapt their teacher education programs.

While this is interesting and certainly tempting as a reform idea, the rational side of me keeps in mind the significant cultural differences between European/Asian countries and America. Having taught in Taiwan for five years, I know there are fundamental components of their system that, while very effective there, would simply not transfer here with the same results. For one, they have rather strict controls on their "college-prep" track, as noted in the comments on this story. Hopeful college students simply don't have an option of slacking off, as they do here. American students can "graduate" with a D-average, or not even graduate at all, and still get into college. That exists no where else in the industrialized world, especially Taiwan. And, we certainly don't intend to restrict access the way other countries do, as we have a more egalitarian approach to education.

A telling comment on the differences in the Taiwan system and the US came from Dr. David Ho, the researcher credited with coming up the "AIDS cocktail" which was the first and most effective treatment for lowering HIV to undetectable levels in infected people. Dr. Ho was born and raised in Taiwan where he went to school for his formative years - elementary and middle. He then moved to the US where he did high school and college. He has noted that if he'd stayed in Taiwan his whole life, he never would have made the discovery. Likewise, he explains if he had been born in the US and always educated here, he never would have made the discovery. It was the rigid style of the early years in a Confucian system that gave him the discipline he needed, as well as the more "open" and diverse style in the US that encouraged questioning and creativity (yes, through electives) that allowed him the solid foundation and insight necessary to make one of the 20th century's most significant medical breakthroughs.

Clearly, it's not one or the other, but a combination of both. For that reason, I would like to see some reforms in the USA which would align more with other countries standards for university. They are clearly more efficient in that they don't waste the time of students or teachers by trying to force non-academically-inclined students to pursue higher education. Yet, while our system may be too lenient, theirs are often far too exclusive. Thus, I would like to see a serious expansion of Career and Technical Education (CET), as well as a much greater emphasis on associate's degrees. American society is far too elitist in its attitude toward skilled labor. Granted, America must also alleviate historical concerns that poor and minority students are funneled into vocational education with little choice. That is why I am still intrigued by the reform plans in New Hampshire.

We are not Europe, and we are not Asia. They have different attitudes toward education and different cultural norms that will not transfer to American society. Yet, there is much we could adapt from the most successful schools system, at the same time we keep all that is successful about the American system, and there is much we do right.

Why I'm Not a Republican

Uuuuuggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

For once and for all can we agree that there is a difference between tax rates and taxes paid? The intentional blurring of this line is a fundamental reason while I am not a member of the GOP, though I am fiscally conservative and support many of their policies.

In today's press conference for the GOP's alternative budget, Congressman Matt Ryan was making some very valid points about spending, entitlement reform, and taxes, and then he drove the bus right of the cliff with the standard "Sean Hannity-like" rant about corporate tax rates. Sticking to the standard mantra, Ryan and the GOP proposed lowering the corporate tax rate from 35%, "which is the highest rate in the industrialized world," to a lower 25% which is the average. This sort of statement on taxes is disingenuous, if not outright deceitful and dishonest, and it is designed to to manipulate fiscally conservative people who are less than informed about tax policy.

There is a fundamental difference between tax rates and taxes paid, and it is disingenuous to argue that America’s tax rates are responsible for downturns in the economy or the movement of business abroad. No one pays the top rates in the American tax code, as it allows for generous deduction. While I may be in the 20% tax bracket, I pay no more than 11%. Incidentally, the GAO report found that between 1998 and 2005, two-thirds of American companies paid no income tax. This finding complements a similar study of the boom years of 1996 to 2000 which also found that 90% of the companies that paid any taxes paid less than 5%. Corporations in other countries may be paying a lower rate, though they often pay more taxes because their tax codes do not allow the generous deductions and massive loopholes that America allows.

A reasonable student of finance - which Ryan is clearly not because he's too busy being a politician - would understand that accounting practices allow companies to show no actual profits because of expenses such as salaries, interest, and investment. In fact, the model by which a company shows no profit and no loss is the most efficient business model and an optimum goal in terms of tax responsibilities. Certainly, the government should address the loopholes that allow companies to hide money overseas. However, to argue that Corporate America is overtaxed simply isn’t true.

Work, Work, Work

As education critics continue to argue about who should go to college, with some decrying the loss of trade schools and the negative attitude toward associate’s degree programs, and others like Bill Gates preaching four-year colleges for everyone, Mike Rowe of Discovery Channel’s “World’s Dirtiest Jobs” presents an insightful commentary on the nature of “work” and how we might just be getting it all wrong. I ran across this on the blog RightWingNation, though it is featured at the website Ted, which features some of the most compelling speeches happening in the world today.

The speech Mike Rowe gives centers around a pretty graphic description of the act of “lamb castration” in the life of a sheepherder in Craig, Colorado. It is rather eye-opening, not to mention eye-brow raising. Yet, the truly interesting part is as Right Wing Prof says, “the best argument against the “everybody needs to go to college” line I have seen.” Rowe describes his epiphany – with a great side-bar on a couple of terms from Greek tragedy – about the nature of “work,” or more importantly, the idea that in America we have declared war on work. We seek to avoid it, work less, retire earlier, etc., etc., etc. There seems to be an entitlement to work less and less, and we have no respect for much of the necessary work. Hence, the derision of trade schools and community colleges, even as white-collar work is outsourced, quality electricians make a mint, and our infrastructure screams for skilled labor.

Rowe concludes he was mis-led and we might be wrong about the advice to “follow your passion.” He’s somewhat right. I followed my passion, rather than my pocketbook, and became a teacher, not a computer administrator. Despite three times the salary, life as a UNIX guru would make me miserable. That said, following passion is one route, but not the only one. Ultimately, people should figure out who they are and be that person. Some people should follow their passions. Some should follow their strengths. And, some should just follow the market and go where their job takes them.

Rational Health Care Reform

The health care debate continued to rage last week in Colorado when a sub-committee in the state house voted on a bill to move to a state-wide single-payer system. This is surprising in a traditionally libertarian place like Colorado, though it is understandable as the state turns more Democratic and voters continue to lose faith with the current system and the lack of a viable alternative. Vincent Carroll of the Denver Post's Editorial Board responded with a typical ideologically conservative commentary that was long of criticism and scare tactics, yet predictably short on alternative proposals. Though I was disappointed to see him immediately resort to the "red flag, talking-point" of rationing, I was pleased to see his concession that the current system already rations care based on ability to pay into the private system. Reform critics claim that single-payer would lead to rationing and prevent people from seeing their own doctors, as well as turn medical decisions over to a bureaucrat. However, that is already true. My employer-based coverage cost me my personal physician, and specialist care is limited. Decision are not simply left up to me and my physician; they are vetted through the administration of the insurance company. Conservative critics who cite those as effects of single-payer are fools. That situation is the essence of the private system as it exists. For, far worse than a cost-cutting bureaucrat (whose bosses are still responsible to voters) focused on budgets, is a cost-cutting executive focused on profits. Insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums and denying claims.

As Colorado attempts a move to single-payer, I am hoping they will take a more pragmatic approach and blend the public-private system as many countries do, and as we currently do for nine million federal employees. Thus, I hope Mr. Carroll will consider researching and writing about options that would do this, and alleviate the need for states to push for a single-payer system. A good place to start is the Healthy Americans Act, also known as the Wyden-Bennett plan. It is an adaptation and extension of the logical move of extending FEHBP (Federal Employees Plan) to all Americans. In FEHBP, there are more than 250 providers that competitively bid to cover federal employees. Employees are given the choice to purchase as much or as little coverage as they need, but all are guaranteed some basic coverage. Obviously, large pools lower cost, and if a pool of nine million employees works, then a pool of 300 million would work even better. An extension of FEHBP to all Americans is the best and most logical reform, the the HAA is a good second-best.

As Mr. Carroll notes, reform is necessary, and it will come. As the private sector eliminates more people from coverage, the masses will eventually take what they can get. And having lived under it for five years, I can say with all honesty that national health care is far better than being un-insured in this county. Thus, I urge the Denver Post to research and write extensively about plans, such as the HAA or the FEHBP, that blend public and private. I have contacted my congressional candidates and representatives about this, and I hope more people will as they become aware of it. Otherwise, we will be stuck with a system that the masses begrudgingly accept.

Knowledge is the Key

People may logically assume that learning leads to the acquisition of knowledge. However, the converse may, in fact, be true. It appears that knowledge is the key to learning. I've have been intrigued in the past week by all the talk of "knowledge" as the fundamental component of learning. From op-eds in the New York Times to the education blogs, there has been an exciting degree of discussion about the importance of knowing information. This is intriguing, as I've often noted the importance of background knowledge as the key to accessing new material. It first impacted me after reading I Read It, But I Don't Get It by a Denver-area teacher and researcher Cris Tovani. The insights I gained from Tovani's book were revolutionary in my teaching career, as the epiphany about knowledge impacted the way I taught reading, writing, and critical thinking.

That discussion of background knowledge in reading was accented by E.D. Hirsch this week in his New York Times piece "Reading Test Dummies." Hirsch argues very effectively about the importance of background knowledge in students interpreting passages on standardized reading tests. The disconnect between the focus of knowledge in the classroom and the obscure passages in reading tests negatively impacts the validity of the tests. Hirsch notes some impressive research from 1988 about the performance of weak and strong readers based on previous knowledge, where weaker readers performed better on tests than skilled readers if the weaker ones had an interest in and knowledge about the subject. I've often noted to people the significant differences in academic performance between kids of lower and higher socioeconomic status, simply based on background cultural knowledge, especially vocabulary. Poorer kids who arrive in kindergarten with roughly one-third the vocabulary of middle-class kids face a disadvantage in learning from which most will never recover. Until this gap is acknowledged and closed, there will be no fundamental change in reading scores, literacy rates, or achievement gaps.

Hirsch's arguments are even more intriguing as I ran across Joanne Jacob's entries on both Hirsch and Dan Willingham of the Core Knowledge Blog. Willingham, a psyche professor at Virginia, added to the knowledge discussion by explaining how important "knowing facts" is, and how integral it is to learning and understanding. The "very processes that teachers care about most-critical thinking processes such as reasoning and problem solving-are intimately intertwined with factual knowledge that is stored in long-term memory (not just found in the environment)". Learning "new ideas" is fundamentally linked to having the correct understanding of the relevant "old ideas." There is no more clear explanation of the problems in literacy rates, reading scores, college readiness, and the achievement gap. It's all about a knowledge gap. According to Willingham, "understanding is remembering in disguise."

Willingham's book Why Don't Students Like School is my next purchase, and I expect it will have a similar effect on my teaching that Tovani's book did. His discussion of "cognitive science" is integral to understanding how we can more effectively educate. The discussion reminds me of my questions about why students lose the ability to "wonder." However, it's clear they actually don't. Kids do like learning; they love acquiring new information; they become quite engaged in many activities, including some very philosophical discussions. They don't have an inability to focus - they have an inability to focus on much of what they encounter in the classroom. It reminds me of the "flow experience" described by authors Michael Smith and Jeff Wilhelm in their book Going With the Flow which was a follow-up to Reading Don't Fix No Chevies. I encountered this book and concept in a great staff development class on adolescent male literacy, and it inspired me to seek more ways to engage all my students with knowledge and learning.

Clearly, the concept of factual knowledge as a key to learning is an important component of the education game, and any serious discussion of reform must take into account the ideas put forth by all these authors and researchers.

Need a Job - Go Abroad

Young, college-educated, and unemployed? Get out of this country. And take with you a most precious and desired commodity you acquired for free - the English language. The opportunity to travel, live, and work abroad has always been a great option for the newly-graduated and unencumbered, and in the current economy, it is becoming an attractive option for those young people facing a tough job market. This issue was featured on Right-on-the-Left-Coast, and it reminded me of my own experience, graduating with an English teaching degree in the recession, and tough job market, of 1992. I haven't written about this before, but I have often meant to, as I regularly speak about it to my students. With few high school English teaching positions available - and actually little interest in or motivation to start teaching high school at the age of twenty-one - I up and moved to Taiwan with my future wife to teach English. It was one of the best decisions I ever made.

Because one of my wife's roommates in college was Taiwanese, she had been there before, and she was well aware of all the opportunities to teach English in Taiwan. At the EPO (Educational Placement Office) of the University of Illinois, we ran across a flier for an organization known as Hess Language School. It was based in New York, and it was the largest cram school, or bushiban, on the island of Taiwan. After filling out an application and undergoing a brief phone interview, we moved six-thousand miles from home, and began teaching Taiwanese children the finer points of ABC and "How are you?" The school was founded by an American woman and her Taiwanese husband, and they had basically cornered the market for cram schools, where parents send their children after school for a few hours a week to give them a jump start on the rigors of English instruction in junior high school. Hess provided us with a work visa and a yearlong contract teaching roughly twenty hours a week for about twenty dollars an hour. It was great gig.

We went to Taiwan at the same time my wife's roommate moved there to live at home. She lasted nine months; we stayed five years. During that time, we lived the dream and traveled the world, not to mention saved a lot of money. We knew numerous Americans there who paid off their student loans and credit card debt in a year or two. There are so many options for work abroad, and there is no better time for a little adventure.

Home Ec Returns

"We should learn how to balance our checkbooks, and things like that."

Comments such as this occasionally arise in my class, as students debate (and complain about) much of the core curriculum in high school. I don't know if there is any really "useless information" in the standard high school curriculum, but there is much to be said about addressing more practical issues as we invest in the education of young people. While I point out to my students that learning to balance a checkbook should take about fifteen minutes, I can imagine many basic competencies that I'd incorporate into a "life skills" curriculum, not the least of which is home finance and basic repair.

With that in mind, the Denver Post recently spotlighted a resurgence in home economics in local high schools, with the added emphasis of an increase in both male teachers and students. The classes are now referred to as Family and Consumer Science, and they are focused on being far more practical than the home ec classes of yore. As the economy changes, and more people are adjusting to lifestyle changes, the acquisition of basic skills that not only save money, but might open up a new career, seem like a good investment in education. I'd like to see an expansion of this sort of investment in education, as it strikes me as the sort of basic competencies we should expect of young adults after thirteen years of education. The ability to cook, budget, organize, create, and repair are never useless skills. This also might be a great way to adapt a workforce more quickly, especially for those jobs that don't need a four year degree. So, on with home ec and shop classes.

In the immortal words of Breakfast Club, regarding shop class:

Brian: "Bender, do you realize without calculus, there'd be no engineering."

Bender: "Without lamps, there'd be no light."

Colorado's Lawmaker Poses Questions

In quoting the Bible as a model for what the state government of Colorado should and should not do, Senator Scott Renfroe, a Republican from Greely, has generated a serious discussion for which more information is needed. I am hoping he will address the following issues during his next speech on the floor of the legislature:

1. Exodus 35:2 says people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death. I'm wondering how many doctors, nurses, police officers, firefighters, grocers, and other merchants Senator Renfroe thinks the State of Colorado should kill?

2. Leviticus 10:10 says eating shellfish is an "abomination." Interestingly, that's the same word used to describe homosexuality. Is Senator Renfro as aggressive in pushing legislation that denies the rights of shrimp eaters? If not, why not?

3. Exodus 21:7 sanctions selling children into slavery, and I am wondering if the senator has done this. Should Colorado laws be re-written to address this? Or is that a constitutional issue?

3. Leviticus 25:44 allows the purchase of slaves from other countries. Was the Civil War wrong, as well as the government's current efforts to combat the slave trade? Should Colorado secede from the union?

4. How does Senator Renfroe propose to kill his male friends and neighbors who cut their hair, especially around the temples, as forbidden by Leviticus 19:27? Should the state complete that task?

7. If Senator Renfroe learns of people who plant two different crops in the same field, or who wears garments made of two different kinds of thread (say a cotton/poyester blend) does he get the whole town together to stone them to death, as required in Leviticus 19:19? Does he stone everyone who curses as required by Leviticus 24:10? How many public burnings has he attended for people who sleep with their in-laws, as required in Leviticus 20:14? Should the state organize these activities, or does the senator want to leave it up to individual communities?

Obviously, there is much in the Old Testament that doesn't necessarily work in practice in America in the 21st century. Christ focused clearly on a personal relationship with God and with the plight of the poor and downtrodden. That, of course, brings up an entirely different issue.

What should the state of Colorado do, in a legislative capacity, to erase the problem of excessive wealth and ease the suffering of the poor? Christ said, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.” Is Colorado’s tax policy making it difficult for people to live Christian lives? Christ told a rich man to give half of everything he owns to the poor. Should the state increase taxes to fifty percent, so that each citizen can live according to the word of Christ?

Senator Renfroe has said the government must not make laws “that go against what biblically we are supposed to stand for.” If that is true, then the legislature has a lot of work to do. Of course, if Senator Renfroe seeks to initiate a theocratic government, he might want to put that to the voters first.


(NOTE: many of these citations originated from the oft-published "letter to Dr. Laura" featured in a West Wing episode)

The "End" of Adolescence

Once again, I post an entry and as I research more I find myself on the same side of the fence as Newt Gingrich. It seems that since Newt has left elected office, he has really hit his stride with engaging discussions about health care, finance, and, now, education and adolescence. Like Dr. Robert Epstein's book The Case Against Adolescence, Newt has been speaking at places like that American Enterprise Institute, and he is arguing that "adolescence" is a "failed cultural" model. Newt presents some insightful history, as well as some intriguing recommendations, in this short clip. Though I do concur that Newt can have the tendency to exaggerate and over-extrapolate on occasion, the idea is still valid and intriguing.

Realistically, it can be argued that adolescence is a nineteenth-century invention designed to keep children out of the employment market where they were competing with adults for jobs. Thus, by the 1920s we had nearly nationwide mandatory education for kids k-12. This has proved counterproductive. Whereas kids should seamlessly transition from being children to young adults, as they have done across cultures for centuries, we've now reached a point where the average American lives in arrested development until about the age of twenty-six. Instead, we should be focusing on providing incentives for students to move expeditiously through schooling, developing the basic competencies.

One of Newt's insights is the idea of giving high school students who graduate early the money that would have been used to educate them as a scholarship. If they graduate two years early, they can have the sum of those two years. I think that is a fantastic idea. Personally, I'd like to see some offered to the motivated students and the rest refunded to taxpayers who might appreciate not paying for the babysitting of so many teenagers. Regardless, these ideas should be examined and debated more in-depth by communities and departments of education. Newt's comments can be explored more in depth in this interview with Business Week magazine.

Ending Adolescence

Shocking as it may be to many, there is validity to the claim that "adolescence" is a twentieth-century invention. Additionally, there is validity behind the argument that the creation of adolescence has been a huge mistake for contemporary society. As high schools struggle with establishing a reasonable level of education for all students, as state governments in New Hampshire and Massachusetts consider offering graduation at sixteen, as some school districts move away from grade levels toward basic standards of competency, as college presidents push to lower the drinking age to eighteen, as communities struggle with levels of driving privileges, it becomes clear that society needs to figure out what an adult is and what do do with all these teenagers. This issue is compelling explored in-depth in the book "The Case Against Adolescence" by Dr. Robert Epstein. He argues that as society has decreased the responsibility of adolescents and increased the restrictions on their freedom, we have complicated what should be a more seamless transition between childhood and adulthood. He may be right.

Clearly, age is a completely arbitrary factor in establishing competency for a myriad of rights and responsibilities. There are plenty of fourteen-year olds who can competently drive, sixteen-year-olds who can competently vote, and eighteen-year-olds who can competently drink. It's the last one, by the way, that I have the most difficulty with. However, I can reasonably understand that there is a disturbing discrepancy between the time societies have historically bestowed adulthood and the polls which show the average adult didn't consider himself an adult until about the age of twenty-six. Why does nature bestow adulthood at puberty and religions bestow it at about the same time, though American law pushes it to eighteen and twenty-one, and American culture apparently sets it in the mid-twenties. This is a problem.

I have long considered the idea that American society should consider lopping one year off of high school and two years off of college, as the current system is surprisingly inefficient. As a high school teacher, I always have a considerable number of juniors who are ready for college - as noted by the presence of AP classes. Granted, there are issues of emotional maturity to consider. However, those are not established by age, and many of my students who clearly seem ready for college and life often don't believe they are. That's sad. There is much to consider about Epstein's beliefs, and while some assertions make me (and him) rather uncomfortable, I hope his ideas begin to generate and contribute to the type of debate American society needs to have.

Can Stephanie Meyer Write?

As an English teacher, I regularly discuss the issue of quality writing with my students. In other words, "what's good?" Inevitably, the discussion addresses the issue of literature versus popular fiction, and lately it has been centered on the skill, or possibly the lack thereof, of Stephanie Meyer. For as long as I have been teaching, I have argued that there are great writers and there are great storytellers, and they are not always the same. In terms of literature, a great writer inevitably tells a great story. However, a great storyteller may not stand the test of time - there might not be any literary quality. Charles Dickens happened to be both, though there were countless popular writers during his time who never attained significance. In contemporary times, the debate has raged over writers such as Stephen King, John Grisham, Tom Clancy, Dan Brown, James Patterson, J.K. Rowling, and, now, Stephanie Meyer. As an English teacher, I assert that J.K. Rowling is the only truly great writer. It seems one of these writers agrees, and he's not shy about stating it.

In this weekend's edition of USA Today, the lifestyle section reports on several celebrities publicly criticizing others. Among them, Stephen King says of the skill of J.K. Rowling and Stephanie Meyer, "The real difference is Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephanie Meyer can't write worth a darn. She's not very good." Ouch. Though I have to agree. Strangely, Stephen King used to be one of my examples of a good storyteller who wasn't a great writer, though I have to give him credit for his knowledge in "On Writing." An important issue in this debate is the issue of popularity, and King acknowledges that. Sadly, Us Weekly's West Coast Bureau chief Melanie Bromley - who judges the spat - does not. Bromley incorrectly asserts "At the end of the day, it's the fans who are judging, and sales prove these books (by Meyer) are fantastic."

Actually, that's not true. Popularity does not equal quality. McDonalds serves 42 million people everyday, but nobody claims it is high quality food. No food critic worth his credentials would rave about the Big Mac, though they'd admit it tastes good. Similarly, the movies of Tom Cruise make billions, but no one with any credibility in judging the craft would argue Tom Cruise is a great actor. He's, quite simply, not. In fact, he doesn't act at all - he's Tom in every movie. The Academy is never going to call him, or Adam Sandler or Will Ferrel for that matter, a great actor. However, their movies are still immensely popular. Thus, Stephanie Meyer may be fabulously entertaining, but she'll never knock Harper Lee off the required reading lists of high school English departments.

Who's Educated?

“Did you know that nearly two-thirds of Americans aged 18 – 24 still cannot find Iraq on a map?” That question was on a flyer that went up at my school this week. It was posted by some club, and the information was attributed to CNN. Clearly, the question is designed to shock and outrage, pointing a finger at a weakness in the education system or the culture in general. My answer to the question is this: Who cares? I wonder if the data was taken from people looking at atlases with the names marked on the country. Of course it wasn’t. It was a blank map, and, thus, the question is simply measuring the arbitrary ability to match names to random shapes. When is that necessary? How is that a valid measure of education? Are the Joint Chiefs sitting around drawing up foreign policy with a bunch of blank maps in front of them? I don’t think so.

This sort of question – and all its snide implications – is indicative of the wrong kind of conversations Americans have when evaluating education. The arbitrary assigning of educational significance to some knowledge is baffling, and it’s become a punch-line in this country with popularity of shows such as “Who’s Smarter than a Fifth Grader?” Who’s smarter? A sixth-grader. So are all those professionals who went on the show and were “embarrassed” because they can’t name the countries that border Ecuador. I’d like to see the show that puts the “smart” fifth grader in a house by himself when the main line bursts. Can the fifth grader fix that? Can he balance a budget? Can he draw up a contract? Can he fix dinner?

I concede the importance of basic skills, and I argue to my students that it’s not enough to be able to punch numbers into a calculator. Their brains benefit from having to do math “the hard way.” Much knowledge in contemporary education is designed to “grow” and “exercise” their brains. Much of it is integral to critical thinking, especially if they can extrapolate basic knowledge into larger trends. Much of it is about becoming “a person on whom nothing is lost.”

And then there is assigning names to random shapes. Who cares?

Bill Gates' Education Fix?

While the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has greatly contributed to progress in school reform, there are times when Bill's ego leads him to falsely believe he can work his "Windows" magic everywhere. Case in point: his recent op-ed in the Washington Post entitled "School Reform That Works." Gates offers explanations of urban, failing schools that have improved through increased expectations and standards, guided by programs like KIPP. Certainly, this progress is admirable and should be, in some ways, replicated. However, when Gates begins to make broader recommendations on school policy, he reveals an ignorant bias toward the mission of k-12 education in the United States. One example is his misguided belief that "Our goal as a nation should be to ensure that 80 percent of our students graduate from high school fully ready to attend college by 2025." His assumption that a college prep curriculum is necessary for eight out of ten high school students reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of American society and the type of education reform it needs.

Why would Gates choose an arbitrary number such as 80% of high school graduates going to college when statistically only 30% of the country currently has a degree. That is the highest the US percentage has ever been, and it has adequately served a country that even in this crisis is only looking at 8% unemployment. Is he expecting that by 2025 eight out of ten jobs in America will require a college degree? Where are all the jobs for that "over-educated" population he seeks to create. I doubt they'll all be hired by Microsoft. Gates' vision is a foolish over-estimation, and if he'd run his business with the same kind of narrow view of society, I bet Macs would be the dominant platform in the world, not PCs. Gates also praises the schools where 90% of student "enter" a four-year college. That's impressive, but the more important statistic is whether 90% exit with a degree. Research shows the number will be more like 40%, Thus, college serves to be a colossal waste of time and money for many kids. Gates is creating unrealistic educational expectations that will result in a tremendous waste of resources.

Bill Gates has done a lot of good for schools, but he might consider returning to computers, as Microsoft lays off 5000 people, and he reveals a true lack of understanding in terms of the educational needs of this country.

High School Sports Obsession

The case of America's obsession with sports, seen played out most often in the high school and club sport realm, just got worse in Colorado with the most recent meeting of the high school association. Sadly, with the approval of sports practices during holiday breaks, CHSAA (Colorado High School Activities Association) has once again shown it does not have the best interests of students at heart. The boards' already weak eligibility requirements reveal a lack of interest in academics. Now, the board has shown a disregard for the emotional well being of kids by ignoring the importance of "family time" and the simple need for "a break." Any practices offered by coaches will be "voluntary" in name only, as no athlete will risk disappointing a coach and no coach will risk allowing the competition to get an advantage.

Spokesman Bill Reader claimed the change was necessary because "we're in a different era" now. He's right about that - we are even more sports-obsessed than we were. There's no legitimate reason why teams need more practice, but there is plenty of evidence that coaches aren't wise enough or secure enough to know when to take a break. Before committing to increased emphasis on sports, parents and coaches should read Fred Engh's book Why Johnny Hates Sports. It's a book that asks very important questions about youth sports, and for Colorado students, having to practice on Christmas is now one of the answers.

No Taxes for Teachers

Ten years ago, when I was teaching high school in Illinois, a colleague of mine and I came up with what we believed to be one of the best ideas in addressing issues of the teaching profession and public school reform - no income taxes for teachers. It seemed to be the perfect plan, considering school districts often struggle to pay competitive wages while balancing budgets, people constantly claim teachers are dramatically underpaid, and critics lament the ability of education to draw the best and brightest of students. While I've never complained about teacher pay - I'm actually quite comfortable with the income I earn - and I don't agree that money is the reason the best people don't enter or remain in the profession, I think a lot of good could come from the no-taxes-for-teachers plan. Now, someone has said it in a larger forum than teachers' lounges and my blog. Thomas Friedman's commentary in the New York Times today proposes investment in education - including an exemption from federal income taxes - as an integral idea for the stimulus plans of the Obama administration.

There are some problems with this assumption, notably the idea that we want the kind of people who would be primarily motivated by this incentive to become teachers. In fact, there is much to argue that "the best and brightest" don't always make the best teachers, and financial compensation shouldn't be a motivation for educators. However, the kind of investment in education that Friedman proposes has a lot of relevance, in that any stimulus plan should create a stronger society with motivated innovators like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates who are inspired by their math and science classes. Obviously, this doesn't simply come from modifications to teacher pay - Friedman makes other salient points about who is teaching and how and why. Yet, I am pleased that my idea is gaining some tractions. Can't wait for my windfall.