Austan Goolsbee and the Truth about Taxes

In news today, Austan Goolsbee, one of President Obama's top economic advisors, is leaving his job at the White House to return to his position as an economist at the University of Chicago. Goolsbee is probably best known for his "White Board" speeches in which he sketched out economic policy of tax cuts - criticizing the GOP plan for continued tax cuts - in a short videotaped speech. Here's a look:

Sadly, far too many Americans are naive to even the simple truths of this two-minute video. And if that sort of thinking continues, the US economy will continue to be mired in the backwaters of ideologically produced debt and deficits.

English Class - Business or Pleasure

Recent comments from a reader, as well as curricular discussions with colleagues, have led me to recently ponder the English classroom and the phrase "life long lovers of reading."

That phrase has always bothered me, especially when it is used in reference to the job of an English teacher and the role of the English classroom. There is a clear line between reading for pleasure and the study of literature, and no English class/curriculum should be designed with the goal of "creating life-long lovers of reading." We can, and should, teach them to "appreciate literature," but not to love it. No math teacher is tasked with making students "love" the "joy" of a "wonderful algorithm." No social studies teachers is expected to pursue the goal of "loving" the timeline of the Civil War. No science teacher is expecting "love" for the beauty of a graph or chemical reaction. We don't expect for schools to create life long lovers of jazz music or basketball or writing or texting or nursing or fixing pipes or installing software or filing or calculating or .... or anything.

English classes are about developing literacy and critical thinking skills - not developing hobbies. Simply because there is an "artistic quality" to the content, does not mean that "loving" the art is the purpose of the class. Literary analysis is not about discovering the joy of a wonderful book, though that can certainly happen -it's about understanding important societal themes and appreciating effective use of language. And no author ever wrote a novel or poem with the intention of it being assigned to students to read and deconstruct. It just so happens that great literature is the perfect content for students to practice the higher level thinking skills of rhetorical analysis. And the themes of great literature also allows schools to be purveyors of culture and sources of character instructions as the stories allow students to understand literature as a "record of the human experience."

But loving reading? You can't teach anyone to like something. And you shouldn't try.

Teaching and Facilitating

Darren at RightOnTheLeftCoast addresses the issue of "teaching" versus "facilitating learning." Here are my thoughts:

Years ago, when I agreed to take on a student teacher, I first heard the term "learner facilitator" from the college's education department chair who introduced candidates that way at a meet and greet. And I mocked the term endlessly after that. In the classroom, I have always been a traditional, classical instructor, and am wary of "foo foo" education.

In my high school honors freshman English classes, I spend 3/4 of the year instructing my students on how to study literature as high school students, rather than the middle school language arts focus of simply reading and commenting on stories. We learn to analyze language and literature by focusing of diction, syntax, tone, mode/genre, allusion, allegory, rhetorical strategies, as well as thematic analysis. We also develop skills of rhetorical analysis in our writing, focusing of modes of literary analysis, style analysis, and argumentation.

In the final quarter of the year, I literally use the terms "sage of the stage" and "guide on the side," as well as "teacher/learner facilitator" when I expect them to put into practice the skills they have learned during the year. With the final works of the year - pieces such as Old Man and the Sea and Beowulf - the responsibility is on them. They lead discussion, research the scholarly work, develop a research assignment, and prepare for the final evaluation of their skills. Of course, I am there for guidance and will not let them miss an idea or perpetuate a misinterpretation. But they really need to walk the walk and put skills into practice. And the evaluation is literally weeks long.

The focus is on skill, not content, and they must apply the skills to all content. So, there is a time and place for "facilitating learning" in the classroom. That is true for my students as they work toward the AP language exam where the content is a mystery and they must be able to apply the skills I have "taught" them to any content. My pass rate of 94%, with more than 3/4 of students receiving 4s and 5s, validates the success of this model.

That said, teaching or facilitating isn't really the point, as long as learning is happening. Thus, in the grand scheme of public education, "Best Practice" is really about whatever works.

Politics and Double Speak

In this era of partisan politics run amok, there is no greater time for citizens to be attuned to what George Orwell called the politics of the English language. With that in mind, I always seek in my classroom to help my students become "people on whom nothing is lost." It is an imperative that they become astute and aware to manipulation by language. The example I give them at the beginning of the year is the clever wording that a Gingrich-led GOP was able to institute regarding taxation on inherited income. By effectively switching the terminology from the traditional "inheritance" or "estate" tax to the more negatively connoted "death tax," they re-framed the issue and fundamentally changed the debate. The problems of this were nowhere more evident than in a national poll where 75% of Americans said they supported the estate tax, but 75% of them opposed the death tax. It was the same poll to the same group of people - these potential voters were so manipulated by language, they didn't even know what they believed.

With this in mind, I think it's worth taking a look at what is arguably one of the greatest example of political doublespeak in the history of American politics. It's the infamous "whiskey speech" by Mississippi legislator Noah Sweat. This speech was delivered on the floor of the legislature in response to questions about his position of laws limiting the production and sale of alcohol.


My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:

If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

Spoken like a true politician - a unique species always worthy of study.

GOP and the Party of Crazy

According to former Colorado Republican congressman - and occasionally ranting lunatic - Tom Tancredo, President Obama withheld his birth certificate on purpose to "make the GOP look nuts."

Hmmm ... ya' think?

Then again, I don't think the GOP has needed any help looking like the "party of crazy." They've been handling the nutcase side of politics rather well on their own. Though, even if it wasn't intentional, once the nuttiness began, I wouldn't doubt Obama was shrewd enough to allow it to happen. Yet, if he really wanted to go that route, he would have let the whole thing run throughout the primaries of 2012.

Tom Tancredo continues his analysis by exclaiming that Obama pulled the ultimate Muhammed Ali "rope-a-dope." I wouldn't disagree, though the most amusing part is Tancredo identifying the GOP as "the dope." He, of course, would be leading candidate in that race from his extreme comments and rather pathetic runs for president and governor of Colorado in the past few years. I mean, seriously. Anyone who identifies President Obama as "a greater threat to the United States than Al-Qaeda" is either a truly extreme politician, or a conspiracy nutcase who is holding on by a very thin thread.

And, so we're left to continually ponder where this stuff comes from. A decade ago, I was completely comfortable dividing my vote between the Democrats and the GOP, always choosing the most moderate and pragmatic leader. Alas, it has become increasingly difficult to walk that line. From seemingly aloof and misguided positions on tax rates and foreign policy to education and immigration reform to clear naivete about foreign policy and the true costs of government to intentionally ambiguous takes on labor, the "free market," and health care, I just can't find common or moderate ground with the GOP.

I have hope .... but it's wearing thin.

Atlas Shrugged ... So do I

The rise of interest in Ayn Rand's monstrous and fantastical ode to the wealthy elite - Atlas Shrugged - has baffled me for a while. It seems that many don't actually read it - but rather check the Wikipedia entry - and if they do read it, they don't read it with any sense of reality. For the one thing everyone - including Rand - seems to miss is that no true capitalist would ever pursue the principled stand of John Galt. In fact, if Galt is as principled as he seems, he never would have become successful in the first place. The reality is that innovators and business leaders like Galt are driven by, for lack of a better word, greed. And they aren't going to walk away from making more just to prove a point to the government and all those needy, lazy workers who are sucking them dry.

It's just such a preposterous thesis - and a truly disconnected viewpoint from someone who claimed to preach the gospel of unfettered capitalism. The creative and economic elite wouldn't shut everything down - they'd do what they've always done - buy politicians. No one is going to stand on principle and stop making money, though they may grandstand about it. But if I know anything about business leaders it is this - they would pretend to join the crowd, all the time planning to back out and take over in the vacuum that would result from all the business leaders walking away. And, of course, many of the innovators are people like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg, who are calmly creating away in their garages and dorm rooms, and not worrying that someday the government will take away all their riches, so they just won't create in the first place. That'll show 'em!

What a bunch of hogwash.

Military Mis-Appropriations

I wonder how serious the debt and deficit would be if, twenty-three years ago at the end of the Cold War, American voters and legislators had taken an honest and realistic look at defense spending. My guess? Trillions of dollars would have been saved, and our country would feel safer and more secure than it does now. A recent feature investigation in Time Magazine asks - and answers - the same questions.

For at least a decade, I have argued with debt and deficit critics about the need to cut military spending. From unnecessary and unproved or outdate weapons systems to convoluted and secretive appropriations programs linked to local jobs with military contractors to hundreds of thousands of soldiers stationed around the world in stable societies, the military is a behemoth of spending that results from lack of oversight. As Time points out with the famous quote from Truman about the "military industrial complex," the nation needs "an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" to carefully analyze and budget for our military needs and peaceful goals.

Thoughts on Taxes and Deficits

Some thoughts from a discussion over at Darren's blog - RightontheLeftCoast.blogspot.com

Of course, higher taxes won't end our debt in a year or two, and no one is proposing it could. And no one is proposing 100% confiscation, which is absurd. Of course, marginal rates of 89% existed during the country's exceptional economic boom from 1945-1965. Not that I'm arguing higher rates solve the problem - just that they don't necessarily cause more problems. The economy is about far more than marginal tax rates.

However, had rates not dropped to historic lows over the past decade, the debt would be far, far less. Extrapolate the lost revenue over twenty years and the case is obvious for allowing rates to rise for the wealthiest. If, for the past thirty years, capital gains and dividends had just been taxed as income, as uber-rich people like Buffett and Gates have proposed, and FICA was not capped, this current debt crisis would hardly exist. So, raising taxes on the rich - over the next decade or so - will do wonders in paying down the debt. And the garbage about "killing jobs" by "punishing the job creators" is exactly that, garbage. Supply and demand doesn't work that way - and no effective business owner turns down a good investment or refuses to expand his business simply because he might pay 19%, rather than 15%. A good deal is a good deal and business investments are made on timeliness first.

Budget criticisms about foreign and PBS/NEA/NPR are political not fiscal, and they don't have much relevance to the debt/deficit concern. As are comments on Ponzi schemes and socialism. Social insurance is a good investment for any society - just look at the economies of Singapore and Germany - and the debt problems are essentially solved through means testing and allowing the government to negotiate with providers. Just look at prescription costs for veterans if you disagree. And we've actually been "printing money" since the 1970s and the boat is afloat.

Taxes are the revenue the state uses to fund state business. The greatest percentage of revenue will come from its greatest concentration of it. The wealthy can simply afford to pay more for the functioning of the state, and they have clearly gleaned as much from a society that has been stable enough - because of said government/society - to create such wealth.
No wealthy business owner amasses wealth in a vacuum - it accrues from all contributers along the supply/demand line. And the infrastructure that allows that to occur and flourish is maintained by a government of representative democracy.

Limit/end corporate welfare (agree with you there), means test the safety net and allow for negotiations and cuts without hysterical "killing grandma" cries, cut back the military/security behemoth, don't cut taxes to "spur growth," plan to pay for wars while fighting them, and have a nice day.

Taxes and Growth

In response to the budget plan by Paul Ryan and the GOP which cuts taxes by $4 trillion, both Charles Blow in the New York Times and Walter Mondale in the Washington Post attempt to clarify the issue of taxes and growth. The question is whether Americans can do the math, or whether they are still deluded by either sound bite ideology or simple ignorance of economic facts, rather than theories.

The TEA Party likes to claim that Americans are "taxed enough already." Yet, as Mondale points out, taxes are at their lowest rates in forty years - and, consequently, is government revenue which leads to deficits and debt at both the state and federal level. Sadly, too many voters don't see the connection, and they are reluctant to pay for what they want ... and that's precisely because politicians and leaders have convinced them they are already paying for what they don't want.

Obama versus Ryan

Let's be clear - I am not enamored of Obama's deficit reduction plan and budget for 2012. While the message and philosophy of his speech was honest and fundamental to promoting "the general welfare" of the United States, the plan falls short in several areas of necessary spending cuts and tax revisions. However, while Obama's plan disappoints me, Ryan's plan is, in my opinion, far worse. The Path to Prosperity is a specific budget cutting proposal, no doubt. However, the assumptions it makes about future growth and prosperity are ideological and naive at best, but more likely reckless.

The audacity of crying bankruptcy and slashing social spending is simply wrong when it is being balanced by $4 trillion in tax cuts. If the problem is being broke and not having enough money, the answer is most definitely not to cut revenue further. Of course, the Ryan plan is taking that course on the misguided notion that the US can't tax the "job creators" as Colorado representative Mike Coffman calls them. Keeping the 01/03 tax cuts has no definitive impact on job and economic growth. It simply doesn't. That ideology has been discredited time and again. Increased demand grows jobs, and investors create new businesses whenever they want. There is no shortage of investment capital right now, and no shortage of business who could hire people. And it's not taxes that are preventing that from happening.

Obama's plan on the other hand is not clear enough on the tax increases that need to happen. But the deductions problem is pretty clear. Deductions are meant to ease the tax burden of people whose living allowance margin is thin. And the more deductions they have, they greater chance they will buy a house or purchase consumer goods. That's simply not the case with people earning more than a million dollars. They need no incentive to spend their extra cash. They spend whenever they want. Arguing that fewer deductions means these people have less money to hire people and start business is simply wrong and ideologically bullheaded.

Thus, I predict that Obama can win the next election with this plan - and I think the Democrats can even take back some lost seats. But that doesn't mean I think it's a great plan. It's simply not the disaster that Mr. Ryan presents. As I've noted before, you can't trust economic policy from a man who rants about the high corporate tax rates and seems willingly naive to the idea of corporate tax deductions.

Taylor Swift Gone Wild

Just out of curiosity - because my kids are such fans - I checked out the price and availability of concert tickets for Taylor Swift's show on September 27 at the Pepsi Center in Denver. I was initially surprised to see tickets were still available. And then I was shocked to see the cheapest - and worst - seat available .... at the back of the venue ... in the nosebleed seats .... on the venue's website .... not from scalpers ... were ... $125 each. Gasp!

That is, in my opinion, completely beyond the pale.

Taylor Swift is a phenomenally talented musician and a seemingly very genuine young woman. I am impressed with her songs and her public demeanor, and I don't question my children listening to her music. "But, Girl, you concert prices are out of control." Taylor is forgetting where she came from. And she is forgetting who her fans are. And she is neglecting to take an active interest in the business side of her career to ensure that regular folks have a reasonable shot at sharing in her live performance of the songs they made popular enough for her to charge whatever she wants.

Professional sports is no different. A lifelong St. Louis Cardinals fan, I was supremely disappointed in the stalemate between Albert Pujols and the team over his next - and final contract. Reports claim he expects to be the highest paid player in the league and that equates to a 10-year, $300 million contract. That is a bit ridiculous - especially because he will be in his forties at the end of the contract. This is as a member of the same team as Stan "The Man" Musial - a player who once signed his contract without looking at it, and when the press asked him if he wanted to review it first, he said, "I'm getting paid to play ball. I'm sure it's fine."

Let's hope the air someday goes out of the entertainment bubble, and prices return to a reasonable rate. But I'm not holding my breath.

Economics Plans

The White House says President Obama is set to release his budget and/or deficit reduction plan sometime this week. If that's the case, then both David Brooks and Fareed Zakaria are correct about the Ryan Plan forcing the discussion and throwing down a gauntlet on government budgets that must be addressed. Yet, I still far that Zakaria and Brooks are far too generous in identifying the bill as courageous and forward-thinking. It's still too naive in terms of growth and the role of tax rates, and it is simply unconscionable in terms of the faith it plays with the free market and insurance companies concerning health care for the elderly.

Yet, my gut instinct tells me that the President's plan is going to be equally naive concerning spending. And he is going to lose the battle on taxes if he keeps targeting as low as earners making more than $250,000. While I do feel that amount is comfortably wealthy, it is not an vast sum of money, especially in places like New York and California. He could certainly argue for higher rates on people in the million dollar tax brackets and address the revenue problem more rationally. Better yet, it should, as both the Wyden-Gregg and Ryan Plan argue, focus predominantly on the deductions. Certainly, we can come to consensus that the mortgage deduction is a reasonable tax break for many Americans, but it is unnecessary for people making more than 500 Gs, or for purchasing more than one residence.

So, if we could focus on that. We'd be getting somewhere. Broaden the base, flatten the rates, narrow the deductions for all, end them for the top 20%, and be done with it.

Pepper Spray & Eight-Year-Olds

By now, you've probably read about the unruly eight-year-old boy who was pepper sprayed and cuffed by school police officers in a Denver suburb. I know, I'm still trying to get my mind around it as well. Yet, arguably, this story is much more complex than you might initially think.

Everything in my adult/teacher/parent mind tells me that there is no reason to pepper spray an third grader. My son is eight, and short of him having a gun, I can't think of any situation where I couldn't restrain him, even taking away from him a "sharpened stick" like the boy in the story was wielding. Some middle school and high school kids might be reasonable targets for pepper spray or even a taser if they are "threatening school personnel" and "throwing TVs and desks" at a door behind which the teachers had barricaded themselves. But an eight-year-old?

Yet, the district superintendent has defended the action as not only "legal" but in the best interest of the safety of the boy. Police officers are trained to take down the most dangerous and aggressive of people, and there is every reason to think that in restraining and removing the child, he could have ended up with bruises or a broken finger or wrist or arm or a concussion. And we can predict the lawsuits coming from that. In fact, the boy's mother wondered why the police didn't just talk to him as they had done on the two other occasions when they had been called to deal with this child.

And therein lies the complexity.

Clearly, this child is a problem. And previous "talking" may have led to the escalation, as the boy has learned he can get what he wants. The mom - who does not come off well in interviews - has clearly failed in almost every aspect of parenting. And she has burdened her son with issues he will struggle with for years. She claims doctors have refused to medicate him because it's not a medical problem. I agree. It's a parenting problem. And while the boy "never acts that way at home," I'd conclude it's because he gets everything he wants. My guess is the boy comes home each day and sits on the couch for hours watching SpongeBob or playing video games while his mom brings him every bit of junk food his heart desires. I'd guarantee homework is not an expectation in that house.

Thus, the boy was subdued, cuffed, and transferred to an alternative school for behavior disabled schools. Well, that's certainly appropriate, albeit about ten referrals and two police visits too late.

Oh, that we could have some discipline for mom as well.

The Ryan Plan and the Future

The Ryan Plan ..... hmmmmm.

The Ryan Plan is a starting point.

The Ryan Plan is the end of effective government.

The Ryan Plan is visionary and courageous.

The Ryan Plan is draconian and shortsighted.

"The Ryan Plan isn't perfect, but it's forcing Americans to confront reality ..."

"The Ryan Plan is simultaneously ridiculous and heartless."

I don't know what to think of the 2012 budget proposal from Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, but it makes me uneasy. And I don't like to feel uneasy about plans the government is making. At the same time, I've been feeling uneasy about the growing debt and deficit since about 2003 (unlike many who suddenly found God on government spending in 2009). In response to the budget, which Ryan is somewhat smugly calling a "Pathway to Prosperity," and which is a more concise version of the "Roadmap to the Future" he published two years ago, liberals and conservatives are weighing in. David Brooks and Paul Krugman of the New York Times have offered some contrasting commentary on the Ryan Plan, and Matt Miller of the Washington Post has criticized the plan with specific numbers breakdowns from the Congressional Budget Office.

The Ryan Plan intends to cut $4 trillion over the next decade from the budget and make sweeping changes to the way the government funds health insurance for the poor, disabled, and elderly through Medicaid and Medicare. Basically, the plan would retain Medicare for all people 55 and older, and would shift to a $15,000 voucher to buy health insurance in retirement after that. It would turn federal funding of Medicaid into "block grants" to states which they would fund according to their own plans and abilities. It would balance the budget by ... wait for it .... 2040. And it would accomplish all of this by making no cuts to military spending. It would accomplish this by not raising taxes. And it would accomplish this by lowering the unemployment rate to about 3%. That number, it should be pointed out, is a projection from the Heritage Institute - a rather ideological group who is basing the projection, not on numbers from the GAO or CBO, but on theories about supply side economics.

Overall, I concede Brooks' point that the Ryan Plan is a bold starting point. But I hope that's all it is. Because it truly is a ridiculous plan. No one on the recent debt commission has rationally argued that we can fix our long term deficit problems without raising some taxes. Ultimately, a revision of the tax code can lower some taxes, raise others, and close loopholes. And social insurance in the form of Medicare and Social Security could and should be fixed through simple means testing and more credible indexing. Beyond that, any proposal that doesn't seek to cut military spending or agricultural and corporate subsidies is either incredibly naive, myopically ideological, or just disingenuous.

We'll see.

Reverse-Read Poem - Lost Generation

Working on a "multi-genre" research project with my class today, and a student introduced to the idea of a "reverse-citation poem" - one that can be read forward to reveal one message and backwards to reveal the opposite message. Fascinating.

Here's the example he shared. It's called "The Lost Generation" by Jonathan Reed:

Supply Side Shortcomings

It's no surprise that the business and economic news of the week is focusing on how the United States' economy is recovering and growing, yet it is not producing significant job growth. In fact, despite stronger economic gains than world trading partners, other countries are outpacing the United States in putting people back to work. The growth in the US is seen in a robust stock market and a corporate profit report that reveals profits setting records and operating at a twelve percent gain over the numbers prior to the recession. The reality is that American workers are more productive, and companies which shed jobs during the recession have realized they can make due with fewer workers. And so they will.

This realization leads to serious questions about the promotion of supply side economic policies as a way of generating job growth. The basic question is this: Who can argue that job growth is the goal of any business? In reality, it's not. Certainly, the correlation between increased business leading to a need for more workers is relevant. However, because labor costs are the greatest cost for most businesses - and that only increases as benefits' costs rise - no business is actively looking for a way to hire more people as its goal.

Expanded market share and profits are the goal of any business. Increasing sales and production while limiting costs is the predominant focus. If a company can increase profits without increasing labor or costs, it will - it must. Thus, to argue that governments can implement pro-job growth policies - especially in terms of taxes - defies basic economic sense. The current growth of the US economy validates this - albeit this is a simplified explanation.

To argue that a tax policy will spur more hiring makes no sense. Supply is only increased to meet demand. A generous business tax policy does not increase demand, and it's ambiguous that any tax cut will increase demand in any specific business sector. The economy and the spending habits and productions needs of the economy are far too complex. The economy is an emergent system, and identify specific factors of emergent system is not really possible, at least from a tax policy standpoint.

The Dark Side of Reform

When Steven Leavitt published Freakonomics years ago, he raised some eyebrows - and blood pressures - by arguing statistics reveal that teachers and sumo wrestlers are among the professions most likely to "cheat." The high stakes "testing" and "ranking" of each profession was indicated as the likely factor.

Now, in the DC public schools - the domain of reformer Michelle Rhee who blamed low standardized test scores on poor teachers protected by unions and tenure - it appears more data supports Leavitt's argument. In an investigative story in USA Today, the examination of rising test scores and student achievement is linked to an unusually high number of erasure marks on students tests - erasures which revealed huge percentages of wrong answers being changed to correct ones.

We should all be disappointed in this reality - but we should view it with an intent to understand the broader message. If true, the teachers of these "diligent self-checking students" should not be excused or exonerated because the pressure to show results led to poor decisions. However, this story should influence the discussions about standardized tests which are "high stakes" for schools and teachers, but zero stakes for students. And the mythical panacea of "merit pay" based on such tests must also be scrutinized.

Teen Athletes Eating Right

On numerous occasions each year, I rant about the importance of healthy eating, especially during the teenage years. From the pizza and cookies for lunch to the random snacks of donuts and chips to the way students sit casually sipping a sugar-filled Powerade, too many young people eat for crap these days. In fact, they are eating crap these days. And there is no doubt these habits will have negative long term repercussions on their health. Yet, the prevalence of low-quality processed foods is ubiquitous, and despite my rants and a semester in health class, students aren't really getting the education they need.

However, there is hope. And a recent local news feature gives my hope that my rant just might be making an impact. The fitness section of the Denver Post spotlights two local teen athletes who have seen the light. These two young men battled weight problems for years until they made the decision to beat the battle of the bulge. One of the students was a freshman in my Honors English class four years ago - and I was shocked when he came to see me last fall at the start of his senior year. He'd lost fifty pounds and was the captain of his varsity basketball team - one of the top programs in the state.

This story is great news, and it's exactly the type of story we need about young people. Yet, I worry about opposition to health information. Despite the best of intentions, the First Lady Michelle Obama has been targeted with endless criticism for attempting to promote healthier foods in schools. Certainly, it's mainly political - though it's veiled in the guise as an "assault on freedom." That, by the way, is patently ridiculous. And, hopefully more schools and kids and parents will begin to pursue healthier choices.

High fives to these young men for being an inspiration to us all.

Corporate vs. Public

Jon Stewart "gives up."

In a informative sketch, Stewart once again expresses dismay about the GOP-led campaign against public workers as "budget busting" leeches, while ignoring any sense that our corporate tax structure is integrally linked to the fiscal crisis. This is an argument that simply doesn't seem winnable by Democrats - and neither Stewart nor I can figure out why.

How many times have I heard conservative pundits and politicians decry our outrageous corporate tax rate - "highest in the industrialized world" - while completely ignoring (or being shamefully clueless) about the discrepancy between tax rates and taxes paid. Yes, the corporate tax rate is officially 35%. But NO corporation pays anywhere close to the rate .... and 2/3 of US corporations pay no corporate income taxes. That's none. Zero. And to make matters worse, the top earning corporations receive additional tax benefits in the from of subsidies and rebates.

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

It is astonishing, I know. How can such a profoundly corrupt system be completely lost on voters and Republican congressman? And I get the criticism of the Democrats. It is absolutely valid. Liberal leaders do try to accomplish too much, and they are reasonable targets for out-of-control public spending. But this double-standard is just too much for an unaffiliated, moderate voter like me.

I sympathize with Stewart, and I wonder how Democrats can be so clueless about educating the public on this. Unless they don't really want to. What would be wrong with a series of commercials - especially during elections - that is committed to exposing the corruption of the system? Why is that so hard? Where are the Democratic versions of the Koch brothers?

Revenue or Spending

In the ever-going state budget discussion here in Colorado, conservative columnist John Andrews argues in the Denver Post that Colorado doesn't have a revenue problem and should, surprisingly, emulate states like Wisconsin and Texas. My thoughts:

In a column addressing the budgetary challenges facing Colorado, the recommendation that we adopt our tax system from Texas is quite baffling, especially for someone who's generally pretty well informed about issues of politics and government. Texas is currently facing a projected $27 billion shortfall in 2012, which aligns it squarely with the budgetary disasters in states like California and Illinois. This fiscal tsunami is in spite of increased job growth and business relocation to Texas in the past decade. Thus, Texas - which has no "out-of-control spending" and an austere, Colorado-like budget, is clearly inhibited by a revenue problem.

The revenue problem is no different than in Colorado. Certainly, as he notes, spending in Colorado has increased over the years. Yet, his criticism is ignoring a myriad of factors that lead state spending to expand - increased population, increased wear and tear on infrastructure, natural disasters from epic storms to massive fires to uncontrolled pine beetle devastation, greater demands on education for expanded testing and security and special education, rising demands of Medicaid and public health as private sector workers face increasing premiums or lose benefits while wages remain stagnant, etc. Simply put, as the years go on, costs go up. They always have - that's why I used to pay less for everything, and now, even with wages increases, costs have gone up. The economy is so much more complex than Andrews' knowledge of it, and his inability to look beyond a basic prejudice toward taxes is the foundation of the state's revenue problem.

And then we turn to Andrews' mythologized "Reagan" reference as "visionary" in terms of deficits? That's the same Reagan who cut revenue and ballooned not only the deficit but the national debt. That's the same Reagan who sought to repair the budget with eleven subsequent revenue increases between 1983 and 1987, and still left a debt and deficit that cost his successor a second term.

As an educator who urges to my students to be "people on whom nothing is lost," I am worried by voters like Andrews who take an ideological, rather than pragmatic, real-world approach to the budget. His naive recommendations simply validate one of Winston Churchill's greatest insights:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Coloradan's votes on Ref C & D, their rejection of 60, 61, & and 101, and their election of John Hickenlooper over a notoriously inept and rather clueless GOP field seem to indicate they're not as naive as his friends at CUT (Colorado Union of Taxpayers) and the Independence Institute.

But I still worry.

Bracket Madness

"How's your bracket?"

This question is the nationwide conversation starter, as once again the yearly tradition of March Madness in the NCAA national championship basketball tournament has begun. The event has become so ingrained in our culture that its terminology has become part of the lexicon, and its significance has become embedded in the national discourse. Certainly, there is a financial issue at stake, as friendly "office pools" have led to millions - dare I say billions - of dollars are changing hands. And, of course, the media is quick to report the economic impact of lost productivity in the workplace.

Of course, it's really just a bunch of basketball games. And there are certainly more pressing issues on both a nationwide and global scale. Additionally, this time of year jump starts discussions about the "educational mission" of the NCAA - and tax exempt status - when reporters begin to unearth the dark secret of abysmal graduation rates among college basketball players. At some colleges, the graduation rate for African-American players is a truly shocking 14%. And less than one percent of all these athletes will ever earn a living on the hardwood. Thus, there is much to criticize about our national obsession in the next couple of weeks, even as we are enthralled by the Cinderella stories and Sweet Sixteens.

Overall, our culture defines us - and often thankfully distracts us, and I'd conclude that talk of brackets is of far greater benefit to our society than cost. I, incidentally, chose Louisville for the championship game, and I had St. John's going to the Sweet Sixteen. So, it's nothing but a spectator sport for me from here on out. Go Illini!

So? How's your bracket?

Wish Week

The students at my high school devote their spring sports pep week/rally to charity and raise money for Make-A-Wish. This week their five-day total was $22,000 - enough to grant four wishes. Our kids really make me proud.

NCAA Madness

The Buffaloes of the University of Colorado just got screwed by the NCAA. CU beat #5 seed K-State THREE TIMES. They beat Missouri, they beat Texas, the almost beat KU in conference tournament semi-finals. This is outrageous. One of the biggest snubs we've seen.

The Lavish Life of Teachers

Jon Stewart challenges the criticism of the benefits that public employees have - compensation packages that "Papa Bear" Bill O'Reilly calls "lavish."

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

I am generally satisfied with my compensation after twenty years of teaching and seventy-five graduate hours past my Master's degree in English. However, I don't even use my employer-sponsored health coverage for my family because it is so expensive. Instead, I have catastrophic policy for my wife and children for which I pay all expenses - including no co-pay office visits and prescriptions - out of pocket up to a $7,000 deductible.

Clearly, like many veteran teachers, I live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle. But, lavish? Give me a break, Bill.

The Elmo Vendetta

In Today's Denver Post, columnist David Harsanyi defends the GOP's recent attempts and long-standing desire to withdraw federal funding from NPR/PBS because though he believes, "NPR is under-appreciated ... what practical argument is left in the defense of federal funding for entertainment or journalism in an era of nearly unlimited choices?" While I appreciate his perspective on the government's role in providing entertainment and information through NPR, I feel he overlooks one important aspect of the medium, and that is (generally) commercial-free programming.

As a parent, I am careful about exposing my children to excessive marketing, and that is why my children (ages five and eight) have only watched PBS children's programming. As they mature, and we consider allowing more access to networks and computer entertainment, I am often shocked by the excessive marketing. Additionally, with PBS there is no chance that my children will be exposed to commercials for adult entertainment - shows like CSI and Two and Half Men or horror and action movies.

Certainly, he could argue that I don't have to use any audio-visual entertainment with my children and, thus, could avoid the problem. However, by arguing that NPR funding isn't necessary because of the ample offerings of the private sector, he ignores the goal of providing information and entertainment outside of a corporate agenda that is not often in the best interest of my family.

Granted, the counter-argument is that people simply avoid corporate bias in exchange for ideological bias. Yet, that hardly seems to be the case with Arthur, Sesame Street, and Clifford. Thus, I feel there is legitimate rationale for funding commercial-free educational programming, especially because, as you note, the budgetary "saving" is arbitrary and not the reason behind the push to de-fund NPR.

While this certainly won't change any minds, I feel my perspective is worth considering,

Public Workers' Compensation

The tax guru David Cay Johnston makes a compelling argument on the Wisconsin situation, calling out not only Wisconsin's governor Walker and Florida's governor Scott, but also the media and journalists who are not doing their homework and accurately reporting the misinformation of people like Walker and Scott.

His entire column is worth checking out and discussing.

Pathways to Prosperity

The following is a piece of commentary I wrote for the Denver Post - It was published Sunday in the perspective section:

Education Pathways to Prosperity

After the recent cold snap – as my neighbor’s pipes froze and my furnace shorted out – I was reminded of just how little we appreciate and how much we undervalue skilled labor in this country. When the plumber told my neighbor he was booked until two AM, and when the pipe repair exceeded $300, I wondered why schools keep pushing the college-for-all mentality. The education system should promote the trades and skilled labor as much as it does academics and bachelor’s degrees, and education at all levels should become more experiential and skill-based.

This conclusion is supported by the recently released Harvard study that concluded not all kids should go to college – or at least not a four-year university in pursuit of a bachelor’s degree. The aptly titled report “Pathways to Prosperity” recommends a new direction for education reform, based on the practical needs of students and the economy. Sadly, too many education leaders don’t share this view.

Politicians and education reformers never talk about producing more plumbers or IT technicians or dental hygienists or physical therapists, just more scientists and engineers. President Obama and Bill Gates preach incessantly about the need for the United States to produce degree holders to keep up with the technological demands of a global economy. And that is certainly a noble and necessary goal. Yet, for every engineer we produce, we need hundreds, if not thousands, of skilled technicians to manufacture and repair the innovations those engineers create. Clearly, current education reform based almost entirely on standardized test scores and college degrees is the wrong direction for Colorado and for the United States.

Of the millions of jobs that will be created in the next decade, 30% of them will not require a bachelor’s degree. Many positions such as paralegals, health care technicians, registered nurses, and tech support workers need only certificates and associate degrees. Currently only 28% of Americans have a bachelor degree, and many of them are looking for work. In a study of Florida college graduates, the earnings discrepancy between two-year programs and bachelor degrees is a revelation. Five years out of school, the average trade school or community college graduate makes $47,000 per year compared to bachelor degree holders who average $36,000. School administrators, counselors, and education reformers are being disingenuous if they fail to promote this information to students and parents. By not offering advice on students’ realistic prospects for college degrees and marketable skills, schools are setting up too many kids for failure.

Europe clearly outpaces the U.S. in this area, another key point of the Harvard study. Education critics regularly tout the performance of Finland in international test scores, but they do little to promote the Finnish system. As many as 70% of Finnish students enter career training following their sophomore year of high school. In fact, elementary schools in Finland teach skills such as carpentry alongside the multiplication tables. And Finnish students only take one standardized test in their school career – it’s at the end of high school to determine university qualification. Yet, despite emphasizing skill-based education, Finland remains on the cutting edge in technology and is home to five of the world’s top global technology corporations. Clearly, they produce sufficient scientists and engineers from their top thirty percent, and they also provide sufficient skilled labor for their economy.

Colorado needs to design educational standards and goals that move beyond basic academic skills learned at desks and measured by standardized tests. For every new magnet or charter school like the Denver School of Science and Technology, Colorado districts need to offer technical education like that found at Hamilton Career Technical Center near Cincinnati, Ohio. Hamilton is winning praise for its record of producing skilled health care technicians, electricians, and mechanics, and offering viable careers to non-academic students.

Like the report “Tough Choices, Tough Times” that was the buzz in education reform several years ago, “Pathways to Prosperity” should be required reading for every education reformer in Colorado, especially members of the legislature and education committees. If Colorado truly hopes to “Race to the Top” in creating a productive education system, we must commit to redesigning our education system to produce both higher-level degrees and productive skilled labor. Hopefully, reformers like Senator Michael Johnston will move beyond his recent focus on basic skills and college attendance and begin drafting his next bill promoting practical education reforms based on building marketable skills at all levels.

Wisconsin Explanation

The problems in Wisconsin are based on ignorance and ideology. It's worth looking at the data behind the alleged budget mess Wisconsin got itself into:

The Fiscal Implications of Recent Wisconsin Policy Measures

From the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, roughly analogous to the Congressional Budget Office, an assessment (p.11) that notes the tax revenue implications of three bills implemented under the current Administration:

Our estimates include the impacts of all law changes enacted in prior years and three of the January 2011 Special Session bills: (a) SS SB 2, which federalizes the treatment of health savings accounts; (b) SS AB 3, which would create an income and franchise tax deduction or credit for businesses that relocate to Wisconsin; and (c) SS AB 7, which would create an income and franchise tax deduction for businesses that increase employment in the state. SS SB 2 has been enacted into law as 2011 Act 1. The other two bills have passed both Houses of the Legislature, and the Governor has indicated that he will sign them. It is estimated that, together, these three bills will reduce general fund tax collections by $55.2 million in 2011-12 and $62.0 million in 2012-13.

This means approximately $117.2 million of any shortfall over the next two fiscal years is a direct consequence of measures that have just been implemented by the current Administration.

More on this from Forbes.

I am bothered by the blind ideology that is driving much of the change happening at the election box and legislatures nationwide. The dangers of oligarchy are far more significant in this country than tyranny ever has been. Thus, when the rights of workers are weakened as they lose economic clout, there is potential for a serious decline in national standards of living and the clout of the republic.

Workers of the World, Unite

The unrest in Wisconsin - legislative conflicts that have led Democrats to literally flee the state - is troubling for the apparent impasse it presents in an ideological battle about the rights of workers, especially public employees. There is such contempt for government right now that the average voter is not very sympathetic to the collective bargaining rights of workers - if they work for the government. The biggest problem in this Wisconsin budget battle is that the state workers have done nothing to lead to the deficit problems. Like much of our government budget issues, Wisconsin is in the hole almost entirely because of lost revenue, not expanded pay and benefits. This is a troubling and divisive issue well articulated this week by Ezra Klein in the Washington Post.

The Democrats and the state workers are willing to negotiate the benefits issues - as they should. Even if state workers are making less than the public sector - and they are - no one should be exempt from contributing to pension and benefits programs. And if it were that simple the Democrats would be back and voting. Yet, this attack on the rights of workers to collectively bargain is simply unacceptable. There has been an erosion of wages and consumer power among the middle class - including state workers - for more than two decades now. And it is accelerating.

No economic recovery is going happen in the American economy unless workers needs are reasonably addressed by employers and situations. The whole thing reminds me of the cold, heartless action of Josiah Bounderby in Dickens Hard Times when dealing with Stephen Blackpool and the organizing of "The Hands"in the factories. Despite Bounderby's portrayal of the workers as lazy bumpkins who seek to avoid work while dining on turtle soup and venison stew with their gold spoons, the average American - the average person - is always and forever looking for an honest day's wages for an honest day's work.

And that cannot be compromised.

Congressional Living Quarters

The latest stink coming out of Washington is the story of Congressmen and women using their offices in the capitol as their living quarters. Apparently, an ethics watchdog group has been criticizing this practice which representatives have been doing for years. It's no surprise considering the incredibly expensive rates around Washington and Georgetown, and I don't really blame reps like Paul Ryan of Wisconsin for doing it. However, there is something unseemly and inappropriate about it as well. Yet, there is an easy fix for this problem - and it's one which could be a positive move for both parties and the area.

The Democratic and Republican parties should go on a bipartisan fund raising campaign to raise money for the construction of a 535-unit townhouse development. There would be one official residence for each member of Congress, and this would alleviate the need for them to rent in expensive areas. They would be responsible for utilities and up-keep, but there would be no rent or mortgage. Each unit could be a 2-3 bedroom which would hopefully accommodate most families, and the single location could do much to foster closer relations among Congressional members because they would be neighbors.

Additionally, this project could be a great boon to the D.C. area, as it could be located in a economically struggling area. The infusion of construction jobs and later retail neighborhood development could significantly revitalize an area of the country that is in desperate need of stimulus. The entire area could become an example of all that is possible with urban revitalization.

Think about it. I'm calling my congressmen today.

College Not For All

A new Harvard study (PDF) says American students need to begin to decide in middle school whether they want to prepare for four-year college and then a career. The alternative approach, the study says, is to begin vocational training for a job earlier.

The study is inspired by European systems of education, and its authors say too many students are graduating high school without middle-level skills that could help them land well-paying jobs as electricians, for example. About a third of jobs in the next decade won't require a four-year college education, the study says, and this program would help American kids prepare for them.

This is not surprising to anyone on the front lines of education - yet it is completely lost on all the reformers who get the press. The Obama Administration and their narrow-minded - altogether clueless - minions continue to push college for all to the exclusion of real discussion of practical education.

Morality in America

A columnist for the weekly newspaper in my community recently decried the loss of "morality" in the United States. After being offended by the nudity and sex in the movie No Strings Attached, he crafted a piece which lamented the morally upright times of 1950s America. Warning of a "moral crisis," he calls for a return to the "unified morality" of the 1940s and '50s. The following is my response:

Mort Marks validly asserts that American entertainment has become more risqué. Offended by the blatant sex in a movie he chose to see, Mort laments the loss of morality in the United States, claiming there once was a moral “unity in this country” that in the 1950s became a “triumphant decade of togetherness.” While Mort no doubt has fond memories of the ‘50s, his ideas about America’s “Golden Age” are somewhat mythical. While the post-WWII economic boom created much progress in American society, the 1950s was also a time of harsh racial segregation and persecution, not to mention the “Red Scare” of McCarthyism and an assault on Constitutional rights. These incidents could hardly be representative of a unified “togetherness.” In the “unified” utopia Mort recalls, the Civil Rights Movement and the social rebellions of the 1950s and 1960s would never have happened.

Dissent and challenges to tradition and authority have always been a part of American culture. Mort’s “Golden Age” gave us the Beat Generation whose freedom and drug use inspired the hippies of the 1960s. Marlon Brando’s rebellious film The Wild Ones came out in 1953, and James Dean’s Rebel Without a Cause premiered in 1955. Clearly, all was not well in Pleasant-ville, or James Dean wouldn’t have screamed at his parents “you’re tearing me apart.” Like many of his generation, Mort may also view the 1950s as the “Golden Age” of education when young people all worked hard, respected their teachers, and knew how to behave. However, he would be naively overlooking the fact that Rudolph Flesch wrote Why Johnny Can’t Read in 1953. The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger’s classic novel of disaffected, angry youth, was published two years earlier.

Mort also seems to think sexual promiscuity began with the 1960s. Yet Marilyn Monroe was a sexual icon of his age, and Playboy debuted in 1953. Hugh Hefner is clearly a member of Mort’s generation, not the “hippies of the 1960s.” Obviously, today’s open sexuality in movies and society is extreme, but it doesn’t mean America is any less moral. The 1950s was certainly a time of greater modesty, but it wasn’t more “moral.” In fact, Mort seems unaware that the Kinsey Report on the perverse sexual habits of Americans was released in 1948 and 1953. Morality is not simply about how public or private people are with their behavior.

Mort’s criticism of the “cynicism ruling America” ignores his own naïve, cynical views. As an educator I see hope and optimism in America, not a “moral crisis.” Young people may spend a lot of time on Facebook, and their fashions and entertainment may make us uneasy. Yet, they are also a tolerant and hopeful generation who volunteer and aspire to achieve college degrees at rates never seen before. I, too, worry about the lack of modesty in contemporary society. I often criticize the adult humor injected into children’s movies, and I’ve never shown my kids a Disney film. However, I also have great faith in Americans, and I’m not naïve enough to connect Robert Kennedy’s vision of moral certitude to a concern about nudity in a romantic-comedy. Nostalgia is a wonderful thing – but its weakness is its detachment from reality.

Muppet Family Fun

My children - ages five and eight - have seen, at most, four or five movies in their lives. Watching movies has simply never been a part of our parenting - as we've always felt the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations on limiting TV/movie viewing makes a lot of sense. Thus, our kids were never parked in front of The Lion King or Finding Nemo when they were younger. The first movie they saw about two years ago was Mary Poppins. After that we added Charlotte's Web, and recently saw Angels in the Outfield and then, one of my favorites, Little Giants. My wife and I have always watched these movies with them, and sometimes we space the viewing out over two nights.

It was a big deal recently when we took our eight-year-old son to the theater for the first time to watch Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows. He has read all the books - twice - and we had seen some scenes from the earlier movies when they were on regular television. Overall, though, movies aren't a significant part of our days. Thus, when we decided to have another movie night this last weekend, we searched for a while before finding a great, and classic, piece of family entertainment. Jim Henson's The Muppet Movie was a truly wonderful movie which is entirely appropriate for young audiences. It was a nice trip down Memory Lane for me and my wife, and it was refreshing to rediscover a movie that doesn't hide innuendo and adult themes in a child's movie just to entertain the adults. The story is simple, sweet, and quite inspiring, and it's quite a treat with all the cameos from famous actors and comedians.

It's definitely worth tuning in just to hear that pleasant and familiar sound of Kermit, plucking away at the banjo and singing:

Why are there so many songs about rainbows, And what's on the other side?
Rainbows are visions, but only illusions, And rainbows have nothing to hide.
So we've been told and some choose to believe it, I know they're wrong, wait and see.
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers and me.

Who said that every wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star? Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it,
And look what it's done so far. What's so amazing that keeps us stargazing
And what do we think we might see? Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection,
The lovers, the dreamers, and me.

... Have you been half asleep? And have you heard voices? I've heard them calling my name.
... Is this the sweet sound that calls the young sailors?The voice might be one and the same
I've heard it too many times to ignore it, It's something that I'm s'posed to be...
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers, and me.

Jim Henson was a brilliant man, and The Muppet Movie is truly wholesome family entertainment. It's not a cliche to say "They don't make them like this anymore."

Why Read, Study, Learn

Each year at this time - on the first day of second semester, I ask my students to ponder the following two questions:

What do you dislike about the subjects you study in school?

What flaws in your intellect or character does this reveal about you?

You can imagine the blank stares as I pose the second one and then leave them to write down their thoughts. There isn't an option to disagree. The discussion that follows can get pretty animated and I generally play a serious Devil's Advocate.

These two questions come from a great book called Why Read, written Mark Edmundson, a professor of English at the University of Virginia. Each year, as he hands out the obligatory class evaluations at the end of the semester, he adds these two questions. Edmundson's goal is to get past the obvious and general criticisms that students make about their education and instead get them to focus inward on what their relationship to learning is. Perhaps they don't like school because they don't have much discipline. In other words, they don't like to work or read or write or study or think, etc. Perhaps they have reached their level of incompetence, as we rarely enjoy those activities we aren't good at - and if reading is a burden, then higher education will be all the more so. The reality is that often subjects are innocuous - there is neither good nor bad. Thus, it's not that the class is boring or not - it might be that the student, however, is.

This is not intended to force the students to criticize themselves or see their approach to learning negatively. In fact, in a subsequent discussion, I seek to put a positive spin on the exercise. Understanding that some things are beyond our control, I urge them to consider the reality that the one thing - in their education - over which they will always have control is their thoughts. Thus, while the class or subject or teacher may be boring or frustrating - issues which they can't control - their perception or attitude toward the task is within their power. Thus, they may seek to find something positive in the class. They may seek to view mundane repetition as merely an opportunity to practice, refine, and even perfect a skill.

It's not a perfect discussion, but it certainly kicks off the second half of the year in an interesting way.

Going the Distance

Lately, I've been impressed by the quality of films put out in the Romantic-Comedy genre - as is evidence from recent posts. So, here's another. Drew Barrymore and Justin Long starred in a great film Going the Distance from director Nanette Burstein - documentary film director of American Teen, another recent posting. The long distance relationship story is a familiar, even cliched, one. But Barrymore, Long, and Burstein team for a refreshing look, driven by some great dialogue, surprising scenes, and some real honesty.

Overall, a well-written and occasionally surprising look at love. Take time to watch Going the Distance.

More KIPP, Charter, & Motivation

After watching the issue of charter schools and KIPP develop around Denver for the past eight years, I was intrigued by the recent exchange in the Washington Post between Jay Mathews and Valerie about KIPP retention rates. Conceding the success of KIPP and Green Dot and HCZ, I have always been an advocate of the "whatever works" approach to reform of failing - primarily urban - schools. Yet, remembering KIPP's retreat from the Cole Middle School neighborhood in Denver - even as another KIPP school had operated in successfully in Denver since 2003 - I would argue the primary factor in success still centers on student/parent motivations and expectations.

Clearly, the greatest evidence for success in charters - especially KIPP - is the self-selecting model of students and families committed to achievement at all costs. That includes the nine-hour days, mandatory summer programs, student contracts, parental requirements, etc. And, we can't discount the social services - nutrition, health care, counseling, baby-sitting - that are integral to the success at HCZ. These are all necessary to bring struggling students back to the standard expectations. Clearly, KIPP doesn't directly cherry-pick students - but the culture and expectations of the school is a de facto cherry picking scenario - and it is one that I support. Certainly, these kids need these high expectations and they need a rigid and rigorous environment that expects - even demands - that they meet them.

Sadly, this discussion among teacher critics too often ignores all the supplemental assistance and the role of student motivation as the charter school leaders often say they simply require the right to hire and fire teachers at will. Geoffery Canada is sadly guilty of this - going on the public stage to tout his model and making his comments all about "firing bad teachers" and rarely about all the student/family assistance he provides. The KIPP that failed in Denver never had the buy-in from the community - thus KIPP's explanation about teachers seems rather ambiguous and unverifiable.

Cole is in the absolute poorest most socially dysfunctional area in Denver - it is textbook case for why communities and neighborhood schools fail. All the ills are in abundance. The failure of the KIPP intervention was primarily because they could not force the changes and expectations on a whole community that was not choosing their model. Despite the school's administration of KIPP principles, the students did not follow their lead. Truancy and discipline problems remained and student achievement made no movement at all. In response, KIPP backed out of the school in a very short time. KIPP may argue that they couldn't find "effective leaders committed to the model," but the reality is they couldn't force an entire school of kids, and their parents, to commit to their model.

The entire theory of charter reform is that if neighborhood schools reformed around KIPP-style ideas, and dedicated teachers implement the philosophy, it will change the culture of the school. That was simply not the case at Cole. That, however, overlooks the fact that a percentage of kids in that neighborhood use "open enrollment" and leave the Cole neighborhood for other schools, including the KIPP Peak Academy and the Denver School of Science and Technology. That is, in fact, what many kids in that neighborhood have done. The ones who didn't remained at Cole - now closed completely - and they were the ones on whom the KIPP experiment made no impact.

Clearly, serious education reformers must consider the importance of student motivation and the self-selecting impact that leads to success in the 20% of charter schools that actually outperform neighborhood schools. I believe Colorado is in a pretty good position with its statewide rule of "open enrollment" and its promotion of charter schools. However, I'm not naive enough to see either as a panacea for larger social ills.

Content and Curriculum

Question - Who is Samuel Gompers?

Answer - Who the heck cares?

As first semester comes to a close, and our students drag themselves through the gauntlet of final exams, I am once again troubled by the nature of arbitrary knowledge. The study guides with extensive lists of terms for objective tests evaluating skills of rote memorization are fodder for criticism whenever we truly wonder what students - even people - really need to know. So, as students cram names of figures from American history into their heads for a short time, I challenge the significance of a name. No one needs to know who Samuel Gompers is, or was, any more than he needs to know about the struggles of Ralph and Piggy or Elizabeth Bennett. Certainly, society will survive if the function of the dorsal lateral pre-fontal lobe or the square root of one-hundred forty four is lost on most people. So, what are we really trying to accomplish.

Arguably, it comes down to a simple reality of education - people use existing knowledge to make sense of new information. Thus, the more information a student has in his head, the more extensively he will be able to attack more complex problems. Higher level critical thinking is easier and more effective when the mind has a vast store of comparisons and contrasts and scenarios from which to draw. Clearly, as a colleague argues to me, Samuel Gompers is quite significant to my situation as an employed middle class American. His contributions to society continue to reverberate. And, familiarity with the situations of Ralph, Piggy, and Elizabeth can have significant impact on the decisions students make later in life as voters, parents, employees, and citizens. So, it all has significance in some way. But the arbitrary way in which it is presented and evaluated will always be troubling to me.

Gompers, by the way, was the founder of the American Federation of Labor.

Toxic Political Environment

The shooting in Tuscon, Arizona in which a congresswoman was targeted and shot and six citizens lost their lives is generating the expected hyperbole about vitriolic political speech and the loose gun laws in the United States. And, of course, everyone needs to calm down before any conclusions are drawn.

Clearly, politics was at issue in this tragedy, otherwise the crazed gunman would have simply walked into a supermarket or a school or a restaurant or a business and opened fire. However, the intense political environment of the past decade or so is no more at direct fault for this shooting than was Ozzy Osbourne responsible for the suicide of a depressed teen who listened to his song "Suicide Solution" or were the violent videos of Marylin Manson and violent video games responsible for the Columbine shootings. There is no way to prove the one negative influence that drove mentally unstable people over the edge.

However, language does matter, and nothing good can come from the intense animosity in American politics these days. We should be disturbed and challenge public figures like Sharon Angle who frivolously warn that "people are going to choose 2nd amendment solutions." We should not forget that Timothy McVeigh was not mentally unstable. He was just incredibly angry at the government. Thus, the anti-government positions of too many people these days is not good for the country. The talk of tyranny and "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots" has serious ramifications. And language matters to people. It influences people. It enrages people like McVeigh - sometimes leading them to act. And it has the potential to drive mentally unstable people over the edge. We should not forget the Dept of Homeland Security report that warned of the increasing threat from domestic anti-government groups. That warning was valid and real.

Certainly, there is no political discussion in America that requires such vitriol. And we will all benefit from stepping back our political rhetoric.

Poverty Matters

Researchers at the University of Texas are concluding with a new study that poverty actually suppresses a child's genetic potential. Through a study of 750 sets of twins, researchers concluded that genetic potential can account for as much as half of the success a wealthier child achieves. By contrast, poor kids do not receive benefit from genetic qualities. Thus, it's not that poor people are genetically inferior to the wealthy, but instead that poverty is so damaging to children that its lack of opportunity inhibits any genetic advantages kids may have had.

Clearly, this has significant ramifications for education reform in a country where 1 in 5 children live in a state of poverty. That condition impacts kids through food insecurity and nutrition, adequate sleep and health care, early educational opportunities, and a sense of well being, among a myriad of other factors. Thus, it's not surprising the United States struggles in PISA scores against nations like Finland and Singapore where the poverty rate is 2% for school children. And, it creates a conundrum for communities seeking to improve their school performance.

Certainly, poor kids rise above their circumstances all the time - but not many and not without a great deal of additional support beyond the norms of public education.

American Teen

Documentary film maker Nanatte Burstein has, in some ways, brought The Breakfast Club to life in her film American Teen. The film, which won the directors award at Sundance a couple years ago, follows five teens from a small Indiana town through their senior year. Burstein visited numerous high schools and interviewed thousands of teens in scouting out her decision for an average American high school on which to focus. She hits the standard archetypes of athlete, prom queen/honors student, misfit, and band geek - and she pretty much lets them tell their story.

Overall, this is a watch-able and reasonably thoughtful film about being a teenager in the twenty-first century. While it is obviously a bit contrived, my experience is that it offered a pretty accurate reflection of what is going on in the average suburban high school in this country. I was acutely aware of the naive lens through which so many teens perceive life and their future. For example, students believe everything will be fine if they can "just get into Notre Dame" or "just get a basketball scholarship" or "just get out of this town and move to California." And, it's poignant at times to see them struggle with the realities of their expectations.

Education Resolutions

Reprinted from The Answer Sheet Blog by Valerie Strauss

This was written by Mike Rose, who is on the faculty of the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies and is the author of "Why School?: Reclaiming Education for All of Us.”

By Mike Rose
The beginning of the year is the time to be hopeful, to feel the surge of possibility. So in that spirit I want to propose just over one dozen education resolutions that emerge from the troubling developments and bad, old habits of 2010. Feel free to add your own.

1) To have more young people get an engaging and challenging education.

2) To stop the accountability train long enough to define what we mean by “achievement” and what it should mean in a democratic society. Is it a rise in test scores? Is it getting a higher rank in international comparisons? Or should it be more?

3) To stop looking for the structural or technological magic bullet – whether it’s charter schools or value-added analysis – that will improve education. Just when you think the lesson is learned – that the failure of last year’s miracle cure is acknowledged and lamented – our attention is absorbed by a new quick fix.

4) To stop making the standardized test score the gold-standard of student achievement and teacher effectiveness. In what other profession do we use a single metric to judge goodness? Imagine judging competence of a cardiologist by the average of her patients’ cardiograms.

As a corollary resolution I would like to have school reformers pledge to read Stephen Jay Gould’s classic The Mismeasure of Man or just about anything by Canadian philosopher of science Ian Hacking to remind them of the logical fallacies and scientific follies involved in trying to find a single measure for a complex human phenomenon.

5) To assure that teacher professional development gets increased and thoughtful support. For this to happen, we will need at the least: a) A major shift from the last decade’s punitive accountability system toward a program of growth and development. b) A rejection of typical development fare: a consultant jets in, lays down a scheme, a grid, a handful of techniques and aphorisms, then jets out. c) A replacement of said fare with ongoing, comprehensive, intellectually rich programs of the kind offered by the National Writing Project and the National Science Foundation.

6) To ensure that people who actually know a lot about schools will appear on Oprah and will be consulted by politicians and policy makers. When President Obama visited my home state of California, the person he met with to talk about education was Steve Jobs.

7) To have the secretary of education, the president, and other officials stop repeating the phrase “We are going to educate ourselves toward a 21st Century economy.” It is smart economic policy more than anything else that will move us toward a 21st Century economy.

8) To convince policy makers and school officials to stop using corporate speak (or whatever it is) when talking about education: “game changer,” “non-starter,” “leverage,” “incentivize,” and so on. We would chastise our students for resorting to such a clichéd vocabulary. Education of all places should reflect a fresher language. And while we’re at it, how about a moratorium on this phrasing: “We’re doing it for the kids” or “It’s good for kids” when referring to just about any initiative or practice. Talk about clichéd language; the phrase is used as a substitute for evidence or a reasoned argument.

9) To rethink, or at least be cautious about, the drive to bring any successful practice or structure “to scale”. Of course we want to learn from what’s good and try to replicate it, but too often the notion of “scaling up” plays out in a mechanical way, doing more or building more of something without much thought given to the fact that any human activity occurs in a context, in a time and place, and therefore a simple replication of the practice in one community might not achieve the same results it did in its original setting.

10) To make do with fewer economists in education. These practitioners of the dismal science have flocked to education reform, though most know little about teaching and learning. I mean, my Lord, with a few exceptions they did such a terrific job analyzing the financial and housing markets – something they do know a lot about – that the field of economics itself, according to The Economist, is experiencing an identity crisis. So tell me again why they’re especially qualified to change education for the better.

11) To have the media, middle-brow and high-brow, quit giving such a free pass to the claims and initiatives of the Department of Education and school reformers. There is an occasional skeptical voice, but for any serious analysis, you have to go to sources like The Nation or Pacifica radio. Journalists and commentators who make their living by being skeptical – David Brooks, Nicholas Kristof, Arianna Huffington – leave their skepticism at the door when it comes to the topic of education.

12) To have education pundits check their tendency to resort to the quip, the catchy one-liner. If you’ll indulge me, I’ll give an extended example. I believe it was Hoover Institute economist Eric A. Hanushek who observed that if we simply got rid of the bottom 10% of teachers (as determined by test scores) and replaced them with teachers at the top 10% we’d erase the achievement gap, or leap way up the list on international comparisons, or some such. His observation got picked up by a number of commentators. It is one of those “smartest kids in the class” kinds of statements, at first striking but on reflection not very substantial.

Think for a moment. There are many factors that affect student academic performance, and the largest is parental income – so canning the bottom 10 percent won’t erase all the barriers to achievement. Furthermore, what exactly is this statement’s purpose? It seems to be a suggestion for policy. So let’s play it out. There are about 3½ million teachers out there. Ten percent is 350,000. As a policy move, how do you fire 350,000 people without creating overwhelming administrative and legal havoc, and where do you quickly find the stellar 350,000 to replace them? Also, since the removal of that bottom 10 percent one year creates a new 10 percent the next (I think Richard Rothstein also made this point), do we repeat the process annually?

It is this kind of quip that zips through the chattering classes, but really is a linguistic bright, shining object that distracts us from the real work of improving our schools.

13) To have my hometown newspaper, The Los Angeles Times, stop advocating for the use of value-added analysis as the key metric for judging teacher effectiveness and return to reporting as comprehensively as it can news about education and employing the journalist’s skepticism about any technique that seems too good to be true. The Times does offer the contrary voice, but in a minor key, and too often from teachers union officials who lack credibility rather than the wide range of statisticians and measurement experts who raise a whole host of concerns about value-added analysis used this way.

14) I’m going to end by repeating my initial resolution in case the universe missed it the first time around: That through whatever combination of factors – from policy initiatives to individual effort – more young people get an engaging and challenging education in 2011.

Health Care Reform

While I was a little put off by the speed and scope of the Affordable Health Care Act, I am not on the bandwagon for repeal. There is too much good, and necessary, reform in that bill to be repealed. Modification is fine - though the arguments for how to provide access and make sure there is a large enough risk pool to keep costs down is complicated. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post identifies the keys to the law that should not be compromised:

Already in effect are parts of the reform package that no self-interested politician is going to vote to take away.

No child can be denied insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Coverage can no longer be canceled when the policyholder gets sick. Insurance companies can no longer impose annual or lifetime limits on payments for care. Adult children can remain on their parents' policies until they turn 26. Policyholders cannot be charged extra for seeking urgent care at an emergency room that is not in the insurance company's approved network of providers. Those measures took effect in September. Another set of provisions became law on Saturday: requirements that insurance companies spend a certain percentage of the premiums they collect on actual care; a discount on prescription drugs for some seniors covered by Medicare; a rule that gives seniors free screening for cancer and other diseases.

Republican leaders aren't dumb enough to explicitly propose taking all these benefits away. But Democrats can, and should, force them to have that debate.

Fix it, but stop this nonsense about the symbolic act of a "repeal vote."

Motivated Students with High Expectations

As the critics and pundits - and billionaire do-gooders - continue to crow about how to fix failing schools, there are some interesting ideas floating around about the importance of the students in the equation. Several months ago, Robert Samuelson pointed out that the one factor that is notoriously missing in discussions of education reforms is the hard reality of "student motivation." Clearly, there can be no more significant factor in a child's educational success than a child who is simply determined to succeed.

Interestingly, some research on the success of charter schools reveals that KIPP charter schools have a drop-out rate of 60%. Clearly, the forty percent who remain are going to represent the most motivated students who are going to accept the challenge of the intense rigor as they attempt to catch up from potentially years of neglected education. Granted, those percentages must correct for kids who move out of the district - but that can't be many.

This is not to exclude the significance of socioeconomic status. For, it is indisputable that schools designated as "failing" in this country are literally never found in affluent areas. And, while occasionally some high performing schools are in poor areas, these are most often schools that have undergone some sort of charter reformation that mandates student achievement. Keep in mind that Finland - the darling of the education reformers lately - has a child poverty rate of 2%. So, poverty matters and student motivation and high expectations matter.

Maybe more than anything else.

Speak With Conviction

Slam poet Taylor Mali - a former teacher - takes on what he calls the "most aggressively inarticulate generation in history." This piece is an effective tool for addressing the way our students - and many of our adults - communicate .... or, at times, fail to communicate.



It's important to engage with students on the issue of communication and help them understand why they speak as they do. For, it is only when we are comfortable with who we are and what we are saying that we stop saying "like, what I mean" and asking whether "you know ..."

You know what I'm sayin'