Are Common Core/PARCC About Federal Control of Education Curriculum

The foundation of Common Core is, without doubt or dispute, the establishment of national learning standards. And, if that's the case, it's difficult to see how Common Core isn't a de facto establishment of a "National Curriculum." CCSS proponents have argued for the necessity of standards to ensure that all students nationwide are being academically challenged in the same manner because 1.) it's necessary for students going to college and competing for jobs, and 2.) because a fifth grader who moves from one state to the next shouldn't find himself behind or ahead of his new peers. However, those goals basically require teachers to use the same curriculum, and that according to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is illegal.

The argument from Jindal amounts to a syllogism. If the federal government funds the tests, and the tests control what teachers do in classrooms, the governor claims, then the federal government is controlling curriculum, which is illegal. Jindal says the arguments from common-core and PARCC supporters about the damage uncertainty over testing creates for teachers prove his point. 

Whether or not the common standards lead to the establishment of common curriculum is the question to answer. For any moves by the federal government that direct or control school curriculum are clearly outlawed by at least three separate pieces of federal legislation. While curriculum in language arts changes based on the novels and the writing assignments, the role of standards in driving curriculum in the math and sciences is more obvious. And, as Gov. Jindal notes, if the test requires learning in a specific manner in order to succeed on a test that is funded by and basically required by the federal government, then that very action is dangerously close to violating laws on curriculum.

While I am not sure if the CCSS represent a federal takeover scheme, I am a little suspicious of attempts by Core proponents to differentiate the standards from the necessarily similar curriculum. Of course, this discrepancy is the problem when people outside of education try to make policy.

Michelle Rhee Moves on From Education - Looks for What's Next

Whether you agree with her or can't stand her, there's little doubt that former Teach-for-America alum and head of D.C. public schools Michelle Rhee has been a significant force in public education for the last decade or so. She has been called the "most polarizing figure" in public education, and she has been a lightening rod for heated policy debate on education wherever she goes. And, she has ridden this popularity and controversy to greater power and significance as she promotes education reform policies that her critics have called "horrible choices" that have intentionally "made the country a worse place." And now, rather surprisingly, she is walking away from the mess. It sort of reminds me of one of the most powerful quotes in one of America's greatest works of literature, The Great Gatsby.

"I couldn't forgive him or like him, but I saw that what he had done was, to him, entirely justified. It was all very careless and confused. They were careless people, Tom and Daisy – they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together and let other people clean up the mess they had made."

Food Network Star Lenny McNab Controversy - Should He Lose Job Before It Starts?

Should the Food Network immediately distance itself from its newly ordained "Next" Food Network Star, Lenny McNab?

Apparently, there may have been some glaring oversight in the vetting department of America's culinary headquarters, as the cowboy chef, Lenny McNab, who was voted the winner of the Food Network Star competition has some crude and crass skeletons in his not-so-private closet. After McNab was announced as the winner - via voting by viewers - message boards and online forums exploded with all sorts of criticism of the choice. The story - or controversy - was uncovered by the writers at "Food Network Gossip" blog. In questioning whether Lenny's past will cost him his show, FNG listed a series of crass and inappropriate comments that McNab has made in the past, as well as mentioning a disturbing video from Lenny's YouTube Channel that has since been taken down.

Many of McNab's alleged comments contain extremely foul language and crude, disparaging comments about his "fans" and the Food Network Star known as the Pioneer Woman, Ree Drummond. It seems like McNab has a history of making crude comments and videos, and there was a lot of evidence of someone called "Chuckwagon Chuck," assumed to be McNab, who regularly called in to the "Ron and Fez" radio show. And there is some mention of "Chuck" stalking one of the show's hosts. At this point, many of the comments and videos have been taken down - though it's probable that some of the content was downloaded and could re-appear.

None of this is surprising to many Food Network Star viewers who found Lenny a crass and unsophisticated contestant from the start. Lenny was my last choice from the beginning, and I was put off by his behavior most of the time. With that in mind, I'd hope that the Food Network, which had to recover from Paula Deen fallout after firing her for inappropriate behavior, would simply cut losses and never film his show. Heck, it's not unprecedented, as the winner from two years ago, Justin Warner, was basically dismissed by the network without ever really filming a show. Of course, the Food Network stars have other controversies in their past, so it will all come down to potential earning power vs. losses.

Let's hope we've seen the last of Lenny McNab.

Disappointing Food Network Star Finale - Lackluster Lenny Wins … but Isn't a Culinary Star

Well, this is two years in a row that viewers of the Food Network Star competition have voted for a really mediocre personality. Last year it was Demaris Phillips, whose "new southern" cooking was the wrong choice in a world that should be moving away from the Paula Deen mentality. Has anybody really watched Demaris' show? Cooking southern at heart (on the road to a heart attack) is not what I want to learn. And this year, shocking as it is to people with refined tastes and high culinary standards, the choice is "cowboy chef" Lenny McNab.

Granted, Chef Lenny is a "nice guy," and he is a reasonably skilled chef. There were many times that he helped out his teammates, and he certainly knew food as well as any of this year's finalists. But, as I noted last year after the Food Network Star finale, Chef Lenny is not - and never will be - in the same league as chefs like Bobby Flay and Tyler Florence and Geoffery Zakarian and Ming Tsai and Alex Guarnaschelli and, even, Alton Brown (whose behavior in this season indicated he clearly knows everything about food and has utter contempt for anyone who isn't a food dictionary like he is). Lenny is, and excuse my elitist attitude, simply uncouth. He is a bit crass and unsophisticated, and his knack for saying the wrong thing simply makes me uncomfortable. Can you imagine attending a high culture food and wine event like the Aspen Food & Wine Festival, and after discussing cuisine with Bobby Flay or Emeril Lagasse turning around to greet Lenny? It's simply not a very appetizing option.

Of course, this decision tells us a lot about the direction the Food Network is going - and it's not in the direction of good taste. And, perhaps it's the competition mentality which led us down this road. It's a road that has led the Food Network to become the Guy Fieri Show - and some argue that Guy's bombastic personality has ruined the Food Network. While that's a bit of an exaggeration, I don't disagree that a TV network constantly focused on food from "Diners and Dives" is not exactly elevating our culinary discussions in this country. While the Food Network still maintains some excellent evening programming with Chopped and Restaurant Impossible, it is more inclined to seek really low-class E-Entertainment sensationalism like Cutthroat Kitchen and Restaurant Stakeout.

So, I offer sincere condolences to Chef Nicole Gaffney and Lucca Della Casa. It had to be tough to lose in that manner. And, by the way, I completely disagree with the manner in which the Food Network eliminated Nicole first and then made her sit there between the other two and wait to learn who won at her expense. That was a pretty classless act, in my opinion. Nothing would have been lost by simply doing retrospective looks at all three and then announcing the winner from the three. So, sorry, Nicole. You deserved better.

And, to the Food Network: I will never watch Lenny's show, I am losing interest fast in the Guy Fieri obsession, and I am a little put off by how truly "commercial" and gossipy your evenings have become.  America has a complicated relationship with food - and you could elevate it or cheapen it. So, far it's seems you are much more about "Network" and much less about food.

Interesting News & Information Websites You Probably Don't Know About

What did we do before the internet?

Information and entertainment is so infinitely accessible these days, it's hard to imagine a time when we couldn't instantly look up reviews of restaurants or the background of a movie actor or the latest stats for the PGA Championship or the NL MVP race. I'm a bit of an information hound, which means I am constantly looking for engagement  - or distraction  - across the internet. That's why I've always been such a fan of magazines. And I can stand in the supermarket aisle for an hour reading random articles from Fast Company or Psychology Today or Men's Journal.

Of course, now that information is all immediately available on any electronic device. And that has led me to all sorts of new time-using (I avoid the word "wasting") sites. Here are a few new sites that I've recently discovered or engaged with to check the headlines on what is new and intriguing:

Thrillist - a digital men's lifestyle magazine with plenty a brain candy like the best Beer Festivals in Denver this month.

The Alternet - a news and information site that has original news and commentary. It pulls from a variety of news aggregation sites like Salon.com and HuffingtonPost.com - and occasionally sends content to those sites.

Vice.com - an international news magazine out of Canada with a a little bit of everything including arts and culture as well as alternative news. It seems to be a go-to for the millennial generation. And they give it as much clout as Gen X gives the New York Times, or HuffPost for that matter.

Can All Teachers Be Great? Is Great Teaching a Teachable Skill?

How many truly inspirational people are there in the world? Enough to fill the nation's classrooms?

Those questions are at the heart of the discussion of education reform as countless people - not the least of which are President Obama and Ed Sec Arne Duncan - set a simple goal of putting a "great teacher" in every classroom. So, the question becomes: "Are great teachers born or made?" Writer and critic Nick Romeo asks this question in response to a new book which claims that great teaching is a simple matter of certain identifiable and teachable skills and tasks. Great teachers do certain things that can be modeled and packaged and voila - a Great Teacher in every classroom.

The foundation of this idealistic view is found in Elizabeth Green's new book, Building a Better Teacher, which implies that society - and education schools - can do exactly that. Green, who is a veteran education writer and editor of Chalkbeat, crafts her message around numerous anecdotes and profiles of "great teachers" who offer countless analogies for what effective teaching looks like. It certainly is a noble undertaking to research and document all these examples of greatness. Though packaging it as a series of practices that can simply be emulated deserves scrutiny. That critical eye is the point of Nick Romeo who logically argues that some people are simply better students who would, thus, be better at applying the seemingly foolproof keys to effective teaching that Green offers.

Ultimately, just like athletes who can all learn the skills, teachers will achieve varying levels of "greatness." And the question becomes whether it is acceptable to be average or adequate in the classroom. Certainly, once we know about great teachers, we would never want our children taught by someone who is simply OK. Thus, not being "great" becomes a matter of being "a bad teacher." And, like all popular critics who seek greatly oversimplified answers to incredibly complex questions, Whoopi Goldberg simply wants to "get rid of the bad teachers." Which is so helpful. Thanks, Whoopi. Because apparently some people want to keep the bad teachers. Right?

Ultimately, the concept of great teaching is like great art - we know it when we see it. And just because we can create a paint by numbers version of the Mona Lisa doesn't mean that we can all be Da Vinci.

American Schools Are Not Failing - The Manufactured Crisis & Public Education Myths

American schools are not failing.

Education scholar and professor David Berliner tried to warn us.  Nearly twenty years ago, Berliner published The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on Public Education to warn us about the fraudulent claims being used by "education reformers" to radically alter the landscape of public education. Following the release of the Reagan-era education policy statement "A Nation at Risk," Berliner examined thoroughly and exposed the misleading criticisms of public education that were being used to launch reforms of public education. The none-too-subtle title of "Risk" contained a Chicken Little "sky-is-falling" warning that American schools were in such bad shape that a new "Sputnik moment" was upon us, as the miserable state of the nation's schools would lead to the decline of the nation within a generation.

Clearly, that was far from true.

Yet, the education reformers have not relented in their efforts to basically gut the foundation of public education and expand the reach of the business community and the private sector into the classroom. The rise of the voucher movement and the expansion of charter schools have opened the door for the Common Core revolution and the massive expansion of standardized testing as a measure of "school quality." And, thus, David Berliner is back again with another warning in 50 Myths and Lies That Threaten America's Public Schools: the Real Crisis in Education. Berliner and education professor Gene Glass take on some of the top "myths" in the public discussion of public education. Notably, they expose the truth about:

• American students are "falling behind" students in other countries
• The ability of standardized testing such as exit exams to create accountability in schools
• The problems of "value added" in judging teacher quality. 

Berliner and Glass recently spoke with education blogger Larry Ferlazzo about the gist of the book and their concerns. Their explanations of the hard realities about public education are lost on the unknowing American public who have long bought into the education crisis - even though most view their own schools and teachers very favorably. And Berliner and Glass are not alone in their attempt to expose the problems with the ed reformers.  Another public education defender - and reformer critic - Dr. Chris Tienken offers a similar and well-researched critique of the education reformers and the false claims about the education crisis in his book  The School Reform Landscape: Fraud, Myth, and Lies. 

Slate Writer & Critic, Troy Patterson: An Interesting Dude

Sometimes there are people who just "know a lot," and they are the type of people who just naturally seem worth listening to. One of these people who is simply in tune with the contemporary world is Slate Magazine's Troy Patterson. Patterson writes the "Gentleman Scholar" column for Slate, and has generally been referred to as a "Writer at Large." That is a gig that many aspiring bloggers and writers would naturally say, "That's what I want to do." It's not easy, though, to do what Troy does. It takes a real eye for the zeitgeist, and an ability to distill the complicated to the accessible and find the interesting in the ordinary.

Troy's latest piece on how to be "Well Read without Reading" is just the sort of random topic that is both engaging and something most of us might ponder but rarely craft it into a piece of writing. Troy, however, has been doing that for quite a while. Working as a book and film critic for NPR, Spin, and Slate, Troy has crafted a niche market for his astute observations that can both engage and instigate.

You can follow Troy at @untitledproject.

Who's Responsible for Student Achievement?

Where do you stand on public education and teachers and education reform? That probably depends on where you stand on responsibility for student test scores. It seems these days that views on public education reform are entirely dependent on whether a teacher or a student is responsible for the student's performance on a standardized test.

And that's a problem.

In an era of increased hype around standardized testing - primarily resulting from continued emphasis in No Child Left Behind, Common Core, and PARCC/SmarterBalanced initiatives - the general public is forced to determine whether the quality of a teacher can be determined by how that teacher's students perform on standardized tests given by the state or private testing companies like Pearson and ACT. New NEA president Lily Eskelsen Garcia called the entire idea "stupid, absurd, [and] non-defensible."

There are certainly many reasons to cast "doubt on grading teachers by student performance." The public education system contains such disparity in the lives of students and the conditions in which teachers teach that it seems rather unconscionable to establish a standard test for all students to meet. Obviously, all students can achieve, and there is little doubt that some teachers are more effective than others at inspiring kids and improving achievement. However, there is little emphasis on how that happens and the significant role played by the kids - and even the parents, community, and environment - in that "equation." That said, certain hard realities indicate that specific populations will perform worse on specific tests in spite of the teaching. Motivation to take the test seriously can be a predominant factor, as can the overall state of mind for the students when they arrive at school - on test day or in general.

Thus, it remains a complicated issue - and ultimately un-definitive reality: "Should Student Test Scores Be Used to Evaluate Teachers?"

Community Schools - Should Public Education Provide More Than Academics

One of the primary arguments behind "ending summer vacation" and extending the school year to year-round schedules is that students lose ground when they are away from school. These losses are not just in academics, but also in the reality of providing structure to kids whose lives outside school can be quite chaotic. For many students, school can be the one place where they can count on a meal for the day, and it might be the only place they can access health care. So, there is a movement on the rise to create more Community Schools - turning school buildings into year-round operations that provide all manner of social services from health care to food stamps to family counseling.

Of course, doing so would obviously require much greater funding for public education - an issue that is certainly not a foregone conclusion. However, there is bi-partisan support in Congress for expanding the reach of "Community Schools," as explained in a recent column from Democrat Steny Hoyer for EdWeek.org. There is no doubt that opening schools year-round to provide all sorts of government services could dramatically improve the lives of children in economically challenged communities. And many private and charter school programs that do more than provide academic classes from 8-3 for a traditional year have proved the ability to make a difference. Geoffery Canada's Harlem Children's Zone is an example.

In "A Teacher's View," the only rule for improving education and achievement in the lives of kids is that it works. If expanding the reach of schools throughout the year to provide more support is successful, and it is the most cost effective way of doing so, then communities should pursue it. Of course, this approach should be pursued at the state and local level, and it should not be implemented as a standard for uniformity for all communities.

Whatever works.

Is STEM Worker Shortage Based on a Lie and a Scam

The debate over STEM education and an "alleged STEM-worker shortage" received another critical voice this week as Ron Hira and friends took to the pages of USA Today to challenge and expose "Bill Gates' Tech Worker Fantasy." Gates and his monolithic Gates Foundation have been the driving forces behind the obsessive focus on increasing math and science oriented students to fuel the tech sector's supposed need for workers. Proponents of STEM-education argue that the new technology-driven era will create an ever-growing demand for computer scientists and engineers to fuel the the economy ... and to fill the bankrolls of tech companies like Microsoft. However, critics like Hira challenge these absolutes and point to evidence of a "STEM-shortage myth" in light of the fact that many college-educated STEM grads are currently out of work or working in non-STEM fields. This revelation is bolstered by news of Microsoft's recent announcement of plans to lay off 18,000 workers. Stagnant wage growth in STEM fields and collusion by tech companies to suppress wages in the field also expose the problems of STEM-only focus in education.

Criticism of the need for STEM workers has been building for years, as many researchers indicate the economy may have twice as many STEM workers as it needs, leading to wage decline and unemployment. The STEM push had been used by tech companies to increase the ease and availability for hiring foreign workers. But again, much of the propaganda for increasing STEM numbers appears to be based on myth and misinformation. Of course, there is validity to the need for STEM workers. And the argument that a shortage of technologically skilled workers is real and growing has plenty of support. No one would dispute that the world and the economy are becoming increasingly tech-linked. So it stands to reason that workers with backgrounds in the kind of math, science, technology, and engineering used to support that economy should be in regular demand. And STEM proponents argue that critics don't fully understand the numbers.

The problem, of course, is that no one seems to have a definitive answer that is not in some way driven by an agenda. Even the "experts" don't know if the shortage is real. But from "A Teacher's View," the impact on education is serious and significant, and it's worrisome that the push for students to learn is simply based on the premise of getting a good paying engineering job. For, what of the social-emotional side to society and the economy? What of the artists and creators and poets and writers and thinkers? What of the dancers?

Certainly, STEM is a need and a reasonable focus for education. But it can't be the only one.

Can Students Work Their Way Through College?

College is truly expensive, and it's becoming more cost prohibitive each year. There is no doubt about that. And students are graduating with record loads of debt, with the average kid starting post-graduate life saddled by almost an $30,000 burden. However, some recent education critics have argued that "Working Your Way Through College is Impossible." Is it?

According to recent graduate Ethan Smith, it is "mathematically impossible to work your way through college." Apparently that dream has been gone for more than a decade. He presents a convincing argument about the burden of working to simply pay for tuition, and the current minimum wage jobs that are workable by full-time students barely make a dent. Providing anecdotes from several students and crunching the numbers with info from the Student Debt Project, it seems reasonable that students simply can't accomplish what they did in the 1970s. That much seems obvious. Student worker Randal Olsen is another person who has crunched the numbers, researched the challenges, and blogged extensively on the financial challenges facing today's generation of college kids.

However, there are some caveats and other aspects to the story of spiraling student debt - and a "definitive answer" on working your way through college. College is truly expensive - but some places are more so than others. For example, Ethan Smith (who I am assuming is from Colorado) attended Elon University in North Carolina. Elon is a small, private, liberal arts college that is, by all accounts, a pretty good school. Yet, the tuition alone at Elon is $30,000 a year - and that includes nothing in terms or living expenses or travel. By contrast, the tuition at the University of Colorado - Boulder is roughly $12,000 per year. And the total on campus cost for a CU student is about $28,000. So, outside of financial aid, Ethan's entire year at CU would cost less than just tuition across the country at Elon. A question for prospective students is: Is an Elon education worth three times as much as a CU education? We know that's not true.

Granted, $28,000 is no small change, and it would be tough to work enough to pay that off and be a full-time student. That much is true. But there are many other in-state options. The tuition at the University of Northern Colorado is roughly $6500 per year. And, students who stay close to home have the option of limiting their living expenses. So, the issue of college costs is certainly more complicated than the blanket statements by students such as Ethan and Randal. That said, the counterargument shouldn't negate the criticism of rising college costs - and there is no doubt that as states continue to cut budgets, suffering under low tax revenue, the burden will increasingly shift to students. However, the greater question may be whether communities and students and employers begin to re-evaluate whether college is necessary at all.

Regarding college costs, though, the recent documentary film Ivory Tower sides with Ethan Smith.

Next Food Network Star won't be Emma Frisch

In a scene reminiscent of last year's Next Food Network Star competition when popular, sweet, genuine, and talented food blogger Nikki Dinki was basically shown the exit door by Alton Brown for not knowing what a pilaf was, the soft spoken, but engaging, all-natural food advocate Emma Frisch was eliminated from the Food Network competition last night. Emma's team in the competition to create a 360-degree "food experience" suffered from a poor vision and even worse execution. And because Emma was seen as the leader - and because her food disappointed - she was ousted. That left the brash personalities of Lenny and Loreal to survive another day.

Texas chef Sarah - who hasn't until last night actually shown any hint of what "Tastes of Texas" really means - led her team to victory, and they truly did put on a nice show. The problem, of course, is that none of these contestants has true star power, and it's clear that none is really ever going to be a "Food Network Star." There is no Guy Fieri or Bobby Flay or even Jeff Mauro in the mix. They are not food experts or great personalities or even exceptional chefs. There is seemingly less "star power" in each season of the Food Network Star.

As I noted last week, the "star" of the Food Network Star is the show itself, giving greater vehicle to the network and its icons like Bobby Flay. But it's not producing stars - because Lenny and Loreal and Nicole and Luca and Sarah are simply not that impressive. And they won't ever be. And here's another interesting thought: When did Alton Brown turn into such a total jerk? I know Alton has always been that sort of quirky personality that goes back to his breakout success on "Good Eats." And, he had a bit of an edge as a "food elitist" because he really does know his stuff. And I always enjoyed watching him. But Alton seems to have bought into the "caricature of himself," and he's made the mistake of not just being naturally quirky and curt, but going out of his way to be … a prick (pardon my language - it just fits here.)

Ultimately, the prize should probably go to …. oh, hell, I don't really care. Pretty boring people at this point. However, I will keep an eye out for the continued rise of Jeff Mauro. And a big congratulations to Michelle Ragussis, from two seasons ago, as she has secured a spot of NBC's new food show "Food Fighters with "Man vs. Food" Star Adam Richman. Can't wait to see it - a chef like Michelle and a foodie like Adam are what I think of when I think of "Food Network Stars"?

Of Course "Big Food" is the Problem

In a classic moment from Morgan Spurlock's pivotal documentary on the processed food industry Super-Size Me, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers of American (GMA), Gene Grabowski says "We part of the problem." Spurlock could hardly believe his good fortune - and, interestingly, six months after the release of the film at the Sundance Film Festival, Grabowski "no longer worked for the GMA." The reality is that "Big Food," or the corporate conglomeration of processed food manufacturers play the primary role in what America eats. And, if Americans are eating excessive amounts of unhealthy, sodium and sugar-laced products that provide little if any nutrition, then the people peddling the goods are primarily to blame. We can't simply excuse the companies for "selling Americans what they want." The food producers have actually played the primary - and subversive - role in creating those tastes.

Thus, I was a bit dismayed when I ran across an article on Esquire.com in which professional chef and high quality foods advocate Chef Linton Hopkins argued "Big Food is not the Enemy." Well, of course they are, Chef. Granted, the word "enemy" is certainly a bit exaggerated - but if we are having a discussion about the poor health of Americans and the bad dietary choices they regularly make, we can do nothing else but point the finger at the people serving it up. We did not exonerate Big Tobacco, and we do not excuse drug dealers for peddling dangerous products. And, neither should we condone the abysmal quality of some of our most detrimental processed foods.

Kacy Catanzaro - First Woman to Conquer American Ninja Warrior

Anyone looking for a strong, positive role model for girls and young women needs to look no further than a 5-foot, 100-pound gymnast from Belleville, New Jersey, named Kacy Catanzaro. Earlier this week, Kacy became the first woman to ever complete a finals course for the popular adventure and endurance competition American Ninja Warrior.

The tasks completed by Kacy would break most athletes before they finished even a few of them. "Warrior" contestants, however, have to complete a course of seemingly endless physical challenges. And, up until this week, no woman had ever completed a finals course, which qualifies contestants for the national finals at "Mt. Midoriama" in Las Vegas. Only one woman had ever accomplished an ANW standard, the "warped wall," in which competitors must scale a 17-foot curved wall. Kacy was the woman who did it last year during qualifying. This year, she bested herself by completing the entire course to the cheers and astonishment of fans and commentators.

The tiny but powerful Catanzaro - who is trending on Twitter as #MightyKacy - was a Division 1 gymnast and NCAA Regional Gymnast of the Year for Towson University exemplified a strength and endurance that few believed women were capable of demonstrating. Clearly, young women like Kacy continue to challenge the conventional wisdom about what woman can and can't do, and she should likely become a role model for women and for healthy living and exercise.

Governor Jay Nixon Right to Veto "Teachers With Guns" Bill

"Arming teachers will not make our schools safer."

With those wise and rational words, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon vetoed a "Armed Teacher" bill from the over-zealous Missouri legislature. The bill - which is clearly a knee-jerk reaction to the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary and Arapahoe High School - would have cleared the way for school districts to assign certain teachers and administrators as "school protection officers"and arm them after they undergo "special weapons training." This naive response to the threat of gun violence is a terrible idea, and teacher and law enforcement associations should do everything they can to defeat any measure that intends to put guns into schools.

The only personnel who should ever carry firearms on a school campus are School Resource Officers, who are trained and experienced police officers who are assigned to school campuses as part of their normal patrol routines. The ability to use a gun in a crisis is an incredibly delicate and complicated issue, and it's not something regular citizens can do with a few hours of special training. And, gun zealots in the United States are dangerously naive to believe that armed citizens will responsibly and effectively handle a gun and defuse or defeat a live shooter situation in public. Police officers train regularly for such instances, and they still do not perform - or shoot - with precision all the time. The idea that a fifth-grade science teacher can calmly react to an active shooter with professional precision is dangerous and irresponsible.

Putting guns into schools will not solve the problem of school shootings. It will, more likely, increase the incidences of accidental shootings and violence. If communities are fearful about guns on campus, they should very simply budget for a school resource officer in every school. That is a what sane and responsible society would do.

Lil Buck & Jookin Are an Artist & Art Form You Should Know About

As my young daughter gets more into dance, adding aspects of jazz and hip-hop and ballet and tap and even gymnastics into her routines, I am ever entertained by the beauty and art of dance. So, I was fascinated to learn last week about a performance of a unfamiliar style of hip-hop dance called Jookin that originated on the streets of Memphis. Lil Buck is a professional dancer who teamed with Yo-Yo Ma at a conference in a beautiful melding of music and movement, and the moment was caught on cell phone camera by none other than director Spike Jonze.

The continuous evolution of dance is a source of beauty and poetry in motion. And Lil Buck is an artist who challenges our conventional wisdom about talent and education and, well, dance. Going from the streets of Memphis and dancing at a performing arts school, Lil Buck has developed his craft to a point where he has merged the world of ballet and hip-hop, dancing with the New York City Ballet. The performing arts never cease to amaze me, and I could watch people like Lil Buck all day long.

Next Food Network Star Sends Chris Kyler Home in Las Vegas

What happens in Vegas usually stays in Vegas. But on the Food Network's Next Food Network Star, caterer Chris Kyler will not be staying in Vegas, having been eliminated in the seventh episode after repeatedly failing to meet the expectations of his point of view. Chris is certainly an engaging personality and a reasonably competent cook. However, his plan to "elevate" comfort food for the masses never caught on, and he ultimately was sent home for being as inconsistent as his food, the overdone tenderloin being the last chance.

The loser could easily have been Sarah Penrod, the chef from Texas, who somehow comes across with a bubbly personality, but has never accurately met the expectations of her point of view about "Texas cooking." Whether she's mistakenly making a "Texas rub" pork tenderloin or trying to pair Texas and baby food, Sarah has regularly proved why she was eliminated in a previous season before ever making the finals. Sarah, in my opinion, is a less competent chef and personality than Chris or others who have been eliminated, but somehow stays around. She won't be the Next Food Network Star.

For my money, the clear winner at this point is the all-natural, easy-going, Farm-to-Table chef Emma Frisch. Emma has clearly had some hiccups, and she isn't an over-the-top personality like some. But she is the most consistent and competent chef. At the pool party in Vegas, she won over the crowd to be sure, but lost out in the chips contest because a bunch of young Vegas partiers didn't want to create their own satay. They wanted burgers to be sure - a fact that served Lenny well, but doesn't truly indicate that he was the best of the day.

And, Lenny continues to rub me the wrong way for a variety of reasons. First of all, any chef who regularly combs out his facial hair in public is a tad too … unsophisticated, if not actually disgusting, to be a culinary model. Lenny, that is simply gross, and you have lost a lot of favor with me for that. Truly, Lenny can cook. And his lamb burger presentation was something I would have tried for sure. That said, selling burgers to a Vegas pool crowd is about as tough as selling cheap beer at the ballpark. It really didn't prove he was the best - simply that people wanted burgers. Beyond that, the belly flop in the pool was … too much. While it may have been funny, Lenny needs to develop a bit of modesty and not unbutton his shirt (twice on this show!) and act as if people watching a culinary show want to, or should, see that.  I love Emeril and Mario's cooking and personalities - but I never want them to go shirtless. And they have enough class not to do that. Now, I understand the challenges of weight loss, especially in the culinary world, and I am not "fat shaming" him here. But, Lenny, don't take off your shirt in public …. ever.

Other contestants continue to be adequate. Lucca returned to the cheers of his fellow competitors … and the swoons of the female pool party guests, including the giddiest of all, Giada. But he won't be able to sustain a show in any reasonable way. Nicole continues to be pretty good, but made a foolish mistake in substituting prosciutto for sarrano ham … and inexplicably not telling the audience. What were you thinking, Nicole. It would have been an easy teachable moment. I think Nicole is a lot like Season 9 finalist, Stacey Poon-Kinney - polished and effective, but ultimately just not right for a show. Loreal Gavin is also just sort of not all there. She is entertaining enough - but I would never actually watch her show.

And, speaking of watching the winner's shows, have you ever wondered what happened to Season 8 winner and fan favorite, Justin Warner?  What ever happened to his show? The reality is that it seems the Food Network is not actually in the business of creating new stars or developing their shows. The "Show" to find a Food Network Star is actually the star - and ratings grabber - itself.  Truly, other than Guy Fieri, the show has never been designed to or succeeded at finding and producing talent. Truly, the Sandwich King has been reasonably successful. Jeff Mauro is truly a Food Network Star, and could be as successful as the network wants to make him.  But people like Demaris Philips or Arti or Justin or this year's winner are not being set up for a chance at culinary stardom. The Food Network is not as much about the culinary arts, as it is about a network making lots of money - a point well-researched and examined in the following book - From Scratch:

To Become Popular in the USA, Pro Soccer Needs These Changes

As the World Cup draws to a close, and American soccer fanatics are left with Major League Soccer and its low-status on the hierarchy of professional sports in the United States, many will question if soccer can maintain its popularity. Some will argue that this World Cup was the tipping point, as America "finally fell in love with soccer." Certainly, there was a lot of national unity this time around, as groups as large as thousands gathered in public places to watch the USA play on soccer's biggest stage.

Alas, the moment will be fleeting.

Soccer will not maintain the hype of the World Cup any more than professional skiing or swimming or track and field does following the Olympics. It was the hype of a once-in-four-years event that truly prompted many Americans who "never watch pro soccer" to tune in to the games. I am one of them. I played year-round competitive soccer for many years, and I have never been to a pro soccer game. This is the reality, despite living in Colorado with a popular team that draws respectable crowds. For, while more American kids play soccer than any other sport, few youth soccer players turn into true pro soccer fans. Soccer is just  not that popular in a country that has so much other sports entertainment.

However, a few simple rule changes could change America's feelings about soccer:

1. Get rid of off-sides - Off-sides is the most useless penalty in soccer, and a primary reason games are low scoring and "boring" to non-afficionnados of soccer. Ending off-sides would lead to many more goals and breakaways and one-on-one match-ups.
2. Injury Box - There is nothing more annoying to casual soccer fans than the "flopping" and writhing on the ground for phantom fouls. And the imposition of "injury time" which is only known by the ref is so frustrating. So, if a player goes down and stays down long enough for a stoppage in play, he must leave the field - and be subbed for - for a period of five minutes.
3. Instant Replay Challenges - Teams need the ability to challenge plays, especially anything leading to a penalty kick in the box. Those fouls are game changers and can be game deciders. They must not go completely unchallenged.
4. Continuous Subbing -  The limits on subs is booooring. Soccer needs regularly fresh players like hockey to keep the action at a higher level.

And for more thoughts on soccer's popularity:

http://time.com/2864483/world-cup-2014-soccer-brazil-america/

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3432-5-reasons-americans-dislike-soccer/

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/no-record-breaking-world-cup-ratings-dont-make-soccer-a-mainstream-us-sport/373216/

Shameless Cleveland Cavaliers Accept Return of Lebron James

Have you no pride, Cleveland?

After an incredibly drawn out and annoying week where Lebron James privately basked in the sports world's obsession with his "Decision 2.0," the hype finally broke with news that "Lebron James Announces He's Returning to the Cleveland Cavaliers." Now, Chris Bosh and D-Wade and Carmelo can go about the business of making their own decisions without the burden of Lebron-ization. It's all just been so silly, and I am somewhat disappointed in the decision by Dan Gilbert and the Cleveland Cavaliers to even entertain the whims of the man who basically told a whole city and franchise to "bug off."

Sure, if it's all about winning basketball games, then the Cavs just signed the most coveted free agent in the NBA - though his value as a teammate could be debated. The Cavs bent over backwards to win back the Prodigal Son, even though nothing has changed in the team's ownership. And while Lebron made the Cavs competitive in the notoriously weak Eastern Conference, it's not like a team built around him actually won it all. I wonder what might happen if Lebron is unable to bring the trophy home as the team leader in this second turn at being a hometown hero. There's reason to believe this is not a good move for any of the parties involved.

I will say this - There is no way the city of St. Louis and the St. Louis Cardinals organization would ever consider bringing Albert Pujols back. They have too much integrity.

Lebron & "The Decision" Are Bad for the NBA

Do you remember all the trade and contract drama with Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson and Larry Bird? Yeah, neither do I.

Lebron James' "Decision 2.0" is controlling headlines and clogging up Twitter.com and delaying decisions and generally causing uncertainty that is not good for the NBA. It was bad enough when Lebron did this four years ago with"The Decision," a media circus for which he was roundly criticized and from which he should have learned. And now, he's doing it again, as the media waited while he met with the Heat yesterday and produced no contract or news or "Decision."

Ultimately, this drama is more appropriate for middle school, and critics have begun to challenge the power and significance of "King James." Mark Kiszla of the Denver Post reminds us that "Lebron Can Play, but King Tim Duncan Has a Nice Ring (or 5) To It." Lebron James is obviously "an impact player" who can compete for championships every year. And many players want to join him and many fans want to root for him and many teams want to sign him. But all this hype is bad for the NBA when:

Everybody in the league puts life on hold for LeBron.The King builds teams as he sees fit. He doesn't need no stinking title of general manager.

Hey, Houston Rockets, do you mind if free agent forward Chris Bosh puts you and your piddling $88 million offer on hold until James tells him it's OK what to do?

Think the winter is bad in Minneapolis? Wait until you check out the unbearable case of inferiority complex the Timberwolves would acquire if Kevin Love forsakes them for Cleveland, all because James snapped his fingers.

It used to be cute when Carmelo Anthony took orders from his wife before making a basketball decision. Now, like some jealous little kid, Melo is afraid to announce whether he's staying in New York or joining the Lakers in the same news cycle as Decision 2.0 by James.

James broke the hearts of Cleveland when he took his talents to South Beach in 2010. What he's doing now is making a mockery of the games, all the flyover franchises and NBA stars groveling to be LeBron's wingman.

I don't begrudge James his power. More power to him. James didn't write the rules of the collective bargaining agreement; he merely exploited them. But any league where the whim of one man is more important than the final score is dribbling down the wrong path.

The King is great. Anybody, however, who tells you James is as great as Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson or Hall of Famers who relished competition instead of moving on to whatever's convenient fails to realize how hard a meaningful legacy is earned in sports.

Lebron is a really good basketball player. Can we move on now?

Summer Vacation Is Not The Problem

Each year, as kids break free from schools for a little while to pursue the joys of childhood, the issue of "summer vacation" leading to the "summer slide" rears its ugly head again. Time and again, commentators weigh in on the problems of "stopping school" for a couple months when the pools open and the warm weather arrives. The most recent entry comes from Cristina Evans, a teacher, who went to the pages of EdWeek.org with "A Teacher's Case Against Summer Vacation." Evans is focused specifically on the struggles of low-income and mostly urban students who tend to experience academic regression during the months off schools. This is the summer slide.

The case against summer vacation has been made many times, and the carefree break from school has even been called "evil" by some commentators looking to use extremist language to increase readership on a blog post. The reality, though, is a bit different than much of the "history" indicates. To be clear, the existence of summer vacation is not a result of our farming history and the "agrarian calendar" that let kids out in the summer to work in the fields.  I have discussed this discrepancy more fully in the past. And the history of summer vacation is not unclear to anyone willing to do a bit of research.

To her credit, Evans doesn't call for a radical end to summer vacation. Instead, she makes a lucid case for shortening it from maybe ten weeks to six or so. And no one is arguing that in schools where a summer slide is evident that we should ignore the problem. However, a blanket argument that summer vacation should be shorter across all schools is misguided. Instead, parents and communities should know the facts for how to effectively use summer vacation for the type of enrichment that prevents summer regression in many kids. The reality is that summer vacation is embedded in our culture, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Is Education's STEM Focus an Ambiguous Waste of Time

Seemingly out of nowhere, "STEM" has become a popular acronym for fixing all that ails the US economy. Apparently, the problem has been that America is severely lacking in workers skilled in "Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math." Thus, schools and education reformers - backed by powerful forces such as the Gates Foundation - have responded with the goal of simply producing more people with diplomas in the STEM areas. But, a closer look from the other side indicates that the "STEM Solution" is certainly no panacea for the needs of the American economy and the alleged "crisis in education." Writer Danielle Kurtzleben investigates the complex problems of aligning ourselves with a "nonsense acronym." There is little doubt that most STEM fields have great potential to produce high-earning individuals who can positively contribute to the economy. Yet, the country is as lacking in highly skilled labor as it is suffering from a shortage of biologists or accountants. And, rather than focus on some ambiguous notion of STEM, perhaps American communities should instead focus on helping businesses align with schools to close the "skills gap."  And that is only true if the goal and purpose of the education system is simply to provide a pipeline of workers for corporate America. Is it?

Bill Gates' Common Core Obsession

For those watching the Common Core & PARCC testing debate in public education, the powerful influence of the Gates foundation has been a force to watch for the past few years. And recent events like the Gates' Foundation letter to the New York Times and the calls for a Congressional investigation into the influence of Gates and the burden of standardized testing have certainly chummed the waters. This week, I weigh in at Salon.com with an analysis and some commentary on how "Bill Gates Needs to Drop his Common Core Obsession."

After blogging for years and writing pieces for the Denver Post, this article is my first piece for a national news site. So, I am pretty excited about the opportunity to reach a wider audience.

Was the 90's the Last Great Decade?

Fourteen years after the turn of the millennium (Do you remember the Y2K crisis?), it's apparently time to look back at the decade that gave us Seinfeld and Nirvana and Forrest Gump and the OJ Trial and more. It is, apparently, the "Last Great Decade," as the National Geographic channel puts out a documentary look-back at the age of grunge music and dot-com millionaires. It was the time of relative calm between the Cold War and 9/11, and that seems to make it real in a way that the world will never be again. With the changes from the War on Terror and the incredible expansion of our technology, the world will forever after be more surreal than real. And that's the legacy that the 90's offers.

Inspired by NatGeo's look back at the decade - and posing questions about its greatness - many retrospectives will look back at the 90s, as USA Today did recently with a review of some greatest hits from the decade of Yada, Yada, Yada. Focusing predominantly on the pop culture that typifies a decade or era to us, USA notes some big moments:

• The OJ Simpson trial was really the beginning of reality TV
• An obscure rock band from Seattle, Nirvana released Nevermind and change the face of rock, introduced us to "grunge," and knocked Michael Jackson off his top-of-the-charts perch
• Television was "Must See TV" on numerous networks - not just NBC - with innovative sitcoms like Friends, Seinfeld, The Simpsons, and Frasier, and inspired new dramas like ER, Picket Fences, The X-Files, and The Practice
• Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls re-introduced the idea of a sports dynasty
• One of history's most popular Presidents changed the White House in ways we never would have wanted - Monica Lewinsky - yet left the office to even greater fame and fortune
• Rap music came into its own in a way no one really predicted
• And the world became fascinated by this little phenomenon called, The Internet

The Nineties were, no doubt, a unique time if only for the transition the decade offered.

Is It Time for Congressional Hearings on Standardized Testing In Public Schools?

Teaching to the test. Test scores. Standardized Testing. Accountability. Tests.

The incredible rise in significance and impact of mandatory standardized testing is becoming the lead story in public education these days. And for good reason - few of us who went through school fifteen and twenty and thirty and forty years ago can understand how significant filling in bubbles has become. As the NEA meets in Denver, and judge dismisses a PARCC-associated lawsuit in New Mexico, the issue of standardized testing and its role in public education is coming to a head.

To that end the Network for Public Education, among others, is calling for Congress to hold formal hearings to investigate the significance, benefit, and burden of mandated standardized tests in public schools. There is no doubt that the impact of No Child Left Behind lingers with the use of standardized tests for schools. As states continue the push to link test scores to teachers' jobs, despite evidence this is a bad idea and virtually worthless, the education field looks to Congress for help.

So, is it time for hearings? Congress likes to have its nose in everything, and it certainly took an interest in "testing" professional athletes for steroid use. If Congress is willing to investigate sports, it should certainly take an interest in public schools.

Are Common Core Tests Designed to Produce Failure?

The problem with the current education reform movement is that it is based on the myth that the American public education system is in a state of crisis and that American students are falling behind the rest of the world. One of the premier voices challenging this "fraud" that is perpetuated on a naive public is Seton Hall Professor Dr. Chris Tienken. Dr. Tienken has been researching, writing, and speaking on The School Reform Landscape. Tienken has serious concerns about the response to "standardize and centrally control public education" through movements like the Common Core standards.

Now, the implementation of Common Core "State" Standards and associated national standardized testing are being implicated in the plan to produce a pre-conceived result that American schools and American students are failing. As the results of Common Core testing in states like New York are released, the data reveals that the tests were designed to create an artificial and arbitrary "pass rate" of 30%. The test results, as evaluated by teacher and education writer Anthony Cody, were intended to guarantee failure as a way of validating the claims behind the current reform movement that schools are in crisis and the Common Core standards and the associated testing apparatus are the solution. Literally, students were set up to fail.

And, that just doesn't seem like good pedagogy or education policy.

PARCC Test Losing More Support in Tennessee, Arizona, & New Mexico

So, what if they gave a PARCC test and no one came?

The Common Core aligned PARCC testing consortium took a few more hits in the past couple weeks as two more states withdrew from the group and in another state a lawsuit was filed challenging PARCC's legality and authority.  Tennessee is the latest to abandon the much-maligned and controversial testing group after the state legislature passed a law directing the state to quit the group. The anti-PARCC law in Tennessee follows a similar move last month in Arizona. Arizona's governor Jan Brewer wasn't explicitly opposed to PARCC, but she wants the state to avoid impropriety in the test selection process. That potential for impropriety is what prompted a lawsuit in New Mexico with charges of bid-rigging by PARCC and Pearson, Inc. to prevent any competition for the test and testing company. And, this challenge to PARCC's authenticity is also playing out in the South, as Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal is battling with his state education leaders over membership in and use of PARCC. Apparently, the imposition of a national test against the proper channels for competitive bidding is becoming an identifying characteristic of PARCC and Pearson, Inc. Now, the PARCC consortium is down to fifteen members, and these recent challenges indicate more trouble for PARCC may be on the way.

Common Core & PARCC Face Lawsuit Challenge in New Mexico

One of the keys to corporate education reform is that applying the rules of competition and the marketplace will lead to better results in schools. This is the theory behind vouchers and charter schools and anti-union and anti-tenure and national standards and standardized testing and value-added measures and a host of other reforms. Granted, there are numerous problems with applying competition and market practices to an institution that is not a market. And, surprisingly, some market-oriented conservative groups oppose the ability of the market to fix education through national standards. However, I can understand the simple appeal and basic motivation for reformers to believe they can do so.

And, I am pretty sure I've heard Bill Gates argue that competition and market policies are the key to improving educational outcomes. And, I'm also pretty sure Bill Gates never truly wants competition for any of his ideas. So, it's not all that surprising to learn that market forces and competition were ignored in the establishment of Common Core State Standards. And, it's not surprising that a scandal is brewing over the multi-million dollar contracts secured by Pearson, Inc. to draft and administer the requisite standardized tests for the Common Core. In New Mexico, the first legal challenge has been filed, as the American Institutes for Research has caught the ear of a federal judge who supports the claim of "bid-rigging" in securing the $240 million a year testing contract with states administering Common Core tests such as PARCC and SB.

Clearly, the issue of "school choice" is paramount in this argument, as schools should have more than one option for the tests of general standards. It would seem that competition between standardized testing companies such as ACT and SAT and AIR and others would produce the "best tests." But clearly, the people behind Common Core and PARCC are opposed to anyone competing with their "solutions" to public education.

Public Education Is Not Broken - And Bill Gates Should't Be Telling People How to Fix It

So, after I criticized Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation's disproportionate influence on discussions of public education, a friend asked, "But don't you agree that the system is broken?"

No, I don't agree that the system is broken - because public schools are not failing.

Most people criticize public education as a failure, at the same time as they praise their own kids' schools. It's the same story as Americans' faith in Congress - hate Congress, love their representatives.

American public schools educate a higher percentage of the population and send a greater percentage on to college than at any time in history. They do this as successfully as any other industrialized nation, and there is no shortage of college-educated workers for available jobs. And the United States does this with the most diverse population of any country in the world.

On standardized measures of comparisons, American schools are ranked number one in the world when scores are corrected for percentages of poverty. And, there is no evidence that public school systems in other countries are producing any better doctors or engineers or accountants or attorneys or entrepreneurs or salesman or financial analysts or …. well, you get the point.

The challenges faced by American schools are about equity of opportunity, and the problem of a one-size-fits-all system based on college degrees and Carnegie units. The economy and the public education is a complex emergent systems that requires flexibility and adaptability, and that very quality is being compromised by the push for uniformity and standardization from a corporate-model which prizes job training as the primary purpose of education.

It's not.