Great Food Truck Race 2012 - Aussie Babes Out

In the second installment of the Food Network's 2012 Great Food Truck Race, the Barbie Babes from Australia didn't make the cut in beautiful Flagstaff, Arizona.  Unfortunately for them, they were not exactly the lowest earners that week - a distinction that went to Pop-a-Waffles.  The Waffle boys, however, won immunity this week with the food challenge to cook a local delicacy - cactus.  I was a bit surprised by their win, as they simply made a cactus salsa - and the judge criticized some other trucks for not doing anything special.  I guess their salsa was just better.  Thus, they survive another week, and Momma's Grizzly barely stays in despite making the huge rookie mistake of closing up early.  The winners of the week were the Korean guys from Seoul Sausage for the second week in the row.

The days in Flagstaff were fairly entertaining, as Tyler Florence let the trucks get right to work.  I did think it was an interesting dilemma the Atlanta crew got into by heading to the kite festival and being denied for a lack of permit.  The man on the screen told them it "was a city event, and thus they could only allow certified vendors."  But if that is the case, how were the trucks able to set up on the streets of Flagstaff?  Obviously, I'm missing something.  And the issue of licensing food trucks is becoming more significant as the industry grows.  Clearly, Flagstaff is OK with trucks just pulling in from out of town and setting up shop.  And, if not, the Food Network should be on top of that.

Overall, it was a fun week.  Though, at this point, I don't have much connection to any of the contestants.  And I'm not feeling it like I did in seasons past.  Hopefully the show will kick it up a notch.  Not that I just want drama.  But I enjoyed the whole food truck experience more in the past.  Perhaps that was because they were skilled food truck operators.  We'll see.

Of course, now it's off to Amarillo, Texas.  It will be interesting to see whether Seoul Sausage can stay on top in a place like Texas.

Competency-Based Learning in Adams 12

Despite the endless diatribes from Arne Duncan about the need for "a longer school day, a longer school week, and a longer school year" for all, the idea of more tailored education meeting the individual needs of students is growing.  I've long opposed and argued against the idea of mandated "seat time," as declaring 1080 contact hours necessary for mastery or even competence is ridiculous.  Certainly, standards should exist for time in school - and Malcolm Gladwell reminds about the 10,000 necessary for mastery.  But the notion of "seat time" is changing, and districts are becoming innovative in terms of moving kids to mastery on a more flexible schedule.

For roughly three years now, Adams 12 District in Colorado has been operating on a competency-based education model.  Students move up in grade levels based on mastery of skills and content, not number of years or days or "contact hours" in school.  The plan appears to be working, as the students are showing improved performance in this notoriously low district.  A teacher's view has always been that if it works, it's good policy.  And it appears moving students at their level of mastery instead of a set yearly schedule is effective.  Certainly, there are downsides to this system, and it could be a logistical nightmare.  Yet, the benefits of moving kids based on competency are pretty clear.

Some downsides would be the challenging system of measurement and the logistics of scheduling.  And, of course, just because a student can come into my class and write one effective essay does not mean he won't benefit from the practice of writing ten more.  Mastery is built up over extensive hours of practice.  And the time spent in class discussion is every bit as valuable to our education as being able to display a measurable skill on demand.  Certainly, a minimum amount of class time is mandatory.  However, as students move up the levels, the specifics of seat time become less significant.  And, allowing students to move on to a higher level math whenever they're ready makes a lot of sense.  At the age of nine, my son was already "upstairs" at his school taking the middle school math classes simply because he was ready.  Of course, he was also emotionally mature enough to handle it.

The competency-based model of student advancement is certainly worth investigating and developing.  It has seemed to work most effectively at the lowest and highest levels.  Kids who struggle work at their pace and focus on accomplishment - not just getting by.  Kids at the top levels can take AP and CE classes to begin working on higher level education and even college degrees when they are ready.  Wherever it works, it should be implemented.

Business & Government

Interesting thoughts from Barton Gellman in his cover piece, "The Mind of Mitt," in Time Magazine.  Much has been made of Mitt Romney's business credentials, but I have always been skeptical that such a background qualifies someone for political office, especially the Presidency.  For, there is very little evidence that good businessmen make good presidents.  And, as several analysts have pointed out about Mitt's pledge to "create jobs" because he knows how to do that, his background in finance and private equity was never about creating jobs.  Private equity in no way has a goal of job creation - and it usually works in reverse.  Thus, I continue to be skeptical of the business background argument in relation to elected office.  In reality, these are two entirely different fields.  Business is not governing, and government is not a business.

Effective Diction and Editing

Teaching students the importance of effective diction and language choices is an integral part of the English classroom.  The French call it le mot juste - the right word.  And, an effective and fun classroom activity - which can work at all age levels - is the Three-Word Poem.  For a deeper explanation, check out my latest entry on my English blog.

Health Insurance is Not Like Any Other Insurance

At the age of forty-two, I have carried auto insurance for two and a half decades - and I have never made a claim.  That situation is the same for most Americans, and it pretty much holds true for their homeowners insurance and their life insurance and their personal items insurance ... and everything that is not health insurance.

That's the difference.

As a holder of a group insurance policy with my employer and a purchaserer of an individual private health care policy for my family, I am well-versed with the insurance industry.  And the health insurance industry has literally no connection or similarity to any other insurance business. And, that is why I simply cannot support the Republican Party on any discussion of health care reform. They like to believe that the government is the problem in health insurance, and if we simply treated it like auto insurance with people buying individual policies across state lines, the free market would fix the problems.

Not gonna happen, people.  Not at all.

In the most recent edition of Time Magazine, Edward Hudgins of the Ayn Rand Atlas society is quoted in an article about Paul Ryan as saying, "He's been explicit that he wants to save Medicare .... we'd like to see the private sector handle this the way it handles auto insurance."  Clearly, Ed Hudgins - and probably Paul Ryan - is so disconnected from reality that he should be making no policy decisions about health care.  Medicare cannot be handled by the private sector because seniors are simply not profitable.  They are quite expensive - which is why Medicare was necessary in the first place.

Now, whether we should expect seniors - and all Americans - to be a little more health conscious to avoid the ever-increasing Medicare costs is a good question.  But expecting the private sector to handle Medicare the way it handles auto insurance is incredibly naive - and actually quite dangerously stupid.

Robert Irvine & Restaurant Impossible Teach Quality of Life

From a teacher's view, Robert Irvine and his show Restaurant Impossible on the Food Network is one of the best television shows available for educating people about how to live.  Having watched the show fairly regularly for the past year or so, I am so impressed with how effectively Irvine teaches people not only how to run a restaurant but how to manage their lives and see the world as ripe with opportunities to simply be better.  The key for the show is its emphasis on quality, and the basic premise is to encourage not only the restaurateurs but also the audience to not settle for mediocrity.  This country is really filled with just so much .... crap.  People are willing to eat practically anything out of convenience or habit, and they have no expectations of quality or service or sanitation or really anything.  And it's truly shocking to see and hear what people are willing to accept.  Yet, Irvine and the nearly magical crew at Restaurant Impossible are able to show them the light ... with $10,000 ... and roughly forty-eight hours.

This evening Robert Irvine and Restaurant Impossible celebrated their fiftieth show by taking a look back over all their episodes and experiences.  It was quite the retrospective, especially with Irvine returning to some of the more interesting - and notorious - restaurants.  As a testament to the value of what Irvine does, he revealed that nearly nine out of ten restaurants they refurbish actually remain in business and profitable.  That's a remarkable success rate - and it speaks to Irvine's ability to teach people a better way - and most importantly leave them with the skills and knowledge to do it on their own.  Of course, many are critical of Irvine's style, especially his tendency to steamroll people and spare no feelings.  Certainly, it is a version of tough love, and he is committed to making his budget, deadline, and goal.  Thus, sometimes people need to be dealt with .... sternly.  Yet, ultimately they appreciate it in the end, as evidenced by the "Revealings" - those moments when owners and workers see the remodeled restaurants.  There's rarely a dry eye.

Robert Irvine is really the Dr. Phil of the restaurant business, and his show Restaurant Impossible really reflects and develops a teacher's view of the culinary world.

The Great Food Truck Race is Back - Food Network

Now that  the Food Network has found its next Food Network Star in Justin Warner, it's time for the third annual Great Food Truck Race, which premiered last night with Tyler Florence returning as host.  The Food Truck Race has been a nice complement to the Food Network Star show as it features teams of food truck operators competing against each other in various cities - with certain challenges - as they "race," or travel, across America in a quest for $50,000.  The standard reality show elimination process is pretty simple - as the food truck who earns the least amount of money each week goes home.

This season, however, there's a twist.

Previous seasons of the Great Food Truck Race have allowed current food truck operators from around the country to compete - and get some great exposure - while touring the country.  This season, a group of food truck owner wannabes are competing for "a new food truck."  The contestants are people who aspire to own their own food truck - and who hopefully have the culinary chops and the market savvy to win the competition.  Additionally, the winners will receive the same $50K as before.  Now, that's a sweet deal.  I am quite impressed with the Food Network for finding eight contestants with food truck aspirations and a business model.  However, I am actually amazed that the Food Network has sprung for outfitting eight trucks with each specific food "point of view." I'm sure they had sponsorship cover it, but that wasn't cheap.  And some trucks will only be used for a couple days.  Potential foodsters include Barbie Babes bringing tastes of Australian BBQ, Coast of Atlanta serving up southern seafood, Pizza Mike's, and Seoul Sausage with some Korean BBQ.

The most heartwarming - and heartbreaking - story came from the competitors Under the Crust.  Hannah, along with her mom and a friend, are [were] hoping to make their way a "mini-pie" food service on wheels, featuring sweet to savory small tart-size pies.  This idea was apparently the dream of Hannah and her fiancé who passed away from cancer eight months after diagnosis.  I was pulling for them from the moment I teared up.  Alas, the pie dreams were not to be fulfilled as Under the Crust struggled too much on the first day putting together their menu.  And, I was doubly sad because I love pie.  The pie idea sounded fantastic - though I'm not so sure Hannah and her culinary school friend could really bring it.  They did film some good feedback from customers - but it wasn't enough.  Hopefully, Hannah gets another shot someday.

Early favorites seem to be Seoul Sausage - three Korean friends trying to avoid "a real job" and Pizza Mike's - an older gentleman who ran pizza place for years until it burned down.  He's not ready for retirement though, and the food truck opportunity could be just the ticket back.  Momma's Grizzly looks like a weak idea - and it brings up bad memories of Wasilla, Alaska.  And while the waffle guys have a good idea, I don't think they have the culinary skills.  Last year's winner was Korean BBQ, and it looks like "Seoul food" might be just the ticket again.

Can "Spoiled" Millennials Make the Workplace Better

We've all heard the stories about the whiny young workers of Generation Y - or the Echo-Boom or the Millenials - who complain about the demands of the workplace and how it interferes with their quality of life.  Generation X and the Baby Boomers and the retired Silent Generation look with contempt on these spoiled youngsters who simply need to "suck it up" and put in their time and earn their privileges.  That seems pretty reasonable - it is "work" after all.  And you can't start in the corner office.  However, freelance writer Emily Matchar poses another interpretation of these "spoiled, coddled" children and their complaints about the workplace.  Perhaps these kids are on to something.  And maybe their complaints can help improve everybody's lives.

The reality for this generation is that they are never going to "get over it."  That's not the way they were raised.  They've come to expect better - and they are certainly a generation who has been taught that fairness is of primary importance.  And, of course, after seeing their parents work themselves crazy - and still ending up divorced and unhappy in middle age, the Millennials might be right to complain.  The reality is - according to Matchar - Generation Y "is right to complain about the workplace ... because the modern workplace frankly stinks, and the changes wrought by Gen Y will be good for everybody."  Certainly, the struggles of the middle class are well documented, as American productivity increases while wages remain stagnant or even regress.  Americans work longer hours, take fewer and shorter vacations, and have decreasing benefits every year.  And this is not good for society.  And, it doesn't appear that organized labor is going to do anything to improve the conditions of its workers.  Union membership is at an all-time low even as the auto industry recovers and companies like Caterpillar and GE are sitting on record profits and paying executives lavish salaries and benefits while boosting stock prices and dividends.

Generation Y is determined to "get theirs" and not make the same mistakes - or suffer silently - like previous generations, and that might just improve society overall.  CEO's like Howard Schultz of Starbucks and John Mackey of Whole Foods seem committed to creating a new paradigm for workers in which the responsibility is to the consumer and the employees - not Wall Street.  That sounds like a nice place to be.  As a teacher - from a teacher's view - I've always been impressed with the tolerance and good will of the younger generation.  As such, I've hoped that these future CEO's and executives would be more committed to making the world better at the same time they are making their own lives better.  That flatter view of the world and the workplace is what led MTV to determine that Generation Y - the Millenials - could be called No-Collar Workers.  Now, certainly we will continue to see divisions based on the value of the work and the level of education required to do it.  But Gen Y is right to ask "Why we have to meet in an office cross-country when we can call in remotely via Skype?"  

That said, Generation Y can be a bit much - with stories of their parents calling their bosses and asking for raises.  Really.  But the ideas that the workplace can be more convenient and comfortable and efficient and productive and well compensated are not entirely wrong.  And I'd encourage any and all to always advocate for something better.  It can't hurt to ask.

FOLLOW UP: For more on this topic, you might check out the news on firms and corporations who are starting to bend and give in to the demands of Generation Y.  The reality is employers are either finding some agreement with the younger workers or they are realizing it's fruitless to argue with them.  That's an interesting paradigm shift, and, again, it just might be good for America.

On-line Classes, Coursera, and "Real Learning"

The news about online learning continues to grow, as do the opportunities and the criticism.  With information spreading about the opportunity to "take classes" online at elite universities such as MIT, Harvard, and Stanford, people are beginning to wonder what the actual value of attending these schools really is.  In essence, if a student freely can access - and satisfactorily complete - all the coursework in engineering at MIT, then is he as qualified for work as a student who attended the university full time ... and potentially paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition?

The rise of of "Massive Open Online Courses," also known as MOOCs is changing the way we think about accessing education - or at least about accessing information.  It began certainly with colleges like Westwood and Phoenix, but gained a serious bump and considerable credibility a couple years ago when professors at Stanford began offering open access to their course through portals such as Coursera - an online learning platform which coordinates access and materials.  Coursera quickly became a game changer - and others moved to replicate the model.  Other options include platforms such as EdX, which calls itself "the future of online learning, and Education Portal about which I've posted before.  And, these are just the college classes - for the Khan Academy is opening up new opportunities in K-12 learning.

Is this the future of education?

Not so fast, says UCLA philosophy professor Pamela Hieronymi  in a commentary for the Chronicle.  Professor Hieronymi is worried about our fascination with the internet and the danger of "confusing technology with college teaching."  Anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in the classroom at the higher level - or anywhere really - understands that much of education comes from the conversations and the human interactions.  It's not just about looking up and reading information on the computer.  That "Google" approach to learning might help us find information.  But sifting through and synthesizing that information and moving to knowledge and wisdom is what education is really about.  And that takes feedback and questioning, most efficiently coming from human interaction.  The learning process unfolds in a much more fluid form, and class discussion simply cannot completely be replaced by "discussion boards."

Certainly, the efficiency factor is important.  And I love the access to information that MOOCs provided.  But Professor Hieronymi has reasons for us to pause before declaring a "new model" for education.

It's the Students, Stupid ... or the "Stupid" Students

After twenty-five years in public education, teaching in Utah's schools, Teresa Talbot has concluded that the problems with public education aren't about "what is taught, where it is taught, how it is taught, or by whom it is taught."  Instead, the problems are students who refuse to do work.  Laziness in students and a failure by parents and students to care enough about their education to demand success are the root cause of failure in public schools.

Well, that ought to generate  some serious flack.

The Myth of the Myth of the Myth of America's Failing Public School System

For years now the American public has simply accepted as fact that its public school system is "a failure" - this despite the overall satisfaction with their own schools and their own education.  Thus, of course, it's not surprising that we have a "failure" in perception about our "failing public schools."  The conventional wisdom is always drawing from shocking statistics and disappointing standardized test scores, as well as comparisons of schools to other nations.  This "truth" by comparison is the most troubling, and it seems to never end.  Thomas Friedman mentioned it again this week in the New York Times.  The problem is the validity of the comparison.

However, recently some education writers have been parsing the data and challenging the notion that our schools are "failing" or that "we have  fallen behind the rest of the world."  And that has unleashed debate about whether America's schools are "failing" or whether that's a myth.  As I've noted before, Mel Riddile of the National Association of Secondary School Principals NASSP was the first to parse the poverty data - and argue that international comparisons are flawed and, minus our high poverty schools, the United States actually leads the world in test scores.  As Riddile points out, America has much higher poverty than the leading nations like Finland and Singapore, and when we remove the scores of high poverty schools to more accurately compare conditions, America's test scores actually top the list.  Interestingly, then, when our bottom thirty percent of schools are taken out of the equation, we have the best  schools in the world.

Michael Lind took up the case as well this week of "America's failing public schools" in an article for Salon that argued again that this failure is a myth, and that a culture of poverty is the root of the problem.  In following up on Riddile's research, Lind argues - accurately I'd say - that our school system is not  "failing" because our poorest and most disadvantaged kids are  not succeeding.  Certainly, we can not be proud of these conditions or accept them.  However, if 70% of kids are doing well, going to college, and posting reasonable scores, it's  tough to argue the public education system is a failure.  I argued this years ago after Sean Hannity indicted the entire system.  Systemic failure is simply not true - for if the system had been failing for  all these years then the effects on the nation would be profound.  And America is not failing.

Granted, the explanation is tough to accept, and it seems to be a cop out to say that  kids  are simply failing because they are poor.  And education blogger Marilyn Rhames challenges Lind's position by arguing about the lack of opportunities and poor  schools for the bottom 30%.  She is not  wrong about the poor state of these  schools - though she is a bit mistaken when she blames the school, as opposed to seeing a school  as a reflection of a much larger problem.  Certainly, all kids  can achieve, and the most  disadvantaged  actually need the most  education.  However, she cannot deny that  successfully educating  poor, disadvantaged minority and immigrant children is literally the toughest task in education.  It's just not  that easy to overcome all the barriers to success.

And, of course, education seems to be the only field where 100% success is the standard and the only acceptable result.  Thus, the issue is more complex than any of these  writers makes it.  But, Lind and Riddile are correct in asserting the successes of the system, even as Friedman and Rhames have points in challenging the failures.

In a World of "Text"-ing, Teach Kids How to Write

Walt Gardner opines in EdWeek that in a world obsessed with STEM skills, schools are neglecting to teach kids the important skills of reading and writing.  Making insightful observations about the gap between "grammar skills" and fluent writing, Gardner notes - and laments - the receding writing skills associated with kids immersed in a world of text messages.  This point was aptly addressed in a recent LA Times commentary.  The loss of writing skills is negatively impacting the business world and the ability to being to access the jobs and lives they desire.  Importantly, Gardner reminds us that being an effective writer is intrinsically linked to being an effective reader.  It's not enough to assign kids reading and writing.  English teachers at all levels - including college - need to teach kids "how to read" and "how to write."

Special Education Blog Posts

Occasionally, Online University offers their list of "50 Best Blogs for Teachers," and if you're interested, it's always worth checking out to see who is saying what.  The most recently updated list is the "50 Best Blogs for Special Education Teachers."

Financial Advice for New College Students

I still remember my first trip to my dorm mailbox during my freshman year at the University of Illinois (twenty years ago).  I could barely open the mailbox door from all the credit card offers which were jammed into the little box.  Luckily, growing up in a family of responsible credit - and having a card since I was probably eleven - I didn't fall prey to the offers of unlimited cash.  However, thinking about that reminds me of the important challenges faced by college freshman as they move out of the nest for the first time.  Some of the greatest challenges come outside the classroom - and they require astute financial literacy and self control.

That said, the Denver Post Lifestyle page has a great feature today on financial advice for college freshman - and as we head into August and the minivans are packed, parents should consider having "the talk."  That is the discussion about not digging a financial hole during their first step into adulthood.  Among advice the Denver Post offers:

• Keep a budget and track your spending.

• Avoid using credit whenever you can, and seek out discounts, especially on those common college expenses like books, hoodies, and ... late night pizza.

• Drink water - for financial AND physical health.

College should be a great time and an educational experience - both in and out of the classroom.  America's financial literacy is not in great shape these days.  Hopefully, the next generation of adults will - with some advice - learn to make better decisions.

"Blade Runner" Oscar Pistorious Has No More "Advantage" Than Others

South African Olympic runner Oscar Pistorious - who just  happens to be a double-amputee who runs with prosthetic "blades"- made history this week by running in the Olympics, not the para-Olympics.  Though he failed to qualify for  the finals after he placed seventh in his semi-final heat of the 400-meter race, he actually made history by even competing.  Making it to the semi-finals was a bonus beyond anyone's wildest expectations.  Oscar's story is one of the incredibly inspirational narrative that we only understand when events like the Olympics bring them to light.  It is a feel-good story that wouldn't seem to have a downside.  However, people never cease to amaze.  Perhaps the more disheartening side of the story is the struggle he went through - not all his life as a double amputee but - when some athletes and countries protested his initial inclusion in the Games because his prosthetic blades gave him an "unfair advantage" over  athletes running on two legs.  I know, I know.  It was certainly baffling.  Obviously, the loss of his legs as a child should certainly outweigh any "bionic" advantage the blades give him.  Alas, the man who has become affectionately known as "Blade Runner" fought through even more adversity for the right to compete, and has given the world new perspective on the idea of disability.

However, the controversial issue of Blade Runner's alleged "advantage" got me thinking about how to gauge and measure that very concept.  In reality, countless athletes from "advantaged" nations have advantages and benefits that allow them - and their countries - to excel at the games.  Isn't superior coaching based on national - or private - funding a huge and instrumental "advantage" in athletic achievement?  Consider the physical and emotional advantages gleaned by middle class suburban American kids who can have paid coaches and well funded athletic programs from the time they are six years old.  That is a nearly insurmountable advantage over smaller - and less well funded  - countries.  Can anyone deny the advantage that money plays in American and Chinese dominance in swimming and gymnastics?  And, what about the role of adequate - or even exceptional - health care and nutritional opportunities?  Michael Phelps was supposedly on a 12,000-calorie diet during his rigorous training regimen.  That opportunity doesn't exist for many aspiring Olympians - especially in places like the Ivory Coast or Guatemala or Sri Lanka.

Clearly, the athletes of the most highly developed and well funded nations - especially the USA - have considerable advantages over others.  Thus, parsing the issue to challenge the right of Oscar Pistorious based on his "advantage" was really quite ridiculous.  Instead, congratulations and accolades are due for Oscar "Blade Runner" Pistorious who has enabled us to redefine our ideas about what is possible.

USA vs. Chinese Athletic Models - No Contest

By now the news is out that Chinese diver Wu Min Xia's family kept secret from her the deaths of both her grandparents, as well as her mother's long battle with breast cancer, until after she competed in the Olympics and won a gold medal.  This story has sparked discussion and outrage from parents across the western world - and even generated criticism among some Chinese - about the Chinese government's - and Chinese "Tiger Mom" culture's - model for winning at all costs.

At what costs?  Just a child's humanity.

For a country and a culture so steeped in the traditions of family, this mindset is not only rather disheartening, it is also fundamentally wrong.  Having lived in Taiwan for five years, I am familiar with the nature of a culture that is incredibly driven for success - sometimes to the point of neglecting basics of childhood and humanity.  Teaching English there, I knew the enormous pressure these kids faced to pass an English test to "get into" a college-bound junior high school.  Certainly, the Taiwanese students excel academically.  However, they are so hyper-focused in narrow models of achievement that their students don't attend schools with numerous sports and art and music and clubs and activities and student government - all the components that Americans prefer as part of a well-rounded education.  When Taiwanese (or Chinese or Japanese or Korean) students show an aptitude for something valued by society - like math skills or athletic talent - they are enrolled in programs to pursue it full-time.  That's what led Wu Minxia to pursue diving full-time from the age of six in pursuit of Olympic gold - to the exclusion of almost all other aspects of life - including family.

Contrast that model with new international swimming superstar Missy Franklin.  Missy Franklin is an Olympic medalist and an international sensation.  She still lives in the community of her youth, going to high school and swimming for her high school team and the Colorado club that she has been with since childhood. She still has her original swim coach, and she has turned down opportunities to move to "a swim state" like California and train full time with professional coaches in national Olympic development programs.  Her parents - and she - explain that moving away from Colorado and leaving her friends and family would simply not make her happy. And it certainly wouldn't make her a "better swimmer" with a better chance for success.  She's already at the top of her game.  Thus, Missy Franklin and her parents chose quality of life - family, friends, community - over winning at all costs.

Missy Franklin and Wu Minxia are both superstar female athletes.  Both will be considered among the top female athletes of all time.  Both have won Olympic medals.  Yet, Missy Franklin is incredibly close with her family, still living in the community of her youth, swimming for her high school team, going to prom and the mall, dancing with friends before events, and living the life of a suburban team.  Missy Franklin still shares fond memories of swim meets at her neighborhood pool where she and her close friends would play cards while sitting on their towels between races.  She has turned down millions in endorsement money, so she can still swim with her high school team and join a college swim team, experiencing another step in "growing up."  Wu Minxia, by contrast, was taken from her family by the age of six for daily training in a diving facility, and she moved permanently into a government athletic institute by age sixteen.  She was so far removed from her family - physically and emotionally - that she knew nothing of the deaths of her grandparents and illness of her mother.

Which model would you choose for your child?

Homeschool, Market Forces, School Choice, and the Future of Public Education

In doing work for an administrative licensing program this summer, I came across the concept of the Grammar of Schooling and the idea of "real school" - that is, the way school is supposed to be.  And, with everything I've been reading and writing about in terms of a paradigm shift in education, I was intrigued by the "stickiness" of certain models in education.  For the most part, despite a century of public school reform, public education has looked the same for about 150 years.  Before that, by the way, the concept didn't really exist.  But the notion of "real school" stuck with me, especially as innovations like the Khan Academy and Coursera have challenged the conventional wisdom about seat time and contact hours.  And as I've noted before, Anya Kamenetz has published some excellent analysis of the shift in education which she is calling "DIY-U" - that is "Do It Yourself University."

The term "real school" surfaced again this weekend as I read Quinn Cummings WSJ article "My Education in Homeschooling." Ms. Cummings addressed her year-long experiment in home schooling and challenged many of the traditional norms about the practice - such as religious zealotry and the fear of society, as well as the warnings about under-socialized kids.  Cumming's arguments and insight were quite inspired and erudite, but I was also intrigued by her assertions about "real school" - as in the neighborhood school that her friends and neighbors would ask about.  She poses the interesting prediction that "... many Americans will adapt to the new social and economic realities.  Online classes have already become part of the extended curriculum for many students.  In the iTunes version of public education, relevant learning experiences will originate from the large red brick building, from a recreation center, from a music studio in Seattle or a lecture hall in London.  It won't be home schooling, but 'roam' schooling."

Ms. Cummings imagines a day when kids spend some time at their brick and mortar school, but it is not a regimented day if they don't want it to be so.  Because they will leave that school for more internship and experiential education such as "two afternoons a week, he logs into an art seminar being taught in Paris ... or takes computer classes at community college .... or studies web design on YouTube ... or practices Spanish on Skype ... or studies AP Chemistry with a tutor at the local library."  All these ideas break the mold of required seat time, which I support.  However, they also depend heavily on highly motivated students and parents, and are likely to work well for the middle class and affluent, but fail miserably for those most in need of education.  And, of course, despite the growth and value of online learning, there are still many intangibles that give superiority to lively, engaging classrooms in the traditional Socratic model.

Certainly, A Teacher's View is always about whatever works.  And, I view with suspicion the continued adaptation of market models promoted by people like the the Gates Foundation.  In fact, Elizabeth Stokes of the Next New Deal offers some valuable insight and criticism into those market models in an article for Salon.  She also offers a great link to Daniel Pink's Wash Post expose on the flawed ideas behind market forces such as merit pay or pay for performance.  However, back to the original point about "real school" and the way things ought to be.  I'd argue that institutions in society remain for good reasons - overall, they work.  However, that is not to say we can't - or shouldn't - expand our ideas about what "real school" really is.

WSJ Editorial - High Hopes for School Choice in Michigan

Some education reform advocates place a great deal of emphasis on school choice - notably the development of charter schools and the use of vouchers - as the magic formula to "fix failing schools" in poor neighborhoods.  The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal picks up this mantra today with a hopeful position on new charter programs in "two of Michigan's most [troubled] districts" - Muskegon Heights and Highland Park.  Because both districts have struggled financially, they are handing over management to private charter school operator's "to save money."  The WSJ - and many other choice advocates - see this as a grand experiment that will change the face of school reform.

If it works, I am all for it.  Though, I view with suspicion a plan for school reform that was hatched simply as a way of making money.  And I have doubts about a charter school model which can turn around a "neighborhood school" by taking it over.  The key to success at charter schools is, of course, "choice."  When the plan is imposed on a neighborhood, their is no "choice" by the neighborhood constituents.  And they may resist the changes.  This happened in Denver when the KIPP program - which had operated successfully in Denver when kids "chose" to leave their neighborhood schools to attend - took over the Cole Middle School and imposed its "reforms" on a community that did not want it.  They resisted - and when KIPP managers realized they couldn't "show the kids the door" for not meeting expectations, they literally backed out.  The "experiment" failed.

The WSJ - and others - seem to believe the Michigan experiment will be successful because the districts "will not be bound by labor agreements."  That is a rather narrow view of the problems in schools like Muskegon Heights and Highland Park.  This position runs home to ideology and assumes that schools in economically disadvantaged areas are struggling because union teachers who can't be fired are the cause of failing schools.  Certainly, there is argument that a lot of bad teachers - or formerly good teachers who have given up - are not helping the problems in these schools.  And the WSJ validly argues that they districts can save money by going with the charters.  However, school turnaround requires long term commitment, and history shows that places that give up workplace rules in order to reform eventually begin to ask for those rules back.  Or the teachers will leave for "better" working conditions.  What may happen - like the common pattern in Teach for America (TFA) - is that teachers will "put their time in" for a couple years, and then make a jump to to place where they can have a career and earn a living.

Thus, I too have high hopes for Michigan.  But workplace rules aren't the cause of problems in poor schools, and getting rid of them won't ease the ills that cause most of the trouble in schools.  And, "school choice" is not necessarily the answer when the kids and parents don't actually "choose."

More News on High Paying Skilled Labor - No Bachelor Degree Required

Despite stubborn unemployment numbers in the United States, and despite continued groaning about the rising and unmanageable cost of college tuition, plenty of non-bachelor degree jobs are still going unfilled, as manufacturers still can't find enough skilled labor.  As millions of kids rush off - often naively and mindlessly - to four-year colleges, plenty of jobs remain open for machinists and welders and electricians.  While Americans tend to ignorantly believe we don't have factories in this country and all the manufacturers have moved offshore, jobs at factories paying as much as $100,000/year remain unfilled.  When will we learn and be more honest with our young people?

Thoughts on School Choice

School choice has been one a divisive issue in education reform for decades now.  Vouchers, it has been argued, would allow poor children in failing schools to take "their tax money" and spend it on a better school of their own choice.  Competition for this funding would logically force all schools to improve, or so the story goes.  The pro-con points - separation of church/state, local control, leaving some children behind, freedom - are well known.  Recently Michael Petrilli of the Fordham Institute has weighed in on the school choice issue from a new angle - the suburbs where schools are reasonably well performing.

Michael Petrilli believes that even parents in stable and even affluent districts with "good schools" should be able to "choose" which school would be best for their kids.  Petrilli argues from the perspective of a "Koala Dad" - as opposed to a "Tiger Mom" - and believes that escaping failing schools shouldn't be the only reason parents deserve the freedom to choose their children's schools.  Why should the be restricted by neighborhood?  What if their district school is athletically focused or better in math and science, but a school down the road has a better theater department which suits their child who has more literary interests?

I don’t entirely disagree - logically people should be able to choose their child's school.  And, that's true even if choice critics claim suburban parents "choose" their school by "choosing" their neighborhood.  That is certainly true where I live - realtors comment on clients who simply map out our district and tell the agent to find a home within that boundary.  And, Petrilli is probably aware that this issue is currently being played out in the suburbs of Colorado in the Douglas County School District.  While that plan has been frozen by a judge - because Colorado's state constitution specifically prohibits spending public money for religious institutions - this court case has stirred the debate precisely because the area is one of the richest in the nation with some of the state's best schools.  It has seemed to be a more political/ideological move by the school board as opposed to community driven in search of improving schools.

I believe kids should be able to choose their school – in fact, I remember watching Waiting for Superman and thinking, "Just let them go."  Period.  If more kids want to attend a charter school, the district should simply expand the school.  Shift the funds.  There should be no lotteries and no waiting lists for schools.  Kids and parents should have such freedom of choice - which is why I like that Colorado has open enrollment statewide. Colorado has open enrollment and a thriving charter system.  However, when you expand to private schools you must acknowledge the reservations. I don’t have a big problem with the religious angle – but you can’t endorse vouchers for private schools that don’t have to meet basic public education laws. As long as the school allows regulation and total transparency, and as long as it can’t refuse to provide services to all students, his argument is valid. But if the school refuses state assessments and refuses to provide special education services and refuses to provide transparency and regulation that district schools do, then I fundamentally oppose the use of public funds. I hope Michael does, too. And, Michael, should have mentioned that the private schools must be accountable in all the same ways.

And, as a side note, I challenge Petrilli's attempt to support his idea by piggybacking on Jay P Greene’s flawed and biased argument that even our best schools “trail the world.” Because they don’t. If you remove all schools that have poverty rates above 15-20%, then in TIMMS and PISA, the United States schools rank number one in the world. Michael needs to concede and acknowledge these realities. Otherwise the arguments are not credible to people who actually know the facts. And he is, subsequently, just misleading an uninformed US public.

That's part of a teacher's view on school choice.

Teaching Pedagogy & the Whatever Works Model

Recently, a former student asked for my thoughts on pedagogy - specifically what different approaches I might use.  Having been teaching for nearly two decades, I've seen various ideas come and go.  Thus, I'm of the "Whatever Works" philosophy, especially after years of teaching in a profession that is incredibly prone to fads and flavors-of-the-month.  I wouldn't rule out any approach as long as kids are engaged and learning is happening.  In my heart, I am a pretty traditional teacher, and I can lapse into lecture fairly easily.  And years ago, I would have dismissed ideas such as multi-genre writing as "foo foo" education.  Now, I am passionate about it - and I believe it produces some of the highest quality and relevant writing my students do all year.

These days I am willing to try any approach as long as it produces results.  At the core, classes needed to be well organized, challenging, and engaging.  They need to be child centered enough for interest, but also focused on the acquisition of knowledge and skills they students lack - even if the students don't know why they need it.  I'm more suspicious of learning technologies, but I have taught web design in class, and I think the model of the Khan Academy is exciting and revolutionary in terms of pedagogy.  There is no one truly effective school model, and any classroom, school, and district must incorporate and adapt to the culture of the community.

As noted, teaching fads come and go, and the idea of pedagogy can be complicated, inspiring passion and revulsion alike among educators.  But few would disagree with the argument that if it works, it's probably good practice.  And, that's a teacher's view of pedagogy.

Justin Wins the Next Food Network Star - 2012

As was obvious from almost the first episode of the Next Food Network Star this season, 28-year-old culinary rock star and "Rebel with a Culinary Cause" Justin Warner established himself as the Next Food Network Star.  I've argued from almost the first week that Justin was the only one who consistently proved he had Food Network Star abilities.  Justin Warner is an exciting and innovative chef who has already had an exceptional career, running his own very popular and eclectic restaurant - Do or Dine - in New York's Bed-Stuy neighborhood.  And, now, he's on the Food Network with a new show to be produced by his mentor Alton Brown.  How appropriate.  If there were ever a future Food Network Star who could take over for the brilliant and quirky Alton Brown, it's Justin Warner.

One comment I really enjoyed in this finale episode of the Next Food Network Star came from Bobby Flay who said, "I'd rather have someone green in front of the camera than green in front of the stove.  We are the Food Network, and I think sometimes we forget that."  Truer words could not have been spoken.  This show - and this network - has to be about culinary masters who can - in the words of Alton Brown - teach us something.  They need an engaging point of view that makes viewers not only want to watch, but also believe that they can in some small way do what the celebrity chefs can do.  Bobby Flay nailed it with this comment - and his team was the only one filled with excellent chefs who could regularly bring it to the table.  Of course, one of the biggest disappointments this season was executive chef Eric who went home far to early because he was - in Bobby's words - the best chef in the competition.  Sadly, Bob Tuschman conceded that he wanted to keep Eric but was swayed by Susie Fogel who, for some reason, seemed to support Giada in her belief that Ippy was a star.  He wasn't.

And speaking of not being a star - and not even being a skilled chef - the second best part of tonight's show was the early elimination of Marti.  However, the connection between Justin and Marti was quite touching.  It was almost a mother-son relationship, and it was very sweet.  Throughout the competition, Justin spoke quite emotionally of his father who has passed away.  However, there was no mention of a mother or siblings or really any family or community.  So, the team of Marti and Justin was sweet.  He pulled her through many parts of the competition - and I'm glad they made that clear again.  Clearly, Marti is not a chef, and certainly not a Food Network Star.  However, she apparently played an important role in the competition as a teammate for Justin.  And that was nice to see.  In the end, he seemed quite overwhelmed with the victory and attention.  Once the shock wears off, though, he should be great.

Ultimately, it was a no-brainer that Justin Warner was the Next Food Network Star.  However, the executives at the Food Network are crazy if they don't give Michelle Ragussis her own show.  Michelle's idea for "My New England" is a great idea for the Food Network.  Michelle can not only bring it in the kitchen, but is also entertaining on camera in a Guy-Emeril sort of way.  It would be quite entertaining for Michelle to visit and open up for us all the nuances of New England.  It's a great travel-food-culture sort of show, and the ideas are limitless.  Of course, the Food Network may screw this up, as they seem obsessed with the competition format now - Robert Irvine saving impossible restaurants, Bobby Flay helping restaurants open, Anne Burrell hosting competition for exec chefs.  It's all a bit much.  Robert Irvine's show is amazing and informative - the other two, not so much.  And, of course, they still have Guy and Diners, Drive-in, and Dives on constantly - when they aren't showing "Chopped."  So, let's open it up to some feature-style shows.  Michelle's My New England is a great start.  And they should seriously think about giving Jeff the Sandwich King more airtime, exploring sandwiches the way Guy does diners.

So, congrats to Justin Warner.  It looks like the viewers actually got it right.  Justin led voting in almost every week, so it only makes sense for him to succeed and be named The Next Food Network Star.

Milk, School Lunches, Ignorance, & Bad Policy

Having always taken my lunch to school as a child - mostly because I attended Catholic school - I never had much experience with the federal school lunch program.  Beyond that, what I did know of the program never impressed me much.  For example, the scene in Morgan Spurlock's Supersize Me which exposes the program as mostly processed, reconstituted, reheated white carbs did nothing but turn my stomach.  And the connection the program has to a massive, bloated federal farm bill that subsidizes the corn, wheat, and dairy industry to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars only makes it worse.  Most Americans support efforts to rein in the mismanagement of federal farm funds that gives billions to agribusiness like Archer's Daniel Midlands and Con-Agra.  However, no politician will take on the task of cutting the funds because the lobby pays billions and cutting the farm bill would cut the federal lunch program.  And who wants the blame for cutting meals for poor kids?

Now, the debate gets a new angle as a credible challenge has arisen over the mandate for requiring that a daily serving of milk be included in every free and reduced lunch - and breakfast.  As if milk is the holy nectar of the gods and bestows all sorts of irreplaceable health benefits.  The reality, of course, is that it doesn't.  The inclusion of milk - and even the hugely popular "Got Milk" campaign - is more the work of an effective lobbying wing and marketing department for the dairy industry.  Milk is "a source of calcium," that is true.  But it's not a great source, or even, really, a good one.  And for the millions of people who are allergic to dairy or intolerant of dairy or simply don't like dairy, the advice and the mandate are worthless.  The human body is not really adept at synthesizing the calcium from milk, and despite the other nutrients and proteins that are in milk, it's not that great for people.  Of course, the best part of milk is the "milk fat" which is actually quite beneficial in the development of the gray matter in the brain for children up to about age five.  But, of course, Americans know little about nutrition and health, and, thus, they make the ignorant mistake of consuming - and even requiring - the use of low fat milk.

Beyond the basics of milk nutrition, consumers and schools also mistakenly allow the blind faith in milk to justify the sale, consumption, and even requirement of chocolate milk.  Because sugar is simply not the root of our weight problems, right?  The sugar is far more detrimental to the body than the fat, but school districts now must provide chocolate milk - because "the kids won't drink it otherwise" - and they must also make sure the chocolate milk is low-fat.  Of course, most people are clueless that milk manufacturers replace the milk with, wait for it .... sugar.  Taking the fat out of natural food products actually removes much of the flavor.  Thus, producers need to replace the flavor, and they generally rely on added sugar - even though sugar is far more dangerous to health.  In fact, it's worth noting that "fat" does not make people fat.  Sugar does.  That's why Atkins dieters can lose so much weight eating a high-fat, high protein diet.  Sugar is the danger - not fat.  Thus, chocolate milk as a required part of the lunch program is a terrible idea.

And, in many ways, the entire lunch program is a terrible idea.  Schools would be much better off if they received a block grant from the federal government, and schools could use the money to purchase locally grown and produced foods that could be prepared at the schools.  In fact, one of the best ideas I've heard is to make the federal lunch program part of a department for nutrition and culinary training.  There is so much we could do in schools to better promote health, if we didn't have dairy farmers and corn farmers setting the nutritional guidelines for schools.

And, that's a teacher's view of the dairy industry, agribusiness, and the federal school lunch program.  We can certainly do better.

Go Nuts - They are Nature's Perfect Food

When I was growing up, I suffered from asthma, allergies, respiratory problems, and a pretty regular assortment of childhood illness.  However, I wasn't bedridden or anything, and I still managed to lead a pretty active lifestyle - playing soccer and baseball, swimming and biking, and general hiking and tramping around.  So, despite a range of maladies, I maintained a degree of health that I think still impacts me today as a healthy - and health conscious - adult.

One reason I think I maintained reasonable health and have continued it into adulthood is because when I was a kid my mom didn't buy much junk food.  It wasn't being overly healthy - she just didn't want to spend the money on soda, chips, cookies, crackers, etc.  However, she was a pretty regular baker, and thus there were always those supplies in the house.  So, growing up my "snacks" were pretty much whatever my mom had around to bake with - walnuts, pecans, almonds, etc.  And I ate a lot of nuts.  I can remember snacking in front of the TV with sunflower seeds and a handful of almonds.  Or celery/apples and peanut butter was the "go to" answer when I said in the middle of the day, "I'm hungryyyyy ...."  Thus, to this day, nuts are simply a natural part of my diet.  When I head to the pantry to snack, it's a handful of sunflower seeds or almonds.

For some great starter information about the value of nuts, then, it's worth checking out Carl Bartecchi's recent piece in the Pueblo Chieftain (reprinted in the Denver Post) about the value of nuts - "close to nature's perfect food."  Nuts are an integral part of nearly any healthy diet, and for years people like Dr. Mehmet Oz has been telling his viewers - and patients - if you're going to snack make it a handful of walnuts.  In fact, he recommends a handful everyday.  Of course, people have long warned that nut eaters should be careful because nuts have a lot of "fat" and they are high in calories.  That's a misnomer, though.  "Fat" does not make people fat - sugar is the far more sinister diet enemy.  And, the calories won't matter as much because nuts are filling - so people eat less and feel full.  That's not true with Doritos or Chips Ahoy.

Of course, the closer to natural form, the better.  Eating a can of honey roasted nuts, or nuts that are drowning in salt, is not the way to go.  But they don't have to be bland.  One of my favorite snacks is a spelt pretzel with a couple of almonds - the blend of sweet and salty is great - and it fills me up without making me full and bloated.  And some great places to find bulk nuts of high quality are at Whole Foods and Trader Joe's.

So, go nuts, people.

And, that's a key part of A Teacher's View on health.