OK, who doesn't know what an abacus is?
Fresh off its most recent Emmy Award for Best Reality TV, CBS' phenomenally successful "race around the world," The Amazing Race kicked off its twenty-first season in Pasadena, California tonight. A quick opening challenge put the teams on the plane to Shanghai, China, and the race around the world has begun again. I have to admit, though, I was disappointed by the opening city, as its becoming tiresome to begin in Los Angeles and then quickly hop over to China. Granted, last season took off for Argentina as the first stop, and a couple seasons back, they left from Massachusetts. But, in general, the Amazing Race leaves from LA and heads to Southeast Asia, and the whole thing is becoming cliche. My family was predicting an East Coast start heading to Europe, and I was calling for a kickoff from Washington, D.C. to honor the presidential election. Alas, it was not to be, and the teams were quickly out of LAX and on to China.
The teams are as eclectic - and strangely predictable - as always, and I don't see any real favorites yet. Certainly, the winning team tonight - which was the dating divorced couple - ran a nice first leg. And the Amazing Race creators have developed a fascinating new twist with a potential million dollar bonus if the first leg winner actually wins the whole race. Now, the pressure is on this young couple. And the big news - and bittersweet moment - from the opening is the couple from Crested Butte with the girl who survived debilitating injuries from meninigitis as a young woman. At the moment that it counted most, the Colorado couple was out front and told a couple teams where to find the final clue - one team made them pay and ran them down for first place. Certainly, it was hard to watch. But they didn't have to share the information. That's just the way the race goes. Though it was tough to watch double amputee Amy struggle and get passed right before the pit stop. Angst.
Beyond that, there were certainly some annoying situations for long time race viewers. For example, you never simply follow a team without first getting your clue, as the Chippendale dancers did. They lost valuable time by running after a team before they had their final clue. And, it was tough to see the monster truck driver make the mistake of not reading the clue - and being forced to eat a double dose of the frogs' fallopian tubes. Retch! But that's a standard practice for the Amazing Race. Always read your clue closely. I mean, really. Who doesn't know these basic practices. And I don't care about the intensity of the race and making rash decisions. If you watch regularly, you know to play the game prudently. Certainly, the old couple lost after their ill-fated trip to the Bank of China. They even commented how fortunate they were to get that tip - and it cost them the entire race. Oops.
I have to say that I still lament the loss of Elimination Station on the website last season. It was one of our favorite parts of the show, and I still would like to see it return. Regardless, it's nice to see the return of The Amazing Race. Who's your favorite?
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Seoul Sausage Wins The 2012 Great Food Truck Race
The Food Network's Great Food Truck Race of 2012 aired its finale tonight from the coast of Maine, and, as it should have been, the boys from Seoul Sausage reined victorious over the spirited girls from Nonna's Kitchenette. For the second year in a row, the Great Food Truck Race was won by a trio of Korean guys cooking up American food truck versions of Korean specialties like Korean BBQ and fried kimchi balls. That's saying something about the culinary tastes of the growing food truck culture - and it says something about the culinary chops of these young men. This year, the winner was never really in doubt from also the first week. Though the boys of Seoul Sausage almost always failed to win the truck stop challenges, what really mattered in the end was the ability to consistently put out good food and draw the crowds. That's the secret of the food truck culture, and these boys should be proud that they have made a career decision which has been validated from coast to coast in seven different cities.
The girls from Nonna's certainly have nothing to be ashamed of, though they are obviously not as polished as the boys from Seoul Sausage. I'd bet these girls could find some backing and get enough support to make a go of it in food truck culture on their own. Certainly, it would have been nice to have the initial investment taken care of - a fully furnished food truck and $50K is going to set the Korean lads up well for success. However, 99.9% of people who establish successful food trucks don't win a contest and have the foundation set up for them. So, the gals from Jersey should simply take a lesson and understand that they do have what it takes to make it in the food business. Of course, it's worth noting that they were actually much farther behind Seoul Sausage than Tyler Florence made it seem. While Tyler says they lost by $103, it was actually a loss by $603. They won a challenge that gave them a huge financial bonus - and that perk doesn't exist in the business world. So, even when Tyler said they were within five dollars of each other, it was never really that close from a business world perspective.
Regardless, this turned out to be a satisfying season for the Food Network's Great Food Truck Race. I'll admit that when the season started, I didn't like they idea of having novices compete for their own food truck. I wanted to see skilled food trucks duke it out. However, the concept has grown on me, and I am thrilled that the Food Network is supporting aspiring chefs, instead of already established ones, with this format. Even the boys from Pop-a-Waffle learned they can compete in the food truck business - and despite my criticism of their food quality and ... appearance, I hope they pursue their dream as well.
Congrats to the boys of Seoul Sausage. You made your parents proud. Good luck to Nonna's as well. And hats off to the Food Network for another great show. Now, some more of Jeff the Sandwich King. And more on healthy and quality cuisine.
The girls from Nonna's certainly have nothing to be ashamed of, though they are obviously not as polished as the boys from Seoul Sausage. I'd bet these girls could find some backing and get enough support to make a go of it in food truck culture on their own. Certainly, it would have been nice to have the initial investment taken care of - a fully furnished food truck and $50K is going to set the Korean lads up well for success. However, 99.9% of people who establish successful food trucks don't win a contest and have the foundation set up for them. So, the gals from Jersey should simply take a lesson and understand that they do have what it takes to make it in the food business. Of course, it's worth noting that they were actually much farther behind Seoul Sausage than Tyler Florence made it seem. While Tyler says they lost by $103, it was actually a loss by $603. They won a challenge that gave them a huge financial bonus - and that perk doesn't exist in the business world. So, even when Tyler said they were within five dollars of each other, it was never really that close from a business world perspective.
Regardless, this turned out to be a satisfying season for the Food Network's Great Food Truck Race. I'll admit that when the season started, I didn't like they idea of having novices compete for their own food truck. I wanted to see skilled food trucks duke it out. However, the concept has grown on me, and I am thrilled that the Food Network is supporting aspiring chefs, instead of already established ones, with this format. Even the boys from Pop-a-Waffle learned they can compete in the food truck business - and despite my criticism of their food quality and ... appearance, I hope they pursue their dream as well.
Congrats to the boys of Seoul Sausage. You made your parents proud. Good luck to Nonna's as well. And hats off to the Food Network for another great show. Now, some more of Jeff the Sandwich King. And more on healthy and quality cuisine.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Jim McMahon & Concussions & Dementia & NFL Safety
Jim McMahon was the larger-than-life professional athlete of my youth. The headband-wearing Chicago Bears quarterback was a rock star in shoulder pads, and he defined toughness and cool. I can still recall the images of him being upended and spun around by blitzing linebackers, and his toughness and attitude endeared him to millions of fans, especially young teen males. And, so the news of Jim McMahon's early onset dementia and the fading of his shining personality is a bit of sadness that takes away the innocence of football fans. The curtain has been pulled back, and now we are gaining some insight into the incredibly high price paid by these gladiators of the contemporary age.
A needless price that is too high.
In a series of recent profiles and interview pieces, Jim McMahon and his wife have revealed that he is suffering from dementia at the age of 53. As one of the hundreds of former NFL players that is currently suing the league for not more effectively warning them of the dangers and working to protect players, McMahon has recently said that given the choice again, he would have never played football. That is a shocking and sad assertion by one of the league's most colorful personalities. If anyone lived the dream of the NFL player, it was the crazy, competitive, irreverent, and lively Jim McMahon. He was the Chicago Bears. He was the Super Bowl Shuffle. Everyone wanted Jim McMahon on their team - and this was the days before Fantasy Football.
Now, he's a shell of a man. And it doesn't have to be this way.
The lawsuit by NFL players and the increasingly serious news of concussions and their long-term effects have generated discussion of how the sport of football will proceed. And, it's filtering all the way down to the Pop Warner and high school leagues. In fact, some articles report that the number of high school players participating in football is dropping for the first time anyone can remember. Are parents and kids rethinking the risks of a few weeks of Friday night glory. I know I am quite glad my son is a baseball and basketball player, as well as a distance runner. I would not want my son playing the sport - though I must admit the hypocrisy of being a serious fan of the game. Of course, I am not opposed to changes to increase safety. And, I am actually a proponent of the most serious and effective rule changes on the table. If football wants to make its sport safer ...
Ban the helmet.
It's really that simple. Football needs to return to its origins and get rid of helmets. For, it's no surprise to anyone that helmets give a false sense of security. No one without a helmet is going to being willing to smash his bare head against another body. That's the beauty of rugby. And it was the beauty of football in the early days. By getting rid of helmets, the game will inherently become more athletic and less about brute force. Additionally, football leagues should move to ban the three-point stance. By requiring offensive and defensive lineman to begin plays in an upright position, they will be less able to propel themselves forward into head-smashing situations. Ultimately, this will be good for the game. More importantly, it will honor and respect the safety of the young men who sacrifice their bodies for our entertainment.
So, in the name of a fading Jim McMahon - and hundreds of other nameless men suffering - ban the helmet. Ban the helmet and save football.
A needless price that is too high.
In a series of recent profiles and interview pieces, Jim McMahon and his wife have revealed that he is suffering from dementia at the age of 53. As one of the hundreds of former NFL players that is currently suing the league for not more effectively warning them of the dangers and working to protect players, McMahon has recently said that given the choice again, he would have never played football. That is a shocking and sad assertion by one of the league's most colorful personalities. If anyone lived the dream of the NFL player, it was the crazy, competitive, irreverent, and lively Jim McMahon. He was the Chicago Bears. He was the Super Bowl Shuffle. Everyone wanted Jim McMahon on their team - and this was the days before Fantasy Football.
Now, he's a shell of a man. And it doesn't have to be this way.
The lawsuit by NFL players and the increasingly serious news of concussions and their long-term effects have generated discussion of how the sport of football will proceed. And, it's filtering all the way down to the Pop Warner and high school leagues. In fact, some articles report that the number of high school players participating in football is dropping for the first time anyone can remember. Are parents and kids rethinking the risks of a few weeks of Friday night glory. I know I am quite glad my son is a baseball and basketball player, as well as a distance runner. I would not want my son playing the sport - though I must admit the hypocrisy of being a serious fan of the game. Of course, I am not opposed to changes to increase safety. And, I am actually a proponent of the most serious and effective rule changes on the table. If football wants to make its sport safer ...
Ban the helmet.
It's really that simple. Football needs to return to its origins and get rid of helmets. For, it's no surprise to anyone that helmets give a false sense of security. No one without a helmet is going to being willing to smash his bare head against another body. That's the beauty of rugby. And it was the beauty of football in the early days. By getting rid of helmets, the game will inherently become more athletic and less about brute force. Additionally, football leagues should move to ban the three-point stance. By requiring offensive and defensive lineman to begin plays in an upright position, they will be less able to propel themselves forward into head-smashing situations. Ultimately, this will be good for the game. More importantly, it will honor and respect the safety of the young men who sacrifice their bodies for our entertainment.
So, in the name of a fading Jim McMahon - and hundreds of other nameless men suffering - ban the helmet. Ban the helmet and save football.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Conservatism and the Problem for Mitt Romney and the GOP in 2012
Being an unaffiliated independent voter who generally splits between Democrats and Republicans while looking for the most moderate and pragmatic legislators I can find, I have watched the implosion of Mitt Romney's campaign and the resilient nature of President Obama's administration with absolute fascination. At times like this I look to the moderate voices on conservatism and politics, trying to sift through the white noise of ideology and campaigning. As I noted recently with the recent national polls - and conservative commentary backlash - on Mitt Romney, I have tried to explain how it's not about Mitt - it's about the message.
Conservatism is struggling to find a voice among the moderate middle voters, even though they naturally and consciously veer to the right. The problem is well articulated by David Brooks this week in the New York Times with his insightful commentary The Conservative Mind. Most outspoken Republicans these days will actually miss the allusion in Brooks' title to the seminal work by Russel Kirk, an iconic figure in the annals of American conservatism. And, that is the problem. The flippant free-market ranters of the conservative right these days have little in common with the roots of conservatism among people like Kirk and Edmund Burke. The conservative mind is about believing and supporting the traditional institutions that are the foundation of civilization - as Brooks notes, the conservative wants to preserve a society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in which the different layers were nestled upon each other: individual, family, company, neighborhood, religion, city government and national government.
Conservatism is not about opposing or having contempt for government. In fact, the conservative knows the integral role government plays in restraining the irrational and primal side of the individual that puts the entire society at risk. And, granted, the conservative values liberty above most things, and he worries about collectivism and cultures of dependency. But there is little faith among the conservative for the "unbridled free market," which puts society as at much risk. The social and financial inequality that results is not good for civilization. Conservative blogger Rod Dreher (read and alluded to by Brooks) also argues for this pragmatism and cites the Ten Conservative Principles developed and articulated by Russel Kirk. These are ideas that are worth reviewing - and Dreher's work with The American Conservative should be regular reading for the average Republican.
Certainly, checking in at The American Conservative from time to time is worthwhile - for it is the best explanation the GOP is going to find for Why Romney Is Losing. I would like to see the GOP shift back to the thinking of people like Kirk and Burke and Disraeli and Brooks and Dreher. But I don't hold out hope. Thus, I continue to be stuck by the problem of not being overly thrilled with the Obama Presidency yet being repelled by the Romney Campaign.
Troubling.
Conservatism is struggling to find a voice among the moderate middle voters, even though they naturally and consciously veer to the right. The problem is well articulated by David Brooks this week in the New York Times with his insightful commentary The Conservative Mind. Most outspoken Republicans these days will actually miss the allusion in Brooks' title to the seminal work by Russel Kirk, an iconic figure in the annals of American conservatism. And, that is the problem. The flippant free-market ranters of the conservative right these days have little in common with the roots of conservatism among people like Kirk and Edmund Burke. The conservative mind is about believing and supporting the traditional institutions that are the foundation of civilization - as Brooks notes, the conservative wants to preserve a society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in which the different layers were nestled upon each other: individual, family, company, neighborhood, religion, city government and national government.
Conservatism is not about opposing or having contempt for government. In fact, the conservative knows the integral role government plays in restraining the irrational and primal side of the individual that puts the entire society at risk. And, granted, the conservative values liberty above most things, and he worries about collectivism and cultures of dependency. But there is little faith among the conservative for the "unbridled free market," which puts society as at much risk. The social and financial inequality that results is not good for civilization. Conservative blogger Rod Dreher (read and alluded to by Brooks) also argues for this pragmatism and cites the Ten Conservative Principles developed and articulated by Russel Kirk. These are ideas that are worth reviewing - and Dreher's work with The American Conservative should be regular reading for the average Republican.
Certainly, checking in at The American Conservative from time to time is worthwhile - for it is the best explanation the GOP is going to find for Why Romney Is Losing. I would like to see the GOP shift back to the thinking of people like Kirk and Burke and Disraeli and Brooks and Dreher. But I don't hold out hope. Thus, I continue to be stuck by the problem of not being overly thrilled with the Obama Presidency yet being repelled by the Romney Campaign.
Troubling.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Messy Classrooms & Sloppy Professionalism
Some may like us to believe that "A messy desk is a sign of a genius." The question for the education profession is whether a messy classroom is a reflection on the instruction or the quality of the teacher. Having taught for many years in several schools, I have seen it all when it comes to classroom design and maintenance. And, I am always baffled - and rather put off - by the classrooms that reflect the scattered nature of a student's locker or a teenager's bedroom. In a basic sense of professionalism, there would seem to be no justification for books haphazardly left on the floor or loose papers strewn across the desk, bookshelves, and corners. Such a disregard for order and decorum seems to imply a casualness that could be perceived by students as less than serious.
Granted, I am a bit OCD in the way I like my classroom and desk. In fact, years ago a colleague came in to my classroom to chat and paused, looking carefully at my desk. "You live," she told me, "in a right-angle world." And, my room is rather neat an orderly, though not lacking in character and some form of decoration. Though that would seem to create and reflect the kind of order that is necessary for a learning environment. Students, it seems without doubt, need structure in their lives and classes. In fact, the classroom and school are sometimes the only order they can count on. Beyond that idea though, there should be an expectation that teachers rooms are tidy.
Granted, I am a bit OCD in the way I like my classroom and desk. In fact, years ago a colleague came in to my classroom to chat and paused, looking carefully at my desk. "You live," she told me, "in a right-angle world." And, my room is rather neat an orderly, though not lacking in character and some form of decoration. Though that would seem to create and reflect the kind of order that is necessary for a learning environment. Students, it seems without doubt, need structure in their lives and classes. In fact, the classroom and school are sometimes the only order they can count on. Beyond that idea though, there should be an expectation that teachers rooms are tidy.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Pop-A-Waffle Exits Great Food Truck Race
In the run-up to the finale of the Food Network's Great Food Truck Race, the three teams of Seoul Sausage, Nonna's Kitchenette, and Pop-A-Waffle rolled into Cleveland for the semi-final challenge. In a victory for culinary tastes and modest, healthier waist lines, Pop-A-Waffle will not be rolling back out of Cleveland. The rather schlubby guys from Los Angeles were finally eliminated, despite winning the truck stop challenge and being given three hours to sell food while the other two trucks were shut down. Thankfully, that did not give them an advantage for their unappealing and certainly far-from-healthy food.
During the entire season of this Great Food Truck Race, I have been disappointed by the mediocre and unappealing food put out by a group of three guys who look so unhealthy I wouldn't buy a paperclip from them. The entire chicken-n-waffle concept is far too Paula Dean for a show which is hosted by Tyler Florence - and for a network that employs some of the top chefs and high cuisine. Certainly, none of the contestants are making the healthiest food this season - but the concept of waffles with whipped cream out of a can is just really disappointing. And the men in the waffle truck need to hit the gym and Weight Watchers for about six months before they decide to start shilling for waffle business again.
Fortunately, the finale for the Great Food Truck Race will be two trucks with people who actually know how to cook, and can serve up some quality cuisine. The odds-on favorite is clearly Seoul Sausage, who has consistently won week after week with a dependable formula. These Korean guys know how to run a food truck, and they should be proud. However, the girls from Nonna's can certainly give them a challenge, and it should be an interesting finale.
As an added bonus to the Sunday night line-up, this episode of the Great Food Truck Race was followed by the premiere of the Food Network's $24 in 24, featuring Jeff Mauro, the Sandwich King. Jeff is branching out with a new show featuring inexpensive but great food from cities around the country. I am excited about this show - which premiered in Jeff's hometown of Chicago. And, I am really hoping this can provide a relief from the endless replays of Guy's Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives. Jeff the Sandwich King has Guy-like star power, and hopefully this show takes off and generates some more press - and a better time slot - for Jeff the Sandwich King.
*UPDATE - For info on Season 4 premiering Sunday, August 18, check here.
During the entire season of this Great Food Truck Race, I have been disappointed by the mediocre and unappealing food put out by a group of three guys who look so unhealthy I wouldn't buy a paperclip from them. The entire chicken-n-waffle concept is far too Paula Dean for a show which is hosted by Tyler Florence - and for a network that employs some of the top chefs and high cuisine. Certainly, none of the contestants are making the healthiest food this season - but the concept of waffles with whipped cream out of a can is just really disappointing. And the men in the waffle truck need to hit the gym and Weight Watchers for about six months before they decide to start shilling for waffle business again.
Fortunately, the finale for the Great Food Truck Race will be two trucks with people who actually know how to cook, and can serve up some quality cuisine. The odds-on favorite is clearly Seoul Sausage, who has consistently won week after week with a dependable formula. These Korean guys know how to run a food truck, and they should be proud. However, the girls from Nonna's can certainly give them a challenge, and it should be an interesting finale.
As an added bonus to the Sunday night line-up, this episode of the Great Food Truck Race was followed by the premiere of the Food Network's $24 in 24, featuring Jeff Mauro, the Sandwich King. Jeff is branching out with a new show featuring inexpensive but great food from cities around the country. I am excited about this show - which premiered in Jeff's hometown of Chicago. And, I am really hoping this can provide a relief from the endless replays of Guy's Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives. Jeff the Sandwich King has Guy-like star power, and hopefully this show takes off and generates some more press - and a better time slot - for Jeff the Sandwich King.
*UPDATE - For info on Season 4 premiering Sunday, August 18, check here.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Is It About 47%-ers, or 1%-ers?
How quickly the class warfare discussions have shifted - away from President Obama's plans to tax the super-rich - and on to Mitt Romney's apparently clueless remarks about some ambiguous group that makes up 47% of the electorate, doesn't pay income taxes, feels like a victim, feels entitled to health care and a job and a house, and wasn't going to vote for Mitt Romney anyway.
Governor Romney has made a serious mistake and miscalculation about percentages - and is being painted by even some in his own party as a derisive plutocrat. There are several ways to parse the 47% that Mitt may be talking about. For one, roughly 46% of the population identifies as Democrats, or Republicans, with about 38% voting that way all the time. So, Romney is correct that a certain percentage of people will never vote for him because it's about party and ideology. Additionally, there is a common notion - from a study by the Brookings Institution - that 46% of Americans don't pay an "federal income tax." The reasons vary - as some are fixed income seniors and others are working poor who have their burden erased the Earned Income Tax Credit (a tax credit widely supported by many in the GOP, including W. Bush).
The problem for Romney is that he has assumed the 46-47%-ers who won't vote from - and those who don't pay income taxes - are the same group. And that's far from the truth. It negates all the Republicans in all the Red States who currently don't pay income taxes and do receive government benefits. And it confuses the many Democrats who pay plenty in taxes and would never vote for Mitt Romney for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the elite, plutocratic view that leads to making inane statements like Romney has been making.
Governor Romney has made a serious mistake and miscalculation about percentages - and is being painted by even some in his own party as a derisive plutocrat. There are several ways to parse the 47% that Mitt may be talking about. For one, roughly 46% of the population identifies as Democrats, or Republicans, with about 38% voting that way all the time. So, Romney is correct that a certain percentage of people will never vote for him because it's about party and ideology. Additionally, there is a common notion - from a study by the Brookings Institution - that 46% of Americans don't pay an "federal income tax." The reasons vary - as some are fixed income seniors and others are working poor who have their burden erased the Earned Income Tax Credit (a tax credit widely supported by many in the GOP, including W. Bush).
The problem for Romney is that he has assumed the 46-47%-ers who won't vote from - and those who don't pay income taxes - are the same group. And that's far from the truth. It negates all the Republicans in all the Red States who currently don't pay income taxes and do receive government benefits. And it confuses the many Democrats who pay plenty in taxes and would never vote for Mitt Romney for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the elite, plutocratic view that leads to making inane statements like Romney has been making.
Monday, September 17, 2012
There is No Health Care in the United States
As I continue to observe people with incredibly poor diets living unhealthy lifestyles with very little attention to exercise, I've concluded that there is very little health care in this country. People are not taking care of their health - and they are absolutely shameless about it. Currently, Americans seem to be completely up in arms about the health care crisis - whether that means access or costs. But there is little talk about the role personal responsibility plays in this area.
Roughly, 80% of health care spending the in United States - that's eight out of every ten health care dollars - goes to treat chronic illnesses that can be completely or predominantly treated with diet, exercise, and lifestyle changes. Hypertension, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, joint problems, back problems, type-2 diabetes and all the associated liver and kidney problems: these are all lifestyle diseases.
If Americans would cut out the sodas and unhealthy snacks, walk thirty minutes a day, and weight trained a couple times a week, America's health care costs could be cut dramatically. Dare I say, we could cut wasteful "health care" spending in half. Medicare and Medicaid would be in much better shape because we could be consuming far fewer services. And, this should appeal to people of all status and ideology. Personal responsibility needs to be part of the health care discussion. And we all do have an interest (financial) in the eating and exercise habits of others.
As Michael Pollan says,
Eat food.
Mostly vegetables.
Not too much.
And take a walk.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
It's Not About Mitt Romney - It's the GOP Platform
According to the latest buzz, Mitt Romney is under fire from his own party over the tepid campaign he is waging. In the view of both Laura Ingram and George Will, if Mitt Romney and the Republicans cannot beat President Obama in the current climate, the party should hang it up and seek a new line of work. The strategy has run back and forth and all over the place, but the campaign has mostly been about the fact that Mitt Romney is not Obama. The central idea is to be the anti-Obama, and to rail against the President for everything from health care to taxes to Solyndra to the trading of Tim Tebow. The biggest frustration for the GOP - especially the conservatives on talk radio and television - is that they can't simply fire off the Reagan question - "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" - and call it game, set, and match.
And that disconnect is the heart of the Republican's problem. It's the platform, people. The country may not be thrilled with their lives and the current state of the economy and government. But they aren't thrilled about the alternatives either.
It's not a winning strategy to run as the anti-Obama when the president is actually quite likable and in many ways popular. The American people may be unhappy with their job situation - but they are just as likely to blame the company that laid them off as they are the White House's economic policies. In fact, it may be more so, considering many employed people were hired back at worse jobs for less pay even as they saw the corporate sector boasting profits and the stock market come roaring back. The problem is that the voters don't trust Mitt Romney and the trickle-down ideas, and they associate him with the part of society that is doing well. Time Magazine reported on the state of malls in America this week, and the surprising news is that the outlook at middle and working class malls is more vacancies, but the malls that serve the top 10% of earners are actually doing well ... even growing.
The American people don't hold President Obama in great contempt. And they are not thrilled about the idea of Medicare becoming a voucher. And they don't see why Warren Buffet should pay so little in taxes. And they don't have lots of dividends and stocks, especially not to the point of moving the money off-shore to avoid taxes. And they don't believe that abortion should be outlawed in all cases. And they haven't put English as a national language high on their list of priorities. And they do have sympathy for undocumented children who simply want to stay in the only home country they've ever known. And they don't see why the Bush tax cuts for top earners can't expire. And they are liking the fact that the insurance companies can't drop them or deny them now. And they appreciated the rebate they got for their health care. And they like not being misled by credit card companies anymore.
The sad - and strange - thing for the GOP is that if Mitt Romney loses, the Republicans will misread it as the country being even more conservative and opposed to government than it is, and they will seek even more hardline conservatives for 2014 and 2016. And for a party that desperately needs to move to the center, that will be a huge mistake.
Republicans. It's your ideas.
And that disconnect is the heart of the Republican's problem. It's the platform, people. The country may not be thrilled with their lives and the current state of the economy and government. But they aren't thrilled about the alternatives either.
It's not a winning strategy to run as the anti-Obama when the president is actually quite likable and in many ways popular. The American people may be unhappy with their job situation - but they are just as likely to blame the company that laid them off as they are the White House's economic policies. In fact, it may be more so, considering many employed people were hired back at worse jobs for less pay even as they saw the corporate sector boasting profits and the stock market come roaring back. The problem is that the voters don't trust Mitt Romney and the trickle-down ideas, and they associate him with the part of society that is doing well. Time Magazine reported on the state of malls in America this week, and the surprising news is that the outlook at middle and working class malls is more vacancies, but the malls that serve the top 10% of earners are actually doing well ... even growing.
The American people don't hold President Obama in great contempt. And they are not thrilled about the idea of Medicare becoming a voucher. And they don't see why Warren Buffet should pay so little in taxes. And they don't have lots of dividends and stocks, especially not to the point of moving the money off-shore to avoid taxes. And they don't believe that abortion should be outlawed in all cases. And they haven't put English as a national language high on their list of priorities. And they do have sympathy for undocumented children who simply want to stay in the only home country they've ever known. And they don't see why the Bush tax cuts for top earners can't expire. And they are liking the fact that the insurance companies can't drop them or deny them now. And they appreciated the rebate they got for their health care. And they like not being misled by credit card companies anymore.
The sad - and strange - thing for the GOP is that if Mitt Romney loses, the Republicans will misread it as the country being even more conservative and opposed to government than it is, and they will seek even more hardline conservatives for 2014 and 2016. And for a party that desperately needs to move to the center, that will be a huge mistake.
Republicans. It's your ideas.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
America Is ... a Tad Disgusting
My family and I spent Saturday morning running a 5K for the First America State Bank Fitness Festival, and it was quite simply refreshing and a lot of fun. Roughly a thousand people in the area of southeast Denver turned out for a 5K run/walk and a one-mile fun run for the little kids. Many of the local high schools turned out with their cross-country teams and cheerleading squads to promote health and wellness.
To contrast that, we attended youth baseball today for a double-header and I was depressed and quite nauseated to witness the poor health and disgusting eating - and parenting - habits of Americans. The first thing that struck me was the number of overweight kids who are playing organized sports. Too many young people are just overweight and out of shape, and it's just so sad. And, I blame the parents. For, even before the kids are playing - on a chilly September morning at 8:30 - these kids are being given huge bottles of Gatorade to chug on. And that is nothing but sugar water and chemical coloring, despite the fact that the kids haven't sweated a drop and wouldn't all day.
Beyond that were ... the snacks. How about a supermarket bag full of Doritos and Pringles and Cheeze-its and Oreos? Nothing like a little starch and empty white flour carbs loaded with sugar for a little "energy." And if that weren't enough, it certainly made sense to top it off between games with a trip to McDonalds. Really, people? Has any effort at health and nutrition gone completely out the window? Are people this completely clueless about fitness? It's not surprising, considering the size - and shape - of many of the fathers in the stands. But it is truly sad. They've just completely given up - and there is literally no shame about how bad they look.
Of course, the question is - why is this my business?
I look at it financially. There is no doubt that diet and exercise are hugely significant on health and health care spending. And Medicare and Medicaid spending are busting out with a generation of people raised on sugar and empty white flour carbs. That expense affects my health care costs as well. Insurance pools disperse cost and risk. So for every handful of Doritos going down someone's gullet, I am seeing a rise in my health care costs. And it is unsustainable. The great irony is that amidst all this gluttony, people turn their ire toward the "Food Police." As if that cinnamon roll is so important and part of everyone's Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness.
Ultimately, I see it from A Teacher's View. These children are being harmed by the ignorant behavior of their parents, and they will be saddled with a lifetime of weight struggle because parents didn't care enough to be educated about health and wellness. According to research, only 10% of parents of overweight and obese children seek help in treating the condition.
So, so sad.
To contrast that, we attended youth baseball today for a double-header and I was depressed and quite nauseated to witness the poor health and disgusting eating - and parenting - habits of Americans. The first thing that struck me was the number of overweight kids who are playing organized sports. Too many young people are just overweight and out of shape, and it's just so sad. And, I blame the parents. For, even before the kids are playing - on a chilly September morning at 8:30 - these kids are being given huge bottles of Gatorade to chug on. And that is nothing but sugar water and chemical coloring, despite the fact that the kids haven't sweated a drop and wouldn't all day.
Beyond that were ... the snacks. How about a supermarket bag full of Doritos and Pringles and Cheeze-its and Oreos? Nothing like a little starch and empty white flour carbs loaded with sugar for a little "energy." And if that weren't enough, it certainly made sense to top it off between games with a trip to McDonalds. Really, people? Has any effort at health and nutrition gone completely out the window? Are people this completely clueless about fitness? It's not surprising, considering the size - and shape - of many of the fathers in the stands. But it is truly sad. They've just completely given up - and there is literally no shame about how bad they look.
Of course, the question is - why is this my business?
I look at it financially. There is no doubt that diet and exercise are hugely significant on health and health care spending. And Medicare and Medicaid spending are busting out with a generation of people raised on sugar and empty white flour carbs. That expense affects my health care costs as well. Insurance pools disperse cost and risk. So for every handful of Doritos going down someone's gullet, I am seeing a rise in my health care costs. And it is unsustainable. The great irony is that amidst all this gluttony, people turn their ire toward the "Food Police." As if that cinnamon roll is so important and part of everyone's Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness.
Ultimately, I see it from A Teacher's View. These children are being harmed by the ignorant behavior of their parents, and they will be saddled with a lifetime of weight struggle because parents didn't care enough to be educated about health and wellness. According to research, only 10% of parents of overweight and obese children seek help in treating the condition.
So, so sad.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Hyperink Changes the Study Guide Industry All Over Again
Study guides such as Cliff Notes and Spark Notes and No Fear and Grade Saver have been offering simplified summaries of classic literature and required reading for decades, and they have long been the standard in the genre. However, their specialties have long been the classics of contemporary high school and college curricula, and most students turn to them for help deciphering Shakespeare's Hamlet or assistance in prepping for the ACT. There were many books that these standard industry leaders didn't touch - and they were mainly the books that weren't in demand in the classroom. Yet, there are many books that people would love to read - or say they have read - but they don't have the time. Hyperink intends to fill that void.
I first happened across Hyperink while searching Amazon for books by Jonah Leher - the recently scandalized writer who published in Wired and the New Yorker before being exposed for academic dishonesty. While searching his book Imagine, I discovered an offering for a "Quicklet" on Leher's books. Upon investigation I learned that Hyperink is a company devoted to publishing quick book summaries of popular non-fiction works. The entire business model is the brainchild of an entrepreneur named Kevin Gao, who first made a name for himself with his self-publishing book on consulting, The Consulting Bible. Hyperink apparently caught the attention of one of the original venture capitalists behind the HuffPost, Kenneth Lerer, who has bankrolled the company. The concept is not new, even to the internet, as freelance source such as Associated Content, Demand Media Studios, and eHow have been offering these summaries of popular content for a while now. Perhaps the most successful model on this idea was the inventors of the For Dummies handbooks. Hyperink has simply repackaged it, again.
And Hyperink is also branching out into other fields of publishing, making it easier for "experts" and aspiring writers to publish books. For example, Hyperink has a team of writers who will sift through a bloggers entire collection of posts and "craft a book" out of the entries. They will also market it and sell it - for a 50% of the profits. It is a reasonable offer, and Hyperink is able to do for many writers what they are unable to do for themselves - gather, organize, and market their content. They will quickly assemble and publish brief summaries and explanations on unique subjects that people often search the internet for. Thus, someone may want a quick read on "how to garden" or perhaps a short summary of Malcolm Gladwell's works. Hyperink seeks to provide the content.
At this point, I am not entirely sure how I feel about the rise of Hyperink - as I have criticized the use of No Fear Shakespeare in the classroom. At the same time, I can understand people simply wanting a little more information about a great book - more than they can get from Wikipedia or the Amazon reviews. And, certainly, I can concede that books like The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman or The Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell can be, well, a bit long winded. Thus, this secondary avenue to access to information may not be a bad development. That said, I am a bit concerned that it veers close to copyright infringement, but it's certainly not plagiarism. And it's no difference than people asking me about a book that I have read. As a teacher, I often give "A Teacher's View" of many popular works such as Friedman's books.
In many ways, I am disappointed I didn't think of it first. It is, in fact, an industry based on the idea of blogs is good business. Bloggers read a great many articles and then write short summaries of them, including links. Hyperink has simply market-ized it. From an educational standpoint, there is a similarity to what Sal Khan of the Khan Academy is doing. He is simply shortening and simplifying the information people - or students - want to know about and putting it in a digestible form. So, add Hyperink to the list of one more company that is pumping accessible information - even if it is recycled - into the marketplace, and making a lot of money doing it.
I first happened across Hyperink while searching Amazon for books by Jonah Leher - the recently scandalized writer who published in Wired and the New Yorker before being exposed for academic dishonesty. While searching his book Imagine, I discovered an offering for a "Quicklet" on Leher's books. Upon investigation I learned that Hyperink is a company devoted to publishing quick book summaries of popular non-fiction works. The entire business model is the brainchild of an entrepreneur named Kevin Gao, who first made a name for himself with his self-publishing book on consulting, The Consulting Bible. Hyperink apparently caught the attention of one of the original venture capitalists behind the HuffPost, Kenneth Lerer, who has bankrolled the company. The concept is not new, even to the internet, as freelance source such as Associated Content, Demand Media Studios, and eHow have been offering these summaries of popular content for a while now. Perhaps the most successful model on this idea was the inventors of the For Dummies handbooks. Hyperink has simply repackaged it, again.
And Hyperink is also branching out into other fields of publishing, making it easier for "experts" and aspiring writers to publish books. For example, Hyperink has a team of writers who will sift through a bloggers entire collection of posts and "craft a book" out of the entries. They will also market it and sell it - for a 50% of the profits. It is a reasonable offer, and Hyperink is able to do for many writers what they are unable to do for themselves - gather, organize, and market their content. They will quickly assemble and publish brief summaries and explanations on unique subjects that people often search the internet for. Thus, someone may want a quick read on "how to garden" or perhaps a short summary of Malcolm Gladwell's works. Hyperink seeks to provide the content.
At this point, I am not entirely sure how I feel about the rise of Hyperink - as I have criticized the use of No Fear Shakespeare in the classroom. At the same time, I can understand people simply wanting a little more information about a great book - more than they can get from Wikipedia or the Amazon reviews. And, certainly, I can concede that books like The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman or The Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell can be, well, a bit long winded. Thus, this secondary avenue to access to information may not be a bad development. That said, I am a bit concerned that it veers close to copyright infringement, but it's certainly not plagiarism. And it's no difference than people asking me about a book that I have read. As a teacher, I often give "A Teacher's View" of many popular works such as Friedman's books.
In many ways, I am disappointed I didn't think of it first. It is, in fact, an industry based on the idea of blogs is good business. Bloggers read a great many articles and then write short summaries of them, including links. Hyperink has simply market-ized it. From an educational standpoint, there is a similarity to what Sal Khan of the Khan Academy is doing. He is simply shortening and simplifying the information people - or students - want to know about and putting it in a digestible form. So, add Hyperink to the list of one more company that is pumping accessible information - even if it is recycled - into the marketplace, and making a lot of money doing it.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
The Truth about Medicare and "Medi-Scare"
By now the fact checkers have had their way with Paul Ryan's speech and his ... uh ... clever use of the "facts" when it comes to budgets, the economy, and Medicare. But it's the Medicare comments that have really bothered me. At one time I was impressed with Paul Ryan's big ideas and willingness to challenge the country on Medicare spending. While I was leery of the implementation of his voucher program, I was glad he was willing to have the tough conversation. America's biggest fiscal threat is an aging population, the rapidly increasing retirements of Baby Boomers, and the un-bridled growth in health care costs and spending.
And then he gave an incredibly disingenuous speech.
Paul Ryan walked away from his credibility when he went to Florida and criticized President Obama for making "cuts" in Medicare, even though Ryan's much-touted budget plan makes the entire same cuts - which aren't cuts in benefits but restraints on runaway payments to doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals. It was quite near hypocrisy - and then he went one step more. Ryan literally accused the Democrats and President Obama of raiding Medicare while claiming "a Ryan-Romney administration will protect and strengthen Medicare." Of course, that's simply not true, as Ryan's plan is to replace Medicare with a voucher program. Replacing the program literally is an end to the program.
The critics have been quite vocal about this - but none has effectively articulated this as Paul Krugman has in his most recent column. Krugman can be a bit much at times, and I don't always agree with his plans or his ideology and partisanship. But his analysis of Medicare and Paul Ryan is spot on. Medicare is pretty non-negotiable in this country because health care costs are unrestrained, and the private industry is not going to insure expensive people like senior citizens. That's why we created Medicare in the first place. And too many Republicans are forgetting that. And too many Americans have crazy thoughts like "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."
Of course, Ryan was not wrong to question Medicare spending. The plan needs reform, and that should begin with means testing and caps on benefits. And retirees - and all Americans - need to do everything they can to enter retirement as healthy as possible. And it really bothers me how poorly Americans take care of themselves and then expect incredibly cheap - to the point of almost free - health care in old age. But a voucher program for seniors is not going to lower costs - and it's going to leave too many without adequate care. And that is not good for a country.
And then he gave an incredibly disingenuous speech.
Paul Ryan walked away from his credibility when he went to Florida and criticized President Obama for making "cuts" in Medicare, even though Ryan's much-touted budget plan makes the entire same cuts - which aren't cuts in benefits but restraints on runaway payments to doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals. It was quite near hypocrisy - and then he went one step more. Ryan literally accused the Democrats and President Obama of raiding Medicare while claiming "a Ryan-Romney administration will protect and strengthen Medicare." Of course, that's simply not true, as Ryan's plan is to replace Medicare with a voucher program. Replacing the program literally is an end to the program.
The critics have been quite vocal about this - but none has effectively articulated this as Paul Krugman has in his most recent column. Krugman can be a bit much at times, and I don't always agree with his plans or his ideology and partisanship. But his analysis of Medicare and Paul Ryan is spot on. Medicare is pretty non-negotiable in this country because health care costs are unrestrained, and the private industry is not going to insure expensive people like senior citizens. That's why we created Medicare in the first place. And too many Republicans are forgetting that. And too many Americans have crazy thoughts like "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."
Of course, Ryan was not wrong to question Medicare spending. The plan needs reform, and that should begin with means testing and caps on benefits. And retirees - and all Americans - need to do everything they can to enter retirement as healthy as possible. And it really bothers me how poorly Americans take care of themselves and then expect incredibly cheap - to the point of almost free - health care in old age. But a voucher program for seniors is not going to lower costs - and it's going to leave too many without adequate care. And that is not good for a country.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
You Cannot Tip a Cow
For years, I have been listening to people perpetuate the urban legend of "cow tipping." Where the idea originated is anybody's guess, but it probably began as a way for city and suburban kids to mock and ridicule country kids. The basic idea would have been that there is nothing to do "out in the sticks," so rural teens spend their weekend nights, driving around drinking, and then they head out to the fields to "tip cows" for fun.
The stated premise - or reason that this can allegedly be done - is cows are incredibly stupid and top heavy and they sleep standing up. So, in theory, a few people can "sneak up" on the cow and tip it over. However, there are numerous flaws to this "theory," and I've spent countless conversations try to convince people otherwise. Having grown up near rural areas, and knowing numerous people who own cattle, I can unequivocally assert that "You cannot tip a cow."
Of course, people amazingly argue this to ridiculous ends. It's most often my students - who have heard that I say it can't be done. Inevitably, they ask about it, and then at least one kid will claim to either have done it, or to know someone who has. Often they swear it can be done because their father has done it, and has told them about it. And, sadly, I have to tell the kids, "No offense to your father - I'm sure he's a great guy. But he's lying to you." Occasionally the stories start to shift a bit - and kids will say "it was a baby cow." But again. They've been lied to.
You cannot tip a cow. Here's why:
So, even if you could get near them, they wouldn't just let you tip them. And even if you got them to hold still and brought an NFL defensive line up to push on them, they are not so top heavy that they are going to fall over. And regardless, no one is talking about those conditions. People are continuing the myth that drunk teens can sneak up on a cow and tip it over. But they can't.
I usually end conversations by encouraging them to find proof, and I urge them to check it out on YouTube. If it could be done, there would certainly be evidence. But there's not.
So, feel free to prove me wrong. But you'd look like a fool trying to do so. Because you cannot tip a cow.
The stated premise - or reason that this can allegedly be done - is cows are incredibly stupid and top heavy and they sleep standing up. So, in theory, a few people can "sneak up" on the cow and tip it over. However, there are numerous flaws to this "theory," and I've spent countless conversations try to convince people otherwise. Having grown up near rural areas, and knowing numerous people who own cattle, I can unequivocally assert that "You cannot tip a cow."
Of course, people amazingly argue this to ridiculous ends. It's most often my students - who have heard that I say it can't be done. Inevitably, they ask about it, and then at least one kid will claim to either have done it, or to know someone who has. Often they swear it can be done because their father has done it, and has told them about it. And, sadly, I have to tell the kids, "No offense to your father - I'm sure he's a great guy. But he's lying to you." Occasionally the stories start to shift a bit - and kids will say "it was a baby cow." But again. They've been lied to.
You cannot tip a cow. Here's why:
- Cows weigh 1,000+ pounds. Get that? 1,000 - 1,500 pounds. They're half a ton. No one - and I mean no one - is just tipping that over.
- Cows don't sleep standing up, and they are incredibly light sleepers. No one is just sneaking up on a sleeping cow and tipping it over. They might "doze" or "nap" while standing, but they don't sleep that way.
- Cows are incredibly skittish and afraid. And, if you are not the cow's owner or caregiver, you are not getting anywhere near that cow. And if you could and started pushing on it, it would move. Quickly. Or it might just kick the shit out of you. Ask someone who's been kicked while milking one.
- They weigh 1,000 pounds. Did I mention that yet?
So, even if you could get near them, they wouldn't just let you tip them. And even if you got them to hold still and brought an NFL defensive line up to push on them, they are not so top heavy that they are going to fall over. And regardless, no one is talking about those conditions. People are continuing the myth that drunk teens can sneak up on a cow and tip it over. But they can't.
I usually end conversations by encouraging them to find proof, and I urge them to check it out on YouTube. If it could be done, there would certainly be evidence. But there's not.
So, feel free to prove me wrong. But you'd look like a fool trying to do so. Because you cannot tip a cow.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Great Food Truck Race 2012 - Aussie Babes Out
In the second installment of the Food Network's 2012 Great Food Truck Race, the Barbie Babes from Australia didn't make the cut in beautiful Flagstaff, Arizona. Unfortunately for them, they were not exactly the lowest earners that week - a distinction that went to Pop-a-Waffles. The Waffle boys, however, won immunity this week with the food challenge to cook a local delicacy - cactus. I was a bit surprised by their win, as they simply made a cactus salsa - and the judge criticized some other trucks for not doing anything special. I guess their salsa was just better. Thus, they survive another week, and Momma's Grizzly barely stays in despite making the huge rookie mistake of closing up early. The winners of the week were the Korean guys from Seoul Sausage for the second week in the row.
The days in Flagstaff were fairly entertaining, as Tyler Florence let the trucks get right to work. I did think it was an interesting dilemma the Atlanta crew got into by heading to the kite festival and being denied for a lack of permit. The man on the screen told them it "was a city event, and thus they could only allow certified vendors." But if that is the case, how were the trucks able to set up on the streets of Flagstaff? Obviously, I'm missing something. And the issue of licensing food trucks is becoming more significant as the industry grows. Clearly, Flagstaff is OK with trucks just pulling in from out of town and setting up shop. And, if not, the Food Network should be on top of that.
Overall, it was a fun week. Though, at this point, I don't have much connection to any of the contestants. And I'm not feeling it like I did in seasons past. Hopefully the show will kick it up a notch. Not that I just want drama. But I enjoyed the whole food truck experience more in the past. Perhaps that was because they were skilled food truck operators. We'll see.
Of course, now it's off to Amarillo, Texas. It will be interesting to see whether Seoul Sausage can stay on top in a place like Texas.
The days in Flagstaff were fairly entertaining, as Tyler Florence let the trucks get right to work. I did think it was an interesting dilemma the Atlanta crew got into by heading to the kite festival and being denied for a lack of permit. The man on the screen told them it "was a city event, and thus they could only allow certified vendors." But if that is the case, how were the trucks able to set up on the streets of Flagstaff? Obviously, I'm missing something. And the issue of licensing food trucks is becoming more significant as the industry grows. Clearly, Flagstaff is OK with trucks just pulling in from out of town and setting up shop. And, if not, the Food Network should be on top of that.
Overall, it was a fun week. Though, at this point, I don't have much connection to any of the contestants. And I'm not feeling it like I did in seasons past. Hopefully the show will kick it up a notch. Not that I just want drama. But I enjoyed the whole food truck experience more in the past. Perhaps that was because they were skilled food truck operators. We'll see.
Of course, now it's off to Amarillo, Texas. It will be interesting to see whether Seoul Sausage can stay on top in a place like Texas.
Competency-Based Learning in Adams 12
Despite the endless diatribes from Arne Duncan about the need for "a longer school day, a longer school week, and a longer school year" for all, the idea of more tailored education meeting the individual needs of students is growing. I've long opposed and argued against the idea of mandated "seat time," as declaring 1080 contact hours necessary for mastery or even competence is ridiculous. Certainly, standards should exist for time in school - and Malcolm Gladwell reminds about the 10,000 necessary for mastery. But the notion of "seat time" is changing, and districts are becoming innovative in terms of moving kids to mastery on a more flexible schedule.
For roughly three years now, Adams 12 District in Colorado has been operating on a competency-based education model. Students move up in grade levels based on mastery of skills and content, not number of years or days or "contact hours" in school. The plan appears to be working, as the students are showing improved performance in this notoriously low district. A teacher's view has always been that if it works, it's good policy. And it appears moving students at their level of mastery instead of a set yearly schedule is effective. Certainly, there are downsides to this system, and it could be a logistical nightmare. Yet, the benefits of moving kids based on competency are pretty clear.
Some downsides would be the challenging system of measurement and the logistics of scheduling. And, of course, just because a student can come into my class and write one effective essay does not mean he won't benefit from the practice of writing ten more. Mastery is built up over extensive hours of practice. And the time spent in class discussion is every bit as valuable to our education as being able to display a measurable skill on demand. Certainly, a minimum amount of class time is mandatory. However, as students move up the levels, the specifics of seat time become less significant. And, allowing students to move on to a higher level math whenever they're ready makes a lot of sense. At the age of nine, my son was already "upstairs" at his school taking the middle school math classes simply because he was ready. Of course, he was also emotionally mature enough to handle it.
The competency-based model of student advancement is certainly worth investigating and developing. It has seemed to work most effectively at the lowest and highest levels. Kids who struggle work at their pace and focus on accomplishment - not just getting by. Kids at the top levels can take AP and CE classes to begin working on higher level education and even college degrees when they are ready. Wherever it works, it should be implemented.
For roughly three years now, Adams 12 District in Colorado has been operating on a competency-based education model. Students move up in grade levels based on mastery of skills and content, not number of years or days or "contact hours" in school. The plan appears to be working, as the students are showing improved performance in this notoriously low district. A teacher's view has always been that if it works, it's good policy. And it appears moving students at their level of mastery instead of a set yearly schedule is effective. Certainly, there are downsides to this system, and it could be a logistical nightmare. Yet, the benefits of moving kids based on competency are pretty clear.
Some downsides would be the challenging system of measurement and the logistics of scheduling. And, of course, just because a student can come into my class and write one effective essay does not mean he won't benefit from the practice of writing ten more. Mastery is built up over extensive hours of practice. And the time spent in class discussion is every bit as valuable to our education as being able to display a measurable skill on demand. Certainly, a minimum amount of class time is mandatory. However, as students move up the levels, the specifics of seat time become less significant. And, allowing students to move on to a higher level math whenever they're ready makes a lot of sense. At the age of nine, my son was already "upstairs" at his school taking the middle school math classes simply because he was ready. Of course, he was also emotionally mature enough to handle it.
The competency-based model of student advancement is certainly worth investigating and developing. It has seemed to work most effectively at the lowest and highest levels. Kids who struggle work at their pace and focus on accomplishment - not just getting by. Kids at the top levels can take AP and CE classes to begin working on higher level education and even college degrees when they are ready. Wherever it works, it should be implemented.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Business & Government
Interesting thoughts from Barton Gellman in his cover piece, "The Mind of Mitt," in Time Magazine. Much has been made of Mitt Romney's business credentials, but I have always been skeptical that such a background qualifies someone for political office, especially the Presidency. For, there is very little evidence that good businessmen make good presidents. And, as several analysts have pointed out about Mitt's pledge to "create jobs" because he knows how to do that, his background in finance and private equity was never about creating jobs. Private equity in no way has a goal of job creation - and it usually works in reverse. Thus, I continue to be skeptical of the business background argument in relation to elected office. In reality, these are two entirely different fields. Business is not governing, and government is not a business.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Effective Diction and Editing
Teaching students the importance of effective diction and language choices is an integral part of the English classroom. The French call it le mot juste - the right word. And, an effective and fun classroom activity - which can work at all age levels - is the Three-Word Poem. For a deeper explanation, check out my latest entry on my English blog.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Health Insurance is Not Like Any Other Insurance
At the age of forty-two, I have carried auto insurance for two and a half decades - and I have never made a claim. That situation is the same for most Americans, and it pretty much holds true for their homeowners insurance and their life insurance and their personal items insurance ... and everything that is not health insurance.
That's the difference.
As a holder of a group insurance policy with my employer and a purchaserer of an individual private health care policy for my family, I am well-versed with the insurance industry. And the health insurance industry has literally no connection or similarity to any other insurance business. And, that is why I simply cannot support the Republican Party on any discussion of health care reform. They like to believe that the government is the problem in health insurance, and if we simply treated it like auto insurance with people buying individual policies across state lines, the free market would fix the problems.
Not gonna happen, people. Not at all.
In the most recent edition of Time Magazine, Edward Hudgins of the Ayn Rand Atlas society is quoted in an article about Paul Ryan as saying, "He's been explicit that he wants to save Medicare .... we'd like to see the private sector handle this the way it handles auto insurance." Clearly, Ed Hudgins - and probably Paul Ryan - is so disconnected from reality that he should be making no policy decisions about health care. Medicare cannot be handled by the private sector because seniors are simply not profitable. They are quite expensive - which is why Medicare was necessary in the first place.
Now, whether we should expect seniors - and all Americans - to be a little more health conscious to avoid the ever-increasing Medicare costs is a good question. But expecting the private sector to handle Medicare the way it handles auto insurance is incredibly naive - and actually quite dangerously stupid.
That's the difference.
As a holder of a group insurance policy with my employer and a purchaserer of an individual private health care policy for my family, I am well-versed with the insurance industry. And the health insurance industry has literally no connection or similarity to any other insurance business. And, that is why I simply cannot support the Republican Party on any discussion of health care reform. They like to believe that the government is the problem in health insurance, and if we simply treated it like auto insurance with people buying individual policies across state lines, the free market would fix the problems.
Not gonna happen, people. Not at all.
In the most recent edition of Time Magazine, Edward Hudgins of the Ayn Rand Atlas society is quoted in an article about Paul Ryan as saying, "He's been explicit that he wants to save Medicare .... we'd like to see the private sector handle this the way it handles auto insurance." Clearly, Ed Hudgins - and probably Paul Ryan - is so disconnected from reality that he should be making no policy decisions about health care. Medicare cannot be handled by the private sector because seniors are simply not profitable. They are quite expensive - which is why Medicare was necessary in the first place.
Now, whether we should expect seniors - and all Americans - to be a little more health conscious to avoid the ever-increasing Medicare costs is a good question. But expecting the private sector to handle Medicare the way it handles auto insurance is incredibly naive - and actually quite dangerously stupid.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Robert Irvine & Restaurant Impossible Teach Quality of Life
From a teacher's view, Robert Irvine and his show Restaurant Impossible on the Food Network is one of the best television shows available for educating people about how to live. Having watched the show fairly regularly for the past year or so, I am so impressed with how effectively Irvine teaches people not only how to run a restaurant but how to manage their lives and see the world as ripe with opportunities to simply be better. The key for the show is its emphasis on quality, and the basic premise is to encourage not only the restaurateurs but also the audience to not settle for mediocrity. This country is really filled with just so much .... crap. People are willing to eat practically anything out of convenience or habit, and they have no expectations of quality or service or sanitation or really anything. And it's truly shocking to see and hear what people are willing to accept. Yet, Irvine and the nearly magical crew at Restaurant Impossible are able to show them the light ... with $10,000 ... and roughly forty-eight hours.
This evening Robert Irvine and Restaurant Impossible celebrated their fiftieth show by taking a look back over all their episodes and experiences. It was quite the retrospective, especially with Irvine returning to some of the more interesting - and notorious - restaurants. As a testament to the value of what Irvine does, he revealed that nearly nine out of ten restaurants they refurbish actually remain in business and profitable. That's a remarkable success rate - and it speaks to Irvine's ability to teach people a better way - and most importantly leave them with the skills and knowledge to do it on their own. Of course, many are critical of Irvine's style, especially his tendency to steamroll people and spare no feelings. Certainly, it is a version of tough love, and he is committed to making his budget, deadline, and goal. Thus, sometimes people need to be dealt with .... sternly. Yet, ultimately they appreciate it in the end, as evidenced by the "Revealings" - those moments when owners and workers see the remodeled restaurants. There's rarely a dry eye.
Robert Irvine is really the Dr. Phil of the restaurant business, and his show Restaurant Impossible really reflects and develops a teacher's view of the culinary world.
This evening Robert Irvine and Restaurant Impossible celebrated their fiftieth show by taking a look back over all their episodes and experiences. It was quite the retrospective, especially with Irvine returning to some of the more interesting - and notorious - restaurants. As a testament to the value of what Irvine does, he revealed that nearly nine out of ten restaurants they refurbish actually remain in business and profitable. That's a remarkable success rate - and it speaks to Irvine's ability to teach people a better way - and most importantly leave them with the skills and knowledge to do it on their own. Of course, many are critical of Irvine's style, especially his tendency to steamroll people and spare no feelings. Certainly, it is a version of tough love, and he is committed to making his budget, deadline, and goal. Thus, sometimes people need to be dealt with .... sternly. Yet, ultimately they appreciate it in the end, as evidenced by the "Revealings" - those moments when owners and workers see the remodeled restaurants. There's rarely a dry eye.
Robert Irvine is really the Dr. Phil of the restaurant business, and his show Restaurant Impossible really reflects and develops a teacher's view of the culinary world.
Monday, August 20, 2012
The Great Food Truck Race is Back - Food Network
Now that the Food Network has found its next Food Network Star in Justin Warner, it's time for the third annual Great Food Truck Race, which premiered last night with Tyler Florence returning as host. The Food Truck Race has been a nice complement to the Food Network Star show as it features teams of food truck operators competing against each other in various cities - with certain challenges - as they "race," or travel, across America in a quest for $50,000. The standard reality show elimination process is pretty simple - as the food truck who earns the least amount of money each week goes home.
This season, however, there's a twist.
Previous seasons of the Great Food Truck Race have allowed current food truck operators from around the country to compete - and get some great exposure - while touring the country. This season, a group of food truck owner wannabes are competing for "a new food truck." The contestants are people who aspire to own their own food truck - and who hopefully have the culinary chops and the market savvy to win the competition. Additionally, the winners will receive the same $50K as before. Now, that's a sweet deal. I am quite impressed with the Food Network for finding eight contestants with food truck aspirations and a business model. However, I am actually amazed that the Food Network has sprung for outfitting eight trucks with each specific food "point of view." I'm sure they had sponsorship cover it, but that wasn't cheap. And some trucks will only be used for a couple days. Potential foodsters include Barbie Babes bringing tastes of Australian BBQ, Coast of Atlanta serving up southern seafood, Pizza Mike's, and Seoul Sausage with some Korean BBQ.
The most heartwarming - and heartbreaking - story came from the competitors Under the Crust. Hannah, along with her mom and a friend, are [were] hoping to make their way a "mini-pie" food service on wheels, featuring sweet to savory small tart-size pies. This idea was apparently the dream of Hannah and her fiancé who passed away from cancer eight months after diagnosis. I was pulling for them from the moment I teared up. Alas, the pie dreams were not to be fulfilled as Under the Crust struggled too much on the first day putting together their menu. And, I was doubly sad because I love pie. The pie idea sounded fantastic - though I'm not so sure Hannah and her culinary school friend could really bring it. They did film some good feedback from customers - but it wasn't enough. Hopefully, Hannah gets another shot someday.
Early favorites seem to be Seoul Sausage - three Korean friends trying to avoid "a real job" and Pizza Mike's - an older gentleman who ran pizza place for years until it burned down. He's not ready for retirement though, and the food truck opportunity could be just the ticket back. Momma's Grizzly looks like a weak idea - and it brings up bad memories of Wasilla, Alaska. And while the waffle guys have a good idea, I don't think they have the culinary skills. Last year's winner was Korean BBQ, and it looks like "Seoul food" might be just the ticket again.
This season, however, there's a twist.
Previous seasons of the Great Food Truck Race have allowed current food truck operators from around the country to compete - and get some great exposure - while touring the country. This season, a group of food truck owner wannabes are competing for "a new food truck." The contestants are people who aspire to own their own food truck - and who hopefully have the culinary chops and the market savvy to win the competition. Additionally, the winners will receive the same $50K as before. Now, that's a sweet deal. I am quite impressed with the Food Network for finding eight contestants with food truck aspirations and a business model. However, I am actually amazed that the Food Network has sprung for outfitting eight trucks with each specific food "point of view." I'm sure they had sponsorship cover it, but that wasn't cheap. And some trucks will only be used for a couple days. Potential foodsters include Barbie Babes bringing tastes of Australian BBQ, Coast of Atlanta serving up southern seafood, Pizza Mike's, and Seoul Sausage with some Korean BBQ.
The most heartwarming - and heartbreaking - story came from the competitors Under the Crust. Hannah, along with her mom and a friend, are [were] hoping to make their way a "mini-pie" food service on wheels, featuring sweet to savory small tart-size pies. This idea was apparently the dream of Hannah and her fiancé who passed away from cancer eight months after diagnosis. I was pulling for them from the moment I teared up. Alas, the pie dreams were not to be fulfilled as Under the Crust struggled too much on the first day putting together their menu. And, I was doubly sad because I love pie. The pie idea sounded fantastic - though I'm not so sure Hannah and her culinary school friend could really bring it. They did film some good feedback from customers - but it wasn't enough. Hopefully, Hannah gets another shot someday.
Early favorites seem to be Seoul Sausage - three Korean friends trying to avoid "a real job" and Pizza Mike's - an older gentleman who ran pizza place for years until it burned down. He's not ready for retirement though, and the food truck opportunity could be just the ticket back. Momma's Grizzly looks like a weak idea - and it brings up bad memories of Wasilla, Alaska. And while the waffle guys have a good idea, I don't think they have the culinary skills. Last year's winner was Korean BBQ, and it looks like "Seoul food" might be just the ticket again.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Can "Spoiled" Millennials Make the Workplace Better
We've all heard the stories about the whiny young workers of Generation Y - or the Echo-Boom or the Millenials - who complain about the demands of the workplace and how it interferes with their quality of life. Generation X and the Baby Boomers and the retired Silent Generation look with contempt on these spoiled youngsters who simply need to "suck it up" and put in their time and earn their privileges. That seems pretty reasonable - it is "work" after all. And you can't start in the corner office. However, freelance writer Emily Matchar poses another interpretation of these "spoiled, coddled" children and their complaints about the workplace. Perhaps these kids are on to something. And maybe their complaints can help improve everybody's lives.
The reality for this generation is that they are never going to "get over it." That's not the way they were raised. They've come to expect better - and they are certainly a generation who has been taught that fairness is of primary importance. And, of course, after seeing their parents work themselves crazy - and still ending up divorced and unhappy in middle age, the Millennials might be right to complain. The reality is - according to Matchar - Generation Y "is right to complain about the workplace ... because the modern workplace frankly stinks, and the changes wrought by Gen Y will be good for everybody." Certainly, the struggles of the middle class are well documented, as American productivity increases while wages remain stagnant or even regress. Americans work longer hours, take fewer and shorter vacations, and have decreasing benefits every year. And this is not good for society. And, it doesn't appear that organized labor is going to do anything to improve the conditions of its workers. Union membership is at an all-time low even as the auto industry recovers and companies like Caterpillar and GE are sitting on record profits and paying executives lavish salaries and benefits while boosting stock prices and dividends.
Generation Y is determined to "get theirs" and not make the same mistakes - or suffer silently - like previous generations, and that might just improve society overall. CEO's like Howard Schultz of Starbucks and John Mackey of Whole Foods seem committed to creating a new paradigm for workers in which the responsibility is to the consumer and the employees - not Wall Street. That sounds like a nice place to be. As a teacher - from a teacher's view - I've always been impressed with the tolerance and good will of the younger generation. As such, I've hoped that these future CEO's and executives would be more committed to making the world better at the same time they are making their own lives better. That flatter view of the world and the workplace is what led MTV to determine that Generation Y - the Millenials - could be called No-Collar Workers. Now, certainly we will continue to see divisions based on the value of the work and the level of education required to do it. But Gen Y is right to ask "Why we have to meet in an office cross-country when we can call in remotely via Skype?"
That said, Generation Y can be a bit much - with stories of their parents calling their bosses and asking for raises. Really. But the ideas that the workplace can be more convenient and comfortable and efficient and productive and well compensated are not entirely wrong. And I'd encourage any and all to always advocate for something better. It can't hurt to ask.
FOLLOW UP: For more on this topic, you might check out the news on firms and corporations who are starting to bend and give in to the demands of Generation Y. The reality is employers are either finding some agreement with the younger workers or they are realizing it's fruitless to argue with them. That's an interesting paradigm shift, and, again, it just might be good for America.
FOLLOW UP: For more on this topic, you might check out the news on firms and corporations who are starting to bend and give in to the demands of Generation Y. The reality is employers are either finding some agreement with the younger workers or they are realizing it's fruitless to argue with them. That's an interesting paradigm shift, and, again, it just might be good for America.
Monday, August 13, 2012
On-line Classes, Coursera, and "Real Learning"
The news about online learning continues to grow, as do the opportunities and the criticism. With information spreading about the opportunity to "take classes" online at elite universities such as MIT, Harvard, and Stanford, people are beginning to wonder what the actual value of attending these schools really is. In essence, if a student freely can access - and satisfactorily complete - all the coursework in engineering at MIT, then is he as qualified for work as a student who attended the university full time ... and potentially paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition?
The rise of of "Massive Open Online Courses," also known as MOOCs is changing the way we think about accessing education - or at least about accessing information. It began certainly with colleges like Westwood and Phoenix, but gained a serious bump and considerable credibility a couple years ago when professors at Stanford began offering open access to their course through portals such as Coursera - an online learning platform which coordinates access and materials. Coursera quickly became a game changer - and others moved to replicate the model. Other options include platforms such as EdX, which calls itself "the future of online learning, and Education Portal about which I've posted before. And, these are just the college classes - for the Khan Academy is opening up new opportunities in K-12 learning.
Is this the future of education?
Not so fast, says UCLA philosophy professor Pamela Hieronymi in a commentary for the Chronicle. Professor Hieronymi is worried about our fascination with the internet and the danger of "confusing technology with college teaching." Anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in the classroom at the higher level - or anywhere really - understands that much of education comes from the conversations and the human interactions. It's not just about looking up and reading information on the computer. That "Google" approach to learning might help us find information. But sifting through and synthesizing that information and moving to knowledge and wisdom is what education is really about. And that takes feedback and questioning, most efficiently coming from human interaction. The learning process unfolds in a much more fluid form, and class discussion simply cannot completely be replaced by "discussion boards."
Certainly, the efficiency factor is important. And I love the access to information that MOOCs provided. But Professor Hieronymi has reasons for us to pause before declaring a "new model" for education.
The rise of of "Massive Open Online Courses," also known as MOOCs is changing the way we think about accessing education - or at least about accessing information. It began certainly with colleges like Westwood and Phoenix, but gained a serious bump and considerable credibility a couple years ago when professors at Stanford began offering open access to their course through portals such as Coursera - an online learning platform which coordinates access and materials. Coursera quickly became a game changer - and others moved to replicate the model. Other options include platforms such as EdX, which calls itself "the future of online learning, and Education Portal about which I've posted before. And, these are just the college classes - for the Khan Academy is opening up new opportunities in K-12 learning.
Is this the future of education?
Not so fast, says UCLA philosophy professor Pamela Hieronymi in a commentary for the Chronicle. Professor Hieronymi is worried about our fascination with the internet and the danger of "confusing technology with college teaching." Anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in the classroom at the higher level - or anywhere really - understands that much of education comes from the conversations and the human interactions. It's not just about looking up and reading information on the computer. That "Google" approach to learning might help us find information. But sifting through and synthesizing that information and moving to knowledge and wisdom is what education is really about. And that takes feedback and questioning, most efficiently coming from human interaction. The learning process unfolds in a much more fluid form, and class discussion simply cannot completely be replaced by "discussion boards."
Certainly, the efficiency factor is important. And I love the access to information that MOOCs provided. But Professor Hieronymi has reasons for us to pause before declaring a "new model" for education.
Friday, August 10, 2012
It's the Students, Stupid ... or the "Stupid" Students
After twenty-five years in public education, teaching in Utah's schools, Teresa Talbot has concluded that the problems with public education aren't about "what is taught, where it is taught, how it is taught, or by whom it is taught." Instead, the problems are students who refuse to do work. Laziness in students and a failure by parents and students to care enough about their education to demand success are the root cause of failure in public schools.
Well, that ought to generate some serious flack.
Well, that ought to generate some serious flack.
The Myth of the Myth of the Myth of America's Failing Public School System
For years now the American public has simply accepted as fact that its public school system is "a failure" - this despite the overall satisfaction with their own schools and their own education. Thus, of course, it's not surprising that we have a "failure" in perception about our "failing public schools." The conventional wisdom is always drawing from shocking statistics and disappointing standardized test scores, as well as comparisons of schools to other nations. This "truth" by comparison is the most troubling, and it seems to never end. Thomas Friedman mentioned it again this week in the New York Times. The problem is the validity of the comparison.
However, recently some education writers have been parsing the data and challenging the notion that our schools are "failing" or that "we have fallen behind the rest of the world." And that has unleashed debate about whether America's schools are "failing" or whether that's a myth. As I've noted before, Mel Riddile of the National Association of Secondary School Principals NASSP was the first to parse the poverty data - and argue that international comparisons are flawed and, minus our high poverty schools, the United States actually leads the world in test scores. As Riddile points out, America has much higher poverty than the leading nations like Finland and Singapore, and when we remove the scores of high poverty schools to more accurately compare conditions, America's test scores actually top the list. Interestingly, then, when our bottom thirty percent of schools are taken out of the equation, we have the best schools in the world.
Michael Lind took up the case as well this week of "America's failing public schools" in an article for Salon that argued again that this failure is a myth, and that a culture of poverty is the root of the problem. In following up on Riddile's research, Lind argues - accurately I'd say - that our school system is not "failing" because our poorest and most disadvantaged kids are not succeeding. Certainly, we can not be proud of these conditions or accept them. However, if 70% of kids are doing well, going to college, and posting reasonable scores, it's tough to argue the public education system is a failure. I argued this years ago after Sean Hannity indicted the entire system. Systemic failure is simply not true - for if the system had been failing for all these years then the effects on the nation would be profound. And America is not failing.
Granted, the explanation is tough to accept, and it seems to be a cop out to say that kids are simply failing because they are poor. And education blogger Marilyn Rhames challenges Lind's position by arguing about the lack of opportunities and poor schools for the bottom 30%. She is not wrong about the poor state of these schools - though she is a bit mistaken when she blames the school, as opposed to seeing a school as a reflection of a much larger problem. Certainly, all kids can achieve, and the most disadvantaged actually need the most education. However, she cannot deny that successfully educating poor, disadvantaged minority and immigrant children is literally the toughest task in education. It's just not that easy to overcome all the barriers to success.
And, of course, education seems to be the only field where 100% success is the standard and the only acceptable result. Thus, the issue is more complex than any of these writers makes it. But, Lind and Riddile are correct in asserting the successes of the system, even as Friedman and Rhames have points in challenging the failures.
However, recently some education writers have been parsing the data and challenging the notion that our schools are "failing" or that "we have fallen behind the rest of the world." And that has unleashed debate about whether America's schools are "failing" or whether that's a myth. As I've noted before, Mel Riddile of the National Association of Secondary School Principals NASSP was the first to parse the poverty data - and argue that international comparisons are flawed and, minus our high poverty schools, the United States actually leads the world in test scores. As Riddile points out, America has much higher poverty than the leading nations like Finland and Singapore, and when we remove the scores of high poverty schools to more accurately compare conditions, America's test scores actually top the list. Interestingly, then, when our bottom thirty percent of schools are taken out of the equation, we have the best schools in the world.
Michael Lind took up the case as well this week of "America's failing public schools" in an article for Salon that argued again that this failure is a myth, and that a culture of poverty is the root of the problem. In following up on Riddile's research, Lind argues - accurately I'd say - that our school system is not "failing" because our poorest and most disadvantaged kids are not succeeding. Certainly, we can not be proud of these conditions or accept them. However, if 70% of kids are doing well, going to college, and posting reasonable scores, it's tough to argue the public education system is a failure. I argued this years ago after Sean Hannity indicted the entire system. Systemic failure is simply not true - for if the system had been failing for all these years then the effects on the nation would be profound. And America is not failing.
Granted, the explanation is tough to accept, and it seems to be a cop out to say that kids are simply failing because they are poor. And education blogger Marilyn Rhames challenges Lind's position by arguing about the lack of opportunities and poor schools for the bottom 30%. She is not wrong about the poor state of these schools - though she is a bit mistaken when she blames the school, as opposed to seeing a school as a reflection of a much larger problem. Certainly, all kids can achieve, and the most disadvantaged actually need the most education. However, she cannot deny that successfully educating poor, disadvantaged minority and immigrant children is literally the toughest task in education. It's just not that easy to overcome all the barriers to success.
And, of course, education seems to be the only field where 100% success is the standard and the only acceptable result. Thus, the issue is more complex than any of these writers makes it. But, Lind and Riddile are correct in asserting the successes of the system, even as Friedman and Rhames have points in challenging the failures.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
In a World of "Text"-ing, Teach Kids How to Write
Walt Gardner opines in EdWeek that in a world obsessed with STEM skills, schools are neglecting to teach kids the important skills of reading and writing. Making insightful observations about the gap between "grammar skills" and fluent writing, Gardner notes - and laments - the receding writing skills associated with kids immersed in a world of text messages. This point was aptly addressed in a recent LA Times commentary. The loss of writing skills is negatively impacting the business world and the ability to being to access the jobs and lives they desire. Importantly, Gardner reminds us that being an effective writer is intrinsically linked to being an effective reader. It's not enough to assign kids reading and writing. English teachers at all levels - including college - need to teach kids "how to read" and "how to write."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)