Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes would seem to be one of the most efficient and innovative of developments in the American education system - a system long-entrenched in rigid inefficiencies. Based on the idea that many students are well prepared enough for college to "pass out of" general admission requirements like freshman writing, AP classes eased the load and the cost of education for many students. In reality, it allowed them to avoid basic level classes that were, in all honesty, a waste of their time and money. However, that has changed in recent years as AP classes have flourished nationwide.
The trend among some colleges is to deny credit for AP, a disturbing problem most recently implemented at Dartmouth University and spotlighted by Jay Matthews of the Washington Post. Dartmouth and many other top-tier universities have taken the position that the AP classes at high schools - and the national AP exam developed and administered by the College Board - can not possibly match the rigor and quality of their freshman classes. The decision by the Dartmouth faculty was based on no research and was just an instinctive response by the faculty. This knee-jerk reaction makes sense, considering it is the professors' classes that the students are avoiding. And from the university's standpoint, it is a financial problem to excuse kids from gen ed classes, which are the cash cows for most colleges.
Clearly, colleges have a right to accept or deny any class and offer their students any incentive. But there is something suspicious and unseemly about the decisions by elite universities to dismiss the validity of AP and IB classes and exams. On a purely anecdotal level, I have been sending students to elite universities for more than a decade, and my students are always, in their words, "over-prepared" for the rigors of college classes. While many have been required to take freshman writing from a college prof - or, sadly, a teaching assistant - despite earning As and Bs in my class and 4s and 5s on the national AP exam, none has struggled or even found the classes remotely necessary. Often they may enjoy them simply because the class has engaging material and the student is motivated. Yet, there is little doubt that the requirement was an unnecessary time and financial burden for students.
Many students - especially top students attending elite colleges - are coming out of high school more well prepared than any high school students in history. While some AP classes in high school may not have a Ph.D. at the front of class, there should be little dispute about the validity of a student's score on the national AP exam. With costs ever increasing, many students could successfully complete college in less time, and there is nothing wrong with that. Universities may need to be forced to comply. The state of Colorado has legislation that requires any state school to accept CE (concurrent enrollment) credits earned by Colorado students. They don't have a "choice" on whether to accept the credit, as schools do with AP scores. Thus, if colleges continue this unresearched bias against AP which is costing students valuable time and money, states may need to take broader action. For example, any college accepting state and federal funds could be required to comply with AP/IB/CE qualifications.
This might be bad for some introductory algebra and composition teachers at Dartmouth - but we shouldn't be too worried about that.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Gatorade Removes Disgusting Ingredient - Still Unhealthy
Gatorade is not a "healthy drink."
It never has been, and it certainly didn't become healthy through mass marketing via the Pepsi Company. And, it's still not good for people even after the recent news that it will remove a disgusting ingredient after consumer questions and petitions. Obviously, most consumers never would have expected a "sports drink" to contain brominated vegetable oil. However, it was clear to any consumer who bothers to check a label. The reality is that anything mass produced and mass marketed is going to make it unhealthier. This product is a long way from the "Gator-ade," developed for the University of Florida football team. Keep in mind, it was developed for athletes going through intense workouts in high humidity, and the glucose-fructose syrup was designed to rehydrate. That's not what is in the product on shelves today.
Years ago I noticed brominated vegetable oil on the label of a Mountain Dew that my student brought into class. We had a rather amusing discussion as the class inquired what the heck the ingredient was and why it would be in a soda. Our investigation turned up some disturbing news about bromines, including potential side effects including impaired concentration, impaired coordination, and acne-like symptoms. Basically, ingesting products with brominated vegetable oil makes you clumsy, stupid, and zitty. And drinking Gatorade will not make you healthier after a workout. And even without the BVO, Gatorade is still made with chemical coloring and flavoring, as well as high fructose corn syrup.
Very few athletes need the sort of re-hydration that Gator-ade was meant to provide. And, no one needs the garbage being peddled by Pepsi Co. these days.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Maybe Milk Prices Should Go Up
As the nation recently veered toward the fiscal cliff, and critics warned of economic catastrophe if taxes increased or spending decreased, consumers were faced with another potential crisis: rising milk prices. According to business and political commentators, if Congress failed to pass an extension of dairy subsidies contained in the Farm Bill, milk prices could rise to as much as $7 a gallon. Congress avoided this problem by passing the bill and extending the dairy subsidies. However, that has not brought an end to the discussion, as the situation has led many Americans to question farm subsidies, especially in a time when the government is facing a shutdown due to disagreements on excessive spending.
The federal government has subsidized dairy farmers for more than 50 years, and the expense to taxpayers reaches hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Without federal subsidies, milk prices would be guided by a milk law from 1949. At that time, following World War II, the government supported dairy farmers until prices reached market standards. Today that could mean prices of $7 a gallon or greater. However, many people believe milk subsidies should end,and the dairy industry should be forced to compete in a more open market where basic supply and demand will determine prices. A libertarian think-tank, the CATO Institute, has long argued against dairy subsidies, and they estimate total farm subsidies cost taxpayers as much as $35 billion each year. There are plenty of reasons to oppose federal subsidies of consumer goods, not the least of which is the creation of artificially high prices for industries that wouldn't be able to compete in a truly free market.
The dairy industry has obviously been in favor of the continued subsidies, and many Americans view milk as a necessary staple of the American diet. Proponents of dairy consumption have long recommended milk consumption by children as a source of calcium, necessary for strong teeth and bones. And the health benefits of dairy products have long been promoted in the ubiquitous Got Milk campaigns, which have made drinking milk part of the national culture. However, others ask whether milk priced at $7 a gallon is really a bad thing for consumers. Not everyone believes that milk is a fundamental and necessary part of the diet. In fact, milk might actually be contributing more to America's health crisis in terms of obesity than it helps in offering consumers a regular source of calcium.
Critics of milk consumption argue that higher milk prices would decrease consumption of a product that is not healthy in the first place. Milk's considerable levels of fat and sugar are cause for concern among the health conscious. Medical professionals like Dr. David Katz have commented on the potentialnegative effects of dairy while not actually arguing that people should or should not drink milk. One primary criticism of the dairy industry's health claims is that no research has proved milk is a necessary part of a healthy diet. On the other hand, anti-milk advocates also cite research by Harvard University that refuted the health benefits of dairy consumption and claimed the vital nutrients in milk could be better gained from other food sources such as vegetables like collards or even fortified soy milk.
Clearly, America's dairy consumption---aided at least in part by subsidies that keep milk prices low---will remain a topic of debate as the government reviews the cost of its spending programs. And Americans are likely to seriously reconsider their support of the dairy industry both through taxpayer supported subsidies and consumer purchases.
Got milk at $7 a gallon? That remains to be seen.
The federal government has subsidized dairy farmers for more than 50 years, and the expense to taxpayers reaches hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Without federal subsidies, milk prices would be guided by a milk law from 1949. At that time, following World War II, the government supported dairy farmers until prices reached market standards. Today that could mean prices of $7 a gallon or greater. However, many people believe milk subsidies should end,and the dairy industry should be forced to compete in a more open market where basic supply and demand will determine prices. A libertarian think-tank, the CATO Institute, has long argued against dairy subsidies, and they estimate total farm subsidies cost taxpayers as much as $35 billion each year. There are plenty of reasons to oppose federal subsidies of consumer goods, not the least of which is the creation of artificially high prices for industries that wouldn't be able to compete in a truly free market.
The dairy industry has obviously been in favor of the continued subsidies, and many Americans view milk as a necessary staple of the American diet. Proponents of dairy consumption have long recommended milk consumption by children as a source of calcium, necessary for strong teeth and bones. And the health benefits of dairy products have long been promoted in the ubiquitous Got Milk campaigns, which have made drinking milk part of the national culture. However, others ask whether milk priced at $7 a gallon is really a bad thing for consumers. Not everyone believes that milk is a fundamental and necessary part of the diet. In fact, milk might actually be contributing more to America's health crisis in terms of obesity than it helps in offering consumers a regular source of calcium.
Critics of milk consumption argue that higher milk prices would decrease consumption of a product that is not healthy in the first place. Milk's considerable levels of fat and sugar are cause for concern among the health conscious. Medical professionals like Dr. David Katz have commented on the potentialnegative effects of dairy while not actually arguing that people should or should not drink milk. One primary criticism of the dairy industry's health claims is that no research has proved milk is a necessary part of a healthy diet. On the other hand, anti-milk advocates also cite research by Harvard University that refuted the health benefits of dairy consumption and claimed the vital nutrients in milk could be better gained from other food sources such as vegetables like collards or even fortified soy milk.
Clearly, America's dairy consumption---aided at least in part by subsidies that keep milk prices low---will remain a topic of debate as the government reviews the cost of its spending programs. And Americans are likely to seriously reconsider their support of the dairy industry both through taxpayer supported subsidies and consumer purchases.
Got milk at $7 a gallon? That remains to be seen.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Ray Lewis' Character & Wes Welker's Wife
Ray Lewis is undoubtedly one of - if not indisputably - the best linebackers in the NFL. His competitive spirit and intense play is the type of NFL legend, and he is widely known for his presence on the field and in the locker room. With the Baltimore Ravens Super Bowl run coinciding with Ray Lewis' impending retirement, the success of Lewis' Ravens has become a feel good story.
Except for that character issue. Which was shamelessly called out on Facebook by Patriot receiver Wes Welker's wife after the recent AFC Championship game. Anna Welker was clearly relieving some frustration over the Patriot's loss - so she went after an opponent's personal character. Much of the news coverage has criticized Anna for mean spirited and "nasty" comments after she pointed to Ray Lewis' Wikipedia page for "anyone who is bored." That page reveals all the sordid details of Ray Lewis' life, including being acquitted for murder.
The news of Lewis' suspicious past and less than admirable responsibilities regarding parenting and fidelity is not new for any NFL fan. Ray Lewis has been called "the murderer" by many a disgruntled fan trying to explain away his team's loss. I mean who hasn't felt that "it's easy to win football games when you have a true killer on your team." And, I will admit that Ray Lewis' character issue bothers me. Even if he is not supposed to be a role model, I am still bothered by any person who has "six kids from four wives." Even if that's none of my business, and even if it doesn't matter on the football field.
There is still something to be said for the serious lack of character in professional sports. When I consider Ray Lewis' past and Lance Armstrong's confession and Barry Bonds/Roger Clemens' failed bid for the Hall of Fame, I almost don't fault Anna Welker for pointing out the shortfalls of these sports heroes. Granted, she wasn't doing anything other than complaining about her team's loss - and that's just sour grapes. And, it's worth noting that Anna Welker doesn't possess the purest reputation as well - Anna Burns is a former Hooters waitress who holds the dubious honor of being Miss Hooter's International.
But, with the recent passing of Stan "The Man" Musial, the issue of character in sport should be on everyone's mind. Ray Lewis may be a great football player, but that doesn't make him a great man. And, it's not surprising that "Baseball's Perfect Warrior, Baseball's Perfect Knight" has finally gone to glory. He's too good for this world, especially today's sporting world.
Except for that character issue. Which was shamelessly called out on Facebook by Patriot receiver Wes Welker's wife after the recent AFC Championship game. Anna Welker was clearly relieving some frustration over the Patriot's loss - so she went after an opponent's personal character. Much of the news coverage has criticized Anna for mean spirited and "nasty" comments after she pointed to Ray Lewis' Wikipedia page for "anyone who is bored." That page reveals all the sordid details of Ray Lewis' life, including being acquitted for murder.
The news of Lewis' suspicious past and less than admirable responsibilities regarding parenting and fidelity is not new for any NFL fan. Ray Lewis has been called "the murderer" by many a disgruntled fan trying to explain away his team's loss. I mean who hasn't felt that "it's easy to win football games when you have a true killer on your team." And, I will admit that Ray Lewis' character issue bothers me. Even if he is not supposed to be a role model, I am still bothered by any person who has "six kids from four wives." Even if that's none of my business, and even if it doesn't matter on the football field.
There is still something to be said for the serious lack of character in professional sports. When I consider Ray Lewis' past and Lance Armstrong's confession and Barry Bonds/Roger Clemens' failed bid for the Hall of Fame, I almost don't fault Anna Welker for pointing out the shortfalls of these sports heroes. Granted, she wasn't doing anything other than complaining about her team's loss - and that's just sour grapes. And, it's worth noting that Anna Welker doesn't possess the purest reputation as well - Anna Burns is a former Hooters waitress who holds the dubious honor of being Miss Hooter's International.
But, with the recent passing of Stan "The Man" Musial, the issue of character in sport should be on everyone's mind. Ray Lewis may be a great football player, but that doesn't make him a great man. And, it's not surprising that "Baseball's Perfect Warrior, Baseball's Perfect Knight" has finally gone to glory. He's too good for this world, especially today's sporting world.
Obama's Inaugural by Newt Gingrich & David Brooks
The world has been turned upside down when President Barak Obama's Second Inaugural Address is praised by Newt Gingrich but challenged by David Brooks. Both of these conservative commentators have been praised and criticized by their own party at times with Newt Gingrich doing commercials with Hillary Clinton and criticizing Paul Ryan's budget, and David Brooks being called a "liberal's favorite conservative." What these situations mean is that they are either truly moderate individuals in seek of consensus and solutions, or they are completely full of it.
Certainly, the pragmatism generally displayed by David Brooks is genuine, as he is a former hippie turned conservative who writes for the New York Times. And, he has been enamored of President Obama's political abilities for quite some time. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has been credited with spawning the vitriolic attitude the current GOP has toward compromise with the Democrats. Yet, he truly is an ideas man who is willing to discuss any political issue on both a practical and philosophical level. You just never know what Newt might say, whereas Brooks' ideas are pretty clear.
Newt Gingrich surprised me with his comments that he "liked the speech" and didn't think "it was very liberal." Other than a few sentences about gay rights, Social Security, and climate change, Obama's speech was "emphasizing hard work, emphasizing self-reliance, emphasizing doing things together." That is a pretty fair summation. David Brooks by contrast calls out Obama for "misunderstanding the moment." He worries that Obama is not "facing the fact that we do have to choose between the current benefits to seniors and investments in our future, and that to pretend we don’t face that choice is effectively to sacrifice the future to the past."
Interestingly, when you get past all the ideology and partisanship, both Gingrich and Brooks are right.
Certainly, the pragmatism generally displayed by David Brooks is genuine, as he is a former hippie turned conservative who writes for the New York Times. And, he has been enamored of President Obama's political abilities for quite some time. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has been credited with spawning the vitriolic attitude the current GOP has toward compromise with the Democrats. Yet, he truly is an ideas man who is willing to discuss any political issue on both a practical and philosophical level. You just never know what Newt might say, whereas Brooks' ideas are pretty clear.
Newt Gingrich surprised me with his comments that he "liked the speech" and didn't think "it was very liberal." Other than a few sentences about gay rights, Social Security, and climate change, Obama's speech was "emphasizing hard work, emphasizing self-reliance, emphasizing doing things together." That is a pretty fair summation. David Brooks by contrast calls out Obama for "misunderstanding the moment." He worries that Obama is not "facing the fact that we do have to choose between the current benefits to seniors and investments in our future, and that to pretend we don’t face that choice is effectively to sacrifice the future to the past."
Interestingly, when you get past all the ideology and partisanship, both Gingrich and Brooks are right.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Gun Control - Regulating Hairspray But Not Guns & Bullets
In the United States I cannot buy a house or a car or cold medicine or farm fertilizer without the government knowing about it and registering the purchase. Additionally, the government is legally allowed to track the books I check out of the library as well as keep an indiscriminate record of emails and texts and cell phone calls. Yet, the government is not allowed to require a license or registration of gun ownership and bullet purchases. And, no one who opposes gun control legislation can explain the discrepancy.
Gun rights proponents have vociferously opposed any attempts to restrict gun ownership in any way, including the basic licensing and registration of guns and ammo. The question is why. The GOP - who adheres to the gun rights ideology - argues that any limits of gun ownership somehow violate the privacy of law abiding citizens. However, what would be the problem of such citizens merely making their ownership public knowledge. Apparently, it's a move against tyranny - which is such an extreme argument, it's tough to rationally discuss the issue.
When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, the nation reacted quickly to prevent such weapons of mass destruction from ever being assembled and used against Americans again. Law abiding citizens agreed to the regulation of farm fertilizer purchases. Similar tracking has been added to the purchase of hairspray after a Denver-area man attempted to create a bomb to set off in New York City. These restrictions have been put in place as a way to "protect us from terrorists." Yet, the would-be terrorists could purchase thousands of guns and millions of rounds of ammunition without drawing the attention of any law enforcement agencies.
And, that's just crazy.
Gun rights proponents have vociferously opposed any attempts to restrict gun ownership in any way, including the basic licensing and registration of guns and ammo. The question is why. The GOP - who adheres to the gun rights ideology - argues that any limits of gun ownership somehow violate the privacy of law abiding citizens. However, what would be the problem of such citizens merely making their ownership public knowledge. Apparently, it's a move against tyranny - which is such an extreme argument, it's tough to rationally discuss the issue.
When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, the nation reacted quickly to prevent such weapons of mass destruction from ever being assembled and used against Americans again. Law abiding citizens agreed to the regulation of farm fertilizer purchases. Similar tracking has been added to the purchase of hairspray after a Denver-area man attempted to create a bomb to set off in New York City. These restrictions have been put in place as a way to "protect us from terrorists." Yet, the would-be terrorists could purchase thousands of guns and millions of rounds of ammunition without drawing the attention of any law enforcement agencies.
And, that's just crazy.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Glenn Beck Plans Hippy-Dippy Utopia
Glenn Beck is at it again with his strange Utopian dreams of "how America is supposed to be." Living in his own little fantasy world, he has let his naive fascination with Ayn Rand and his loose grasp on reality convince himself that he could start the country from scratch and make it work. Thus, we learned today of Glenn Beck's plan for Independence, America. Announced on his show and reported on by Mike Krumboltz of Yahoo News, "Beck-town USA" will be a self-sustaining community of real Americans, and I can only assume it will be located somewhere between Brigadoon and Shangri-La. This paradise will allow all the John Galts of America to escape the progressive hell they currently occupy, and it will also free them from the horrors of consumer culture. Apparently, Glenn Beck has some contempt for successful American corporations like The Gap and Ann Taylor, as he plans to ban them from his Eden, saying "if you want the Gap or Ann Taylor, go someplace else."
Beck-ville is supposed to be self-sustaining - like the hippie communes of the 1960s - for it will also feature a ranch where people will "grow food" and "teach others" how to grow food. Hmmm. Sounds like Glenn Beck is going a little Mao Ze Dong on the country. Perhaps all Beck-ville-ites will smelt their own iron and sew their own cotton into their own clothes as well. These happy little "nationalists (?)" will be entertained, of course, by shows featuring Glenn Beck running the Beck media center. I'd imagine that HBO and ESPN and Hollywood films will be unavailable because they are all products of the commie elite in this country. Sounds like a great little paradise that Beck has plans for. Where it will be, I'm not sure. However, I'd bet the states of Mississippi or Alabama would love to be freed from the chains of all the federal aid they currently receive. Or perhaps Beck could just convince the state of Texas to secede with him.
This isn't the first time that Glenn Beck has revealed a colossal misunderstanding of history and economics. Last time, he stole from Founding Father Thomas Paine and bastardized the classic tome Common Sense. Of course, I don't think Glenn Beck really has a plan for his utopia. However, he is all but too happy to sell a bunch of Republican conservatism to under-educated or ideologically naive people for a nice little profit.
Beck-ville is supposed to be self-sustaining - like the hippie communes of the 1960s - for it will also feature a ranch where people will "grow food" and "teach others" how to grow food. Hmmm. Sounds like Glenn Beck is going a little Mao Ze Dong on the country. Perhaps all Beck-ville-ites will smelt their own iron and sew their own cotton into their own clothes as well. These happy little "nationalists (?)" will be entertained, of course, by shows featuring Glenn Beck running the Beck media center. I'd imagine that HBO and ESPN and Hollywood films will be unavailable because they are all products of the commie elite in this country. Sounds like a great little paradise that Beck has plans for. Where it will be, I'm not sure. However, I'd bet the states of Mississippi or Alabama would love to be freed from the chains of all the federal aid they currently receive. Or perhaps Beck could just convince the state of Texas to secede with him.
This isn't the first time that Glenn Beck has revealed a colossal misunderstanding of history and economics. Last time, he stole from Founding Father Thomas Paine and bastardized the classic tome Common Sense. Of course, I don't think Glenn Beck really has a plan for his utopia. However, he is all but too happy to sell a bunch of Republican conservatism to under-educated or ideologically naive people for a nice little profit.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Arming School Janitors is a Terribly Foolish Idea
The aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting and the ensuing national debate has generated all sorts of discussion regarding school safety and the presence of guns in American society - some veering into the downright scary and crazy. One of the worst approaches to this dilemma is to promote the increased arming of Americans. The nation already has 300 million guns floating around - there is no shortage of guns, and their prominence has not decreased violence or made anyone safer. However, crisis situations can lead to irrational emotional responses, and that is precisely what has happened in one school district in Ohio. As reported by the Huffington Post, Montpelier School District in Ohio Begins Plan to Arm Janitors, Pay for their Training.
Arming janitors or teachers or administrators as a way of increasing safety in schools is a terribly irresponsible idea that is based on no data. For this reason, police departments across the nation oppose the idea of increased citizen gun ownership. The reality is that an average citizen can not be adequately trained to handle what is, in effect, a near militaristic situation. Being able to handle a violent situation with the control and precision of a police officer requires years of regular and consistent training. To argue that a "janitor" who has been "trained" will be able to effectively take down a shooter intent on killing people in a school is to ignore a vast lack of data. Additionally, the idea of a gun being consistently present in the hallways of schools and possessed by an individual whose expertise is building maintenance is not only reckless, but dismissive of the professionalism we require of police officers.
On the other side of the debate is the proposal by the Obama Administration to fund more armed police officers in schools. The School Resource Officer (SRO) program is the appropriate - and only rational - response to increased safety and security at our nation's 150,000 schools. In the two high schools where I've worked - large suburban schools - the presence of SROs is not disruptive and can be a important part of the school community. SROs are not - or shouldn't be - the average street police. They are trained to engage and build relationships with young people, connections built on trust. At the same time, they are trained professionals whose entire raison d'être is to "protect and serve." The programs may be expensive, even to the tune of $50 - $100 million a year. But, if Americans determine they want armed people in schools, the cost is worth it, and it is the only rational and acceptable option.
Arming janitors or teachers or administrators as a way of increasing safety in schools is a terribly irresponsible idea that is based on no data. For this reason, police departments across the nation oppose the idea of increased citizen gun ownership. The reality is that an average citizen can not be adequately trained to handle what is, in effect, a near militaristic situation. Being able to handle a violent situation with the control and precision of a police officer requires years of regular and consistent training. To argue that a "janitor" who has been "trained" will be able to effectively take down a shooter intent on killing people in a school is to ignore a vast lack of data. Additionally, the idea of a gun being consistently present in the hallways of schools and possessed by an individual whose expertise is building maintenance is not only reckless, but dismissive of the professionalism we require of police officers.
On the other side of the debate is the proposal by the Obama Administration to fund more armed police officers in schools. The School Resource Officer (SRO) program is the appropriate - and only rational - response to increased safety and security at our nation's 150,000 schools. In the two high schools where I've worked - large suburban schools - the presence of SROs is not disruptive and can be a important part of the school community. SROs are not - or shouldn't be - the average street police. They are trained to engage and build relationships with young people, connections built on trust. At the same time, they are trained professionals whose entire raison d'être is to "protect and serve." The programs may be expensive, even to the tune of $50 - $100 million a year. But, if Americans determine they want armed people in schools, the cost is worth it, and it is the only rational and acceptable option.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Mike Shanahan's Tragic Mistake with RGIII
Since being fired from the Denver Broncos, football coach Mike Shanahan has been desperate to prove that he truly is "The Mastermind" and that he can win Super Bowl championships without numerous Hall of Famers on his team. Apparently, that desperation reached "the breaking point" this past weekend when his decision to leave hobbled NFL rookie sensation RGIII in the playoff game resulted in RGII's heart-wrenching fall while trying to recover a snap and the tearing of his LCL. Now, with the star quarterback potentially lost for all of next season, the backlash has begun.
While much of the commentary has been delivered by sportswriters - and disheartened Redskins fans - political writer Maureen Dowd delivered a scathing indictment of Shanahan's dangerous hubris. Dowd and others are calling out Shanahan for not making the obvious call earlier in the game to pull Griffin who was clearly struggling and not able to play to anything close to his potential. Clearly, this particularly troubling injury has gotten under everyone's skin for two reasons - RGIII is simply so electrifying to watch and this injury resulted from such negligent stupidity. Would Mike Shanahan really risk the health of his franchise player (who he sold the team farm to get) just to win a playoff game? In a sense, yes.
Obviously, Mike Shanahan did not play RGIII in the game or leave him in when he knew he was injured with the intention of ruining the young star's career. However, coach Shanahan was clearly so blinded by his desire to win that he lacked the good sense to pull the kid. Even former Shanny prodigy Jay Cutler had the sense to pull himself from a playoff game last year when he couldn't plant his back leg - and that didn't even require surgery. But Shanahan let a 22-year-old amped up rookie playing in the biggest game of his life make the decision to head back on the field without doctors so much as talking to him. And that is a serious deficit of leadership. That is not a masterful mind.
With the injury to RGIII and the implosion of Washington's gridiron hopes, The Mastermind is no more ... if he ever was one.
While much of the commentary has been delivered by sportswriters - and disheartened Redskins fans - political writer Maureen Dowd delivered a scathing indictment of Shanahan's dangerous hubris. Dowd and others are calling out Shanahan for not making the obvious call earlier in the game to pull Griffin who was clearly struggling and not able to play to anything close to his potential. Clearly, this particularly troubling injury has gotten under everyone's skin for two reasons - RGIII is simply so electrifying to watch and this injury resulted from such negligent stupidity. Would Mike Shanahan really risk the health of his franchise player (who he sold the team farm to get) just to win a playoff game? In a sense, yes.
Obviously, Mike Shanahan did not play RGIII in the game or leave him in when he knew he was injured with the intention of ruining the young star's career. However, coach Shanahan was clearly so blinded by his desire to win that he lacked the good sense to pull the kid. Even former Shanny prodigy Jay Cutler had the sense to pull himself from a playoff game last year when he couldn't plant his back leg - and that didn't even require surgery. But Shanahan let a 22-year-old amped up rookie playing in the biggest game of his life make the decision to head back on the field without doctors so much as talking to him. And that is a serious deficit of leadership. That is not a masterful mind.
With the injury to RGIII and the implosion of Washington's gridiron hopes, The Mastermind is no more ... if he ever was one.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Mint the $1 Trillion Coin - Save the Economy
Maybe you've heard the latest wisdom to save America from its debt crisis - "just print money."
In this case, however, it's not a common mistake made by countries like Mexico or Zimbabwe that have led to hyperinflation and nearly worthless currency. It's a theory based on a 1996 law that allows the Treasury Department to print coins of "any denomination" to be deposited in the Federal Reserve for payment of debts incurred. It has gained steam in recent days and now it's getting some mainstream press on NBC. Basically, the Treasury would mint a single coin of platinum worth $1 trillion to cover the country's ability to pay its bills.
The issue might seem patently absurd, unethical, illegal, or even unconstitutional. However, it was given credibility in recent days as Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman somewhat endorsed the idea to avoid the debt ceiling fight with Republicans. And, strangely, a Republican congressman actually gave the issue more clout by introducing a bill to prevent the Treasury Department from doing it. If Congress has to pass a law to stop it, it must be currently "legal," right? Well, that might be one for the courts to sort out later.
Theoretically, the Executive Branch could do this if the Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling to pay off debts already incurred. The printing of the $1 trillion platinum coin does not allocate any new spending, and obviously a $1 trillion coin wouldn't be put into circulation. Thus, it is no risk for inflation, and it doesn't violate the Constitutional constraints on the authority to borrow and spend money. Fascinating little trick that I haven't actually heard a strong argument against. A $1 trillion coin. Hmmm.
This could get interesting.
In this case, however, it's not a common mistake made by countries like Mexico or Zimbabwe that have led to hyperinflation and nearly worthless currency. It's a theory based on a 1996 law that allows the Treasury Department to print coins of "any denomination" to be deposited in the Federal Reserve for payment of debts incurred. It has gained steam in recent days and now it's getting some mainstream press on NBC. Basically, the Treasury would mint a single coin of platinum worth $1 trillion to cover the country's ability to pay its bills.
The issue might seem patently absurd, unethical, illegal, or even unconstitutional. However, it was given credibility in recent days as Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman somewhat endorsed the idea to avoid the debt ceiling fight with Republicans. And, strangely, a Republican congressman actually gave the issue more clout by introducing a bill to prevent the Treasury Department from doing it. If Congress has to pass a law to stop it, it must be currently "legal," right? Well, that might be one for the courts to sort out later.
Theoretically, the Executive Branch could do this if the Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling to pay off debts already incurred. The printing of the $1 trillion platinum coin does not allocate any new spending, and obviously a $1 trillion coin wouldn't be put into circulation. Thus, it is no risk for inflation, and it doesn't violate the Constitutional constraints on the authority to borrow and spend money. Fascinating little trick that I haven't actually heard a strong argument against. A $1 trillion coin. Hmmm.
This could get interesting.
How to Teach Boys
It's no surprise to anyone paying attention to educational trends that society has shifted from girls and women being excluded from schooling to boys and men excluding themselves from school. As schools struggle to close achievement gaps, the largest gaps are not actually racial but gender-based. In fact, the data in many schools reveals low achievement among Latino students when the latinas are actually doing well, but the boys' achievement has practically bottomed out. Girls simply seem to be getting it, while boys seem to be giving up. No longer do we have a society where girls are ignored in math and science classes and shuffled toward teacher colleges - instead, young women account for a majority of students applying to colleges. And from an economic sense, this disparity will only get worse as jobs for uneducated laborers continue to decline.
Motivational speaker and consultant Kelly King offers insight and analysis on How to Create a Boy Friendly School published in EdWeek. There are plenty of excuses and explanations for why boys are struggling, including the design of school which is not boy oriented. Regardless, the boys are there in need of education, struggling with motivation and literacy, and in need of help. Boys can be engaged in learning, King writes, because it is their energy and enthusiasm that we love which also is the source of their struggles. Certainly, boys can be more physical and require more tangible tasks. Thus, it is the challenge of the teacher to address those needs and teach to those strengths. That said, however, schools must not fall prey to dumbing down expectations or ignoring those skills that are required by an increasingly complex world.
In working with adolescent boys and seeking to develop lessons and curriculum that will engage them, there are numerous works which offer models of success. Some of my favorites are:
Why Gender Matters - Dr. Leonard Sax
Reading Don Fix No Chevys - Jeffery Wilhelm and Michael Smith
Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men - Sax
Going with the Flow - Wilhelm and Smith
I Read It But I Don't Get It - Cris Tovani
Raising Boys - Stephen Biddulph
Raising Cain - Dan Kindlon
Motivational speaker and consultant Kelly King offers insight and analysis on How to Create a Boy Friendly School published in EdWeek. There are plenty of excuses and explanations for why boys are struggling, including the design of school which is not boy oriented. Regardless, the boys are there in need of education, struggling with motivation and literacy, and in need of help. Boys can be engaged in learning, King writes, because it is their energy and enthusiasm that we love which also is the source of their struggles. Certainly, boys can be more physical and require more tangible tasks. Thus, it is the challenge of the teacher to address those needs and teach to those strengths. That said, however, schools must not fall prey to dumbing down expectations or ignoring those skills that are required by an increasingly complex world.
In working with adolescent boys and seeking to develop lessons and curriculum that will engage them, there are numerous works which offer models of success. Some of my favorites are:
Why Gender Matters - Dr. Leonard Sax
Reading Don Fix No Chevys - Jeffery Wilhelm and Michael Smith
Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men - Sax
Going with the Flow - Wilhelm and Smith
I Read It But I Don't Get It - Cris Tovani
Raising Boys - Stephen Biddulph
Raising Cain - Dan Kindlon
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Best Inspirational Business Books on Life
Americans are big fans of those simple bits of advice that "just make sense" and "cut through all the crap" to explain "what you really need to know" in order to "succeed in business and in life." From the earliest days of the republic when Founding Father and fountain of wisdom Benjamin Franklin offered his Poor Richards's Almanac filled with aphorisms, Americans have literally eaten up the sort of books that offer the aphorisms and advice that will enable them to, in the words of Henry David Thoreau, "live the life they have imagined." That said, I have taken a look at the business books that have really rung true in the advice they offer. As an English teacher, I read a lot of books, and I recommend a book a day to my students. Thus, I am always looking for those books that seem to sum up the lessons that are generally the same and that point people in the direction they need to go. The book that inspired this post is one by Daniel Pink - an "Ideas Guru" - who has written for the Washington Post before developing a series of business-oriented lifestyle books. That book was:
The Adventures of Johnny Bunko: The Last Career Advice Guide You'll Every Need.
This "business book" is written in the form of a Manga comic book, which appeals to younger readers in a multi-genre sort of way.
Other great books that simplify and really clarify the business and life experience are:
The One Minute Manager
Who Moved My Cheese
How to Win Friends and Influence People
A Whole New Mind
These are great, accessible books that you should read if you are interested in becoming better at what you do.
The Adventures of Johnny Bunko: The Last Career Advice Guide You'll Every Need.
This "business book" is written in the form of a Manga comic book, which appeals to younger readers in a multi-genre sort of way.
Other great books that simplify and really clarify the business and life experience are:
The One Minute Manager
Who Moved My Cheese
How to Win Friends and Influence People
A Whole New Mind
These are great, accessible books that you should read if you are interested in becoming better at what you do.
Great Advice for E-book Writers
Like many aspiring novelists and writers who are seeking to take advantage of new opportunities in e-book publishing, I have been overwhelmed with all the possibilities. And I've also been challenged by trying to navigate the technologies of ebook publishing. For example, some ebooks are simply presented on websites as a pdf. file, but that is not the format to be used if a writer wants to sell books for use with an Amazon Kindle or a Barnes and Nobel Nook or an Apple iPad. The Kindle Direct Publishing format was a pretty simple and accessible way to start, and I also discovered SmashWords which offered the platform to publish for numerous markets from Amazon to Apple. However, the style and presentation expectations are different than preparing a text for a print publisher, and there is often much conflicting information on "how to format your ebook."
That's where Catherine Ryan Howard - aka - Catherine Caffeinated - is quite helpful.
Catherine's website is devoted to the craft of self-publishing, and Catherine is committed to sharing her knowledge of the industry. In the world of e-book publishing Catherine seems to have tried it all, and she has numerous posts about all the different avenues. For example, if you have questions on formatting or the business side of ebook publishing, Catherine has a page of links to all these issues. I had uploaded my ebook to Smashwords, but I was delayed in getting it accepted to the Premium program because of formatting. I couldn't completely remove the tabs or text boxes, and my ebook cover did not meet standards. The tab problems resulted from me trying to adapt a traditional manuscript - because I wasn't going to retype 90,000 words. Trying to understand Smashwords style guide was overwhelming, and I couldn't quite figure out the "nuclear option." However, following methodically through Catherine's post solved all my problems. This post by Catherine is the single most valuable ebook publishing post I've found so far.
I am really thankful that people like Catherine have put together blogs sharing their knowledge. If you are struggling with how to publish your novel as an ebook, check out Catherine's blog. And, of course, if you want to compensate her for all the help, you might consider buying one of her books.
That's where Catherine Ryan Howard - aka - Catherine Caffeinated - is quite helpful.
Catherine's website is devoted to the craft of self-publishing, and Catherine is committed to sharing her knowledge of the industry. In the world of e-book publishing Catherine seems to have tried it all, and she has numerous posts about all the different avenues. For example, if you have questions on formatting or the business side of ebook publishing, Catherine has a page of links to all these issues. I had uploaded my ebook to Smashwords, but I was delayed in getting it accepted to the Premium program because of formatting. I couldn't completely remove the tabs or text boxes, and my ebook cover did not meet standards. The tab problems resulted from me trying to adapt a traditional manuscript - because I wasn't going to retype 90,000 words. Trying to understand Smashwords style guide was overwhelming, and I couldn't quite figure out the "nuclear option." However, following methodically through Catherine's post solved all my problems. This post by Catherine is the single most valuable ebook publishing post I've found so far.
I am really thankful that people like Catherine have put together blogs sharing their knowledge. If you are struggling with how to publish your novel as an ebook, check out Catherine's blog. And, of course, if you want to compensate her for all the help, you might consider buying one of her books.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Tax America's Junk Food Addiction
"But it tastes good."
If I had a dollar for every time I heard this lame excuse, or justification, for why some chooses to eat fast food, I'd be a very rich man. And, I'd still be a lot healthier than the average American. No one really thinks fast food is good food, and no one argues for its health benefits. Few people would even assert that the poor quality of fast and heavily processed food is not a significant health concern. Everyone knows it is. Regardless, Americans are loathe to give up or concede to stiffer regulation to one of the most obvious contributors to the obesity and health crisis in the United States. Too many Americans are simply careless when it comes to what sort of "food" they will regularly put into their bodies.
Americans, still, are conflicted over what to do about rising obesity rates and its clear link to fast food and processed food consumption. Recent polls suggest that Americans actually want the government to do something about the country's obesity problem. However, in their traditions of being clueless and hypocritical about what they want and what they think government should do, Americans also oppose any attempts by the government to regulate food or encourage healthier choices. In reality, an individual has a right to eat whatever he chooses. That said, with the American government responsible for the health care costs of millions of people on Medicare, the taxpayers do have a legitimate financial interest in improving Americans' eating habits. Additionally, in the private health care system, healthier people end up paying the price for unhealthier ones. And, taxing behavior to discourage excessive use is a legitimate and time tested way of modifying behavior - it clearly worked to lower smoking rates. So, for all but the seriously irrational and ideological, taxes on diet vices should be considered a legitimate public health response.
The negative impact of eating fast food is most obviously because "there's no food in fast food." Of course, it's not like anyone really believes fast food is good quality. They are simply willing to feed themselves really crappy "food products." And that is America's biggest problem - we have very low standards and don't treat ourselves very well. Seriously, why would someone be willing to eat from the "dollar menu" - unless, of course, he really only values himself that much. The problem is that in a complex health care system that leverages and dilutes risk through a large pool, one person's poor habits negatively impact the quality of life and cost of health care for others who actually "care" about their "health." In other words, someone else's poor habits literally raise my health care rates. So, yes, it is my business.
Until people care about their health, America will suffer from a health care crisis. And eating fast food is quite simply careless.
If I had a dollar for every time I heard this lame excuse, or justification, for why some chooses to eat fast food, I'd be a very rich man. And, I'd still be a lot healthier than the average American. No one really thinks fast food is good food, and no one argues for its health benefits. Few people would even assert that the poor quality of fast and heavily processed food is not a significant health concern. Everyone knows it is. Regardless, Americans are loathe to give up or concede to stiffer regulation to one of the most obvious contributors to the obesity and health crisis in the United States. Too many Americans are simply careless when it comes to what sort of "food" they will regularly put into their bodies.
Americans, still, are conflicted over what to do about rising obesity rates and its clear link to fast food and processed food consumption. Recent polls suggest that Americans actually want the government to do something about the country's obesity problem. However, in their traditions of being clueless and hypocritical about what they want and what they think government should do, Americans also oppose any attempts by the government to regulate food or encourage healthier choices. In reality, an individual has a right to eat whatever he chooses. That said, with the American government responsible for the health care costs of millions of people on Medicare, the taxpayers do have a legitimate financial interest in improving Americans' eating habits. Additionally, in the private health care system, healthier people end up paying the price for unhealthier ones. And, taxing behavior to discourage excessive use is a legitimate and time tested way of modifying behavior - it clearly worked to lower smoking rates. So, for all but the seriously irrational and ideological, taxes on diet vices should be considered a legitimate public health response.
The negative impact of eating fast food is most obviously because "there's no food in fast food." Of course, it's not like anyone really believes fast food is good quality. They are simply willing to feed themselves really crappy "food products." And that is America's biggest problem - we have very low standards and don't treat ourselves very well. Seriously, why would someone be willing to eat from the "dollar menu" - unless, of course, he really only values himself that much. The problem is that in a complex health care system that leverages and dilutes risk through a large pool, one person's poor habits negatively impact the quality of life and cost of health care for others who actually "care" about their "health." In other words, someone else's poor habits literally raise my health care rates. So, yes, it is my business.
Until people care about their health, America will suffer from a health care crisis. And eating fast food is quite simply careless.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
No Vote for Barry Bonds - and Steroids Users - in Hall of Fame
Call me a purist and a holier-than-thou elitist, but I firmly oppose the inclusion of Barry Bonds and other steroid users in baseball's Hall of Fame. As the voting ballots go out this week, and the debate over Barry Bonds' and Roger Clemens' worthiness of Hall of Fame entry goes into high gear, I stand resolute that sportswriters should "Just Say NO" to performance-enhancing drug use by professional athletes. This week Denver Post sportswriter Troy E. Renck insightfully and succinctly expresses the reservations felt by many sports fans regarding steroid use and professional awards. Certainly, there are logical arguments for and against the inclusion of the steroid users in the Hall. If nothing else, their accomplishments and achievements in the game cannot be refuted. And, many would argue that simply putting an asterisk next to the records - or setting up a "performance enhanced wing" of the Hall - would be sufficient. Time will tell how society views these flawed men. No man is the sum of his worst act, and perhaps a little forgiveness is due. But, for the time being I like Renck's assertion that now is too soon for the Barry Bonds Hall of Fame dilemma to be decided.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Marketing an E-book
For many years, I imagined myself as an author, and I stumbled through the forest of traditional publishing for more than a decade, hoping an agent or publisher would punch my lottery ticket and make me a success with one or more of the novels I'd written. Alas, it was never to be, though I had many great stops and starts along the way, getting interest and feedback from some top literary agents. It was roughly a year ago, however, that I concluded I am not a novelist or screenwriter. After speaking with a friend who had finally - and justifiably - secured an agency contract for his fiction, I realized that non-fiction writing is actually where I am successful. Thus, I am refocusing my writing career by seeking to develop my blogging and newspaper commentary.
With that in mind I began to explore the possibilities of e-book publishing that have developed via the rise of Amazon Kindle Publishing, as well as all associated markets from direct e-book publishers like Smashwords to Apple iBooks and Barnes and Noble Nook Publishing. As an experiment, I went ahead and self-published the one novel that I actually felt good enough about to present to the public. The thought of vanity publishing always bothered me, but the rise of internet publishing - and the moderate interest my book always generated among agents - convinced me that I could move forward with the publishing of my novel with a modicum of my integrity intact.
Since publishing my novel I Don't Know on Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing and Smashwords, I have generated very little in sales or interest. However, that may be a result of the minimal effort I put into marketing the book. That's a lesson for aspiring e-book authors - You have to do the marketing that would normally have been handled by your agent and publisher. All I've done so far is post a link to Kindle Direct Publishing on my blog, and that has generated a few sales among my most loyal readers or curious blog wanderers. How to Market an E-book from the eHow.com website is a pretty effective explanations of how to market ebooks, and it's certainly worth checking out. As I learn more about the process and potentially publish more of my work, I will revisit the idea of e-book marketing and what are the best and most successful approaches.
With that in mind I began to explore the possibilities of e-book publishing that have developed via the rise of Amazon Kindle Publishing, as well as all associated markets from direct e-book publishers like Smashwords to Apple iBooks and Barnes and Noble Nook Publishing. As an experiment, I went ahead and self-published the one novel that I actually felt good enough about to present to the public. The thought of vanity publishing always bothered me, but the rise of internet publishing - and the moderate interest my book always generated among agents - convinced me that I could move forward with the publishing of my novel with a modicum of my integrity intact.
Since publishing my novel I Don't Know on Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing and Smashwords, I have generated very little in sales or interest. However, that may be a result of the minimal effort I put into marketing the book. That's a lesson for aspiring e-book authors - You have to do the marketing that would normally have been handled by your agent and publisher. All I've done so far is post a link to Kindle Direct Publishing on my blog, and that has generated a few sales among my most loyal readers or curious blog wanderers. How to Market an E-book from the eHow.com website is a pretty effective explanations of how to market ebooks, and it's certainly worth checking out. As I learn more about the process and potentially publish more of my work, I will revisit the idea of e-book marketing and what are the best and most successful approaches.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Liberal Arts Colleges Struggle Amidst STEM and Business Push
Justin Pope of the Associate Press explores the challenges faced by the traditional liberal arts colleges that were once the heart and soul of higher education. The liberal arts have been the target of contemptuous attacks in recent years as the American economy struggles to produce enough scientists, engineers, doctors, accountants, and technicians to prop up an economy that has become more efficient and, often, outsourced. The myopic focus on STEM majors - and even STEM high schools - has led to claims by simple-minded business types who argue that the whole purpose of education is to prepare students to become effective workers in the marketplace. And that Dickensian proposition is just sad.
The liberal arts - and notably liberal arts colleges - have been the foundation of our cultural soul for as long as we've been civilized societies. Accounting and engineering may be the basis of the comfortable nature of our lives, but it is the arts and the deep thinking that makes those lives worth living. And the success of corporations like Apple - a company which effectively markets its products via a focus on empathy and design - has depended on visionaries like Steve Jobs looking beyond simple market practicality. Jobs wanted his products to feed our souls, even as it filled his bank account. And it's the liberal arts that contribute to make humanity the focus of our business.
It will be a sad day if the liberal arts college goes the way of the typewriter.
The liberal arts - and notably liberal arts colleges - have been the foundation of our cultural soul for as long as we've been civilized societies. Accounting and engineering may be the basis of the comfortable nature of our lives, but it is the arts and the deep thinking that makes those lives worth living. And the success of corporations like Apple - a company which effectively markets its products via a focus on empathy and design - has depended on visionaries like Steve Jobs looking beyond simple market practicality. Jobs wanted his products to feed our souls, even as it filled his bank account. And it's the liberal arts that contribute to make humanity the focus of our business.
It will be a sad day if the liberal arts college goes the way of the typewriter.
Peyton Manning is Undoubtedly the 2012 MVP
Being from Colorado, I would be remiss if I did not post on the Denver Broncos and the Peyton Manning phenomenon after the Broncos wrapped up a 13-3 season, securing the number one seed and home field advantage in the playoffs. This is a team that was 8-8 a year ago with little Timmy Tebow at the helm, and is now considered a favorite for the SuperBowl after only three losses to top teams, Houston, Atlanta, and New England. With all that in mind, it is impossible to dispute the assumption that Peyton Manning should be the NFL MVP for 2012.
*check the link for more information on why it's not Adrien Peterson.
*check the link for more information on why it's not Adrien Peterson.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Do Video Games Make Kids Violent?
In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting - or any mass shooting really - the talk will inevitably turn to the potential "cause" of violent video games. Do violent video games make people violent or more aggressive? Do they "desensitize" young people to violence? Does that make them less empathetic and more prone to hurt, or simply not care about, other people? It seems like an easy and obvious answer. And, even the president of the NRA used "violent media" as an excuse for gun violence while, at the same time, defending guns.
Like all societal issues, the answer is not so simple.
Media certainly plays a role in our life, and it most definitely influences people. However, it's a stretch to say that violent media, especially video games, causes people to commit violence. That's true simply because the vast majority of people who use violent media do not, in fact, become homicidal sociopaths. However, it is equally irrational to argue that violent media does not "influence" people. Research over many years proves that media can desensitize viewers and users. One of the most comprehensive studies by Iowa State psychology professor Craig Anderson proves as conclusively as can be done that "violent video game play does make kids more aggressive." Anderson's research is a review and synthesis of more than one hundred other studies, and the results are all but undeniable to anyone who respects science and research.
Of course, identifying these factors does not mean any change will come to society. Video games - especially violent forms such as Call of Duty or Mortal Combat - are a huge billion dollar industry that is simply not going away. That said, recent shootings such as Sandy Hook Elementary and the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting indicate a need and willingness to re-direct the public policy debate concerning violent media. Commentators will continue to call for action limiting the usage of violent media, though that directive is most often aimed at encouraging parents to closely monitor their own children. Most people will concede that the action has to come at the level of individual choice among parents and young people.
Young people will continue to play video games, and after tragedies like mass shootings, people will debate the effects. Clearly, violent media did not create or directly cause the recent tragedies in Connecticut or Colorado or San Diego. And the majority of people who are exposed to violent media won't re-create the violence in their real lives. However, as the tragedies continue, people will hopefully consider the warning from psychologist Dr. Leonard Sax in his book Boys Adrift that violent media is contributing to "a growing proportion of boys who are disengaged not only from school but from the real world."
Like all societal issues, the answer is not so simple.
Media certainly plays a role in our life, and it most definitely influences people. However, it's a stretch to say that violent media, especially video games, causes people to commit violence. That's true simply because the vast majority of people who use violent media do not, in fact, become homicidal sociopaths. However, it is equally irrational to argue that violent media does not "influence" people. Research over many years proves that media can desensitize viewers and users. One of the most comprehensive studies by Iowa State psychology professor Craig Anderson proves as conclusively as can be done that "violent video game play does make kids more aggressive." Anderson's research is a review and synthesis of more than one hundred other studies, and the results are all but undeniable to anyone who respects science and research.
Of course, identifying these factors does not mean any change will come to society. Video games - especially violent forms such as Call of Duty or Mortal Combat - are a huge billion dollar industry that is simply not going away. That said, recent shootings such as Sandy Hook Elementary and the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting indicate a need and willingness to re-direct the public policy debate concerning violent media. Commentators will continue to call for action limiting the usage of violent media, though that directive is most often aimed at encouraging parents to closely monitor their own children. Most people will concede that the action has to come at the level of individual choice among parents and young people.
Young people will continue to play video games, and after tragedies like mass shootings, people will debate the effects. Clearly, violent media did not create or directly cause the recent tragedies in Connecticut or Colorado or San Diego. And the majority of people who are exposed to violent media won't re-create the violence in their real lives. However, as the tragedies continue, people will hopefully consider the warning from psychologist Dr. Leonard Sax in his book Boys Adrift that violent media is contributing to "a growing proportion of boys who are disengaged not only from school but from the real world."
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Advice to Daughter Leaving for College
As we move into the new year, parents of high school seniors are going to be both elated and traumatized as their children begin to receive their acceptance letters to college. The reality of our most precious assets going out into the world ... alone ... is a time of melancholy as parents wonder whether they have done all they could do to prepare and protect their babies from the harsh realities of the world. For blogger Amy Wrubble, this day won't actually come for sixteen years, as her daughter is only two. However, she's not wasting any time and recently posted her letter to her daughter who is leaving for college. Her advice is a catch-all for all the basics of parenting advice, but written in a fun, whimsical - and slightly but sweetly neurotic - voice, intending to level with her daughter:
Some of Amy's classic tips include:
Certainly, we all want "the best" for our kids, though we know it has to do with them choosing wisely and making good systems. We instill our kids with our values and lessons, but at some point they are going to be their own best selves, for better or worse in what we intended and hoped.
Some of Amy's classic tips include:
- Don't do drugs .... or take the Whole Foods Approach and choose only "organic"
- Don't drink the punch, but instead stick to beer which will hopefully fill you up before you drink yourself to death
- No naked photos or tattoos
- Study philosophy and the humanities to feed the soul ... but accounting fills the bank account
- Embrace the opportunity to be politically and socially involved.
Certainly, we all want "the best" for our kids, though we know it has to do with them choosing wisely and making good systems. We instill our kids with our values and lessons, but at some point they are going to be their own best selves, for better or worse in what we intended and hoped.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Getting Students to Work to Their Potential
An education writer I know recently asked me to respond to a parent's question about her son who "is mainly a 'B' student and seems to be fine with that even though he puts in very little effort to achieve those 'B's. He is in the mindset that B grades are good even though he is quite capable of A work with a little effort. How do I get him to work up to his full potential?"
Here are my thoughts on that difficult question:
Not to be cliched, but this is really a classic "You can lead a horse to water ..." issue. Student motivation is our greatest challenge, especially in asking them to internalize that which they don't find immediately or intrinsically valuable. Often the subject is a complete abstraction, as in, "when am I ever going to use algebra?" The simple answer is that, regarding the using algebra or the names of Civil War battles or the make-up of a cell, they won't ever "use it." However, they will use the more developed brain that comes from acquiring knowledge and information and thinking critically about it. Alas, that is a rather tough bit of wisdom for the average young person to get his mind around.
Some kids, of course, simply accept it and do what they are told. Others question that logic, and in many ways we should applaud kids who question and challenge such conventions of society and education. It is, obviously, in asking why and why not that our greatest advancements have come. Additionally, for a student making Bs - even if (especially if) they come easily - it's tough to argue he should strive harder when Bs will arguably serve him well and are evidence enough that he is above the curve. Clearly, striving for mediocrity is never a good goal. However, a "B" in my class is not an easy achievement and can even be a badge of honor. Thus, I occasionally have to cringe when a child is told that an 87% is "not good enough." I can tell you I've been the only "only B in high school" for a few kids over the years, and while it traumatized their parents at the time, it didn't prevent their child from any opportunities.
The child has to want to work to his potential, and there's no easy answer to how to make him want it. I must admit that I have a child who is truly inspired by individual achievement and academic excellence, and I can't really explain why. It is, seemingly, in his nature. I didn't cultivate it in him any more than my other child who is certainly a good student but not obsessively curious and always wanting to know everything. As parents and teachers we do what we can to help students value education and even excellence. There are certainly helpful analogies and examples of why to value it, though society has far too often erred on the side of financial reward. We encourage children to value education so they can "get a good job," and there is a part of that motivation which can be quite shallow.
Ultimately, we cannot "get him to work up to his potential" unless he wants to or is willing to give in to our demand or expectation or request that he do so. Sometimes it is a maturity issue and students simply become more responsible. Other times a certain subject or teacher will inspire such aspirations. It can simply be moving on to college where the student has more autonomy and choice. Alas, there is no simple answer to this, but I guess I have effectively evaded the question.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Making Money on the Internet
One of the funny little quirks of the internet - and internet marketing - is the massive proliferation of websites and blogs about how to make money on the internet. The great irony is that these websites offering advice on how to "make money by blogging" are simply sources for the blogger to "make money by blogging." So, apparently the best way to "make money by blogging" is to create a blog about how to "make money by blogging." That said, there are ways to make money by blogging, and the amount of money depends entirely on the amount of time, effort, and skill the blogger can put toward it. Aspiring bloggers and internet marketers can easily go blind - or get a case of computer screen vertigo - by surfing the net in hopes of finding information on "how to make money blogging." However, there are some standard places, people, books, and tips worth checking out.
This platform Blogger is perhaps the easiest and most accessible of platforms for aspiring bloggers. Wordpress is the other, and they are both free platforms - though Wordpress is only free at Wordpress.com, not Wordpress.org. As far as making money, ad revenue is a primary source of income for bloggers and internet marketers. Using Blogger, the primary way to access the revenue stream is by signing up for Google's AdSense program. Of course, this is not an easy way to make cash unless you have a website or blog that attracts hundreds, if not thousands of viewers, a day. And for that you need to produce compelling content.
I've read and researched a fair amount of info on internet marketing in creating my blogs. One of the first resources I accessed was a man named Darren Rowse who has a popular blog info source called ProBlogger.net Darren's cite is a great place to check from time to time for basic information, and he will inspire with his tales of moneymaking. He also has a book worth reading called Problogger: Secrets for Blogging Your Way to a Six-figure Income. It's worth reading, though you must accept that you won't be making this money quickly or at all. It takes a lot of time - blogging for a living is exactly that - a full time job.
Another successful internet marketer I've read is Joel Comm, whose book The AdSense Code, was informative and inspired me to expect the six-figure income of internet dreams. The book and Joel's site and info are worth the time. But, I've never come close to equalling Joel's success. I also read Mark Anastasi's book The Laptop Millionaire: How Anyone Can Escape the 9 to 5 and Make Money on the Internet. The book was certainly "inspiring" and somewhat informative in terms of using e-commerce sites like Clickbank.com, though it follows the trend of most internet marketing books which are mainly stories of how the author did it, and not much info on how to replicate their success. And, Mark Anastasi is a man not without controversy. So tread lightly when researching people promising riches on the internet.
The NRA Response and "Plan" for Armed Guards in Schools is Naive and Foolish
The psychological aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy was worsened on the one-week anniversary of the shooting, when the National Rifle Association (NRA - the gun owners' lobby) broke its silence with a statement by NRA president Wayne LaPierre that ignored all gun control and mental health discussions and instead asserted that the solution to the issue of mass school shootings was to put an armed guard in every school. In a meandering speech that blamed violence on media which glorifies violent shootings, but ignored blaming the guns in those films and video games, LaPierre did not move the discussion of America's gun violence forward. In fact, he may have set it back decades - back before the Brady Bill and the shooting of President Reagan. Lest we - and he - forget that John Hinckley managed to shoot several people by walking right up to the Secret Service and opening fire with a handgun. Imagine if he had walked up with an assault rifle.
Alas, it shouldn't be surprising that the lobby for the gun industry argued that the solution to decreasing gun violence is more guns. The sad reality is that no one is going to prevent mass shootings by psychotic individuals when they live in a world where they can access high capacity weapons and find areas where people congregate. In regards to schools, it's worth noting that America has 100,000 public schools, and that doesn't even include private schools and day care facilities. Arming them won't stop the carnage because it's simply infeasible. My school has four buildings covering nearly ninety acres with no less than twenty-five entrances. There is simply no way an armed guard will provide any guarantee of protection.
Granted, many of these schools already have armed guards in their schools as part of what is called the School Resource Officer program. However, as Mary Elizabeth Williams reminds us Columbine High School had an SRO who engaged one of the shooters. Beyond that, gun supporters seem to forget that a shooter at a military installation - Ft. Hood - managed to shoot dozens before being engaged by military police. As far as armed citizens goes, does anyone remember George Zimmerman? Armed citizens have not prevented mass shootings, and could seriously make the situation worse. At both the Gabby Giffords shooting and the Oregon mall shooting, armed citizens did not take down the shooter, and they worried more about accidentally killing innocent bystanders, as happened when police took on a shooter outside the Empire State Building. The worse aspect of the NRA's response is that it creates a false sense of security that is far more likely to cause harm than guarantee protection.
In looking at the cost-benefit analysis, it's worth considering all the reasons "The NRA's Plan Won't Work." I fully support the SRO programs we have in place, and I have no problem supporting them. But extending them into all schools won't prevent tragedy, and it is a wasteful and naive allocation of resources. To simply equip all schools (not including private schools and day cares and churches and malls and community centers) with a full-time police officer would cost a minimum of $50 million a year, and they would be occupying schools year-round on the one in a million chance that a shooter would appear with no guarantee that the officer would provide any greater protection than police simply responding to calls as they did in Connecticut in under ten minutes. The reality is that "the odds of any one school being attacked" are very, very small. And the money spent on arming them could be used in countless other beneficial ways, not the least of which is on "counselors [and psychologists] to work with and engage young people years before they become angry loners."
I am not a supporter of knee jerk, black and white "answers" that offer only a false sense of security.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Teachers Will Not and Should Not Carry Guns
It didn't take long in the aftermath of the latest mass shooting at a school for the discussion on gun violence and gun rights to intensify. Sadly, it went pretty quickly where I thought saner heads would prevail. Thus, in less than a week Governor Rick Perry and numerous other public figures called for the arming of teachers and administrators as a way to deal with this tragic condition of our society. In fact, one rural district in Texas allows concealed weapons because they "can't afford" security and are thirty miles from town. Guns in the classroom. Hmmmm. I honestly can't believe that seemingly rational people would pose such an idea. But, they did. So, let's be clear about one thing. Guns in the schools is not the answer.
America certainly has a problem with gun violence. However, I am not going to assert that any specific gun legislation would curtail that. Additionally, America has a problem with mentally ill people becoming deranged and acting out violently and publicly. But this is not simply an issue of mental illness. The sad reality is that we have a considerable number of mentally deranged people who don't get the necessary treatment to prevent them from acting on homicidal impulses. And it is far too easy for these people to gain access to implements of catastrophic destruction. Yet, it's not simply a matter of passing an assault weapons ban or perhaps strengthening the health care system. One is an easy act; one seemingly impossible. And neither will solve the problem.
Neither will armed teachers and principals in school.
In the past decade, schools and public buildings have made great strides in putting together response plans to decrease the impact of these tragedies. But we haven't decreased the tragedies. And armed teachers won't help. For one, it's simply not going to happen. I and millions of other teachers and school officials would simply refuse. Secondly, proponents are delusional if they think that teachers and administrators would calmly and effectively be able to take out a shooter. Police officers and soldiers practice shooting and crisis situations for thousands of hours - and they still make mistakes. They still don't hit the right target. They still commit friendly fire. They still die in shootouts. And they are trained to do nothing less than take out assailants. The average citizen will not do better. This is true, despite many middle class suburban Rambos out there who think a math teacher could step into the hallway and squeeze off a few rounds with little problem.
Certainly, there are plenty of commentators who are decrying the gun violence and calling for action on gun control or mental health issues or both. And there are extreme views on each side. However, some important perspectives on the seriousness of the issue and the need to act now are worth considering. EJ Dionne of the Washington Post asks "Will We Forget the Kids Of Newtown?" If society does nothing different, if people ignore President Obama's simple point that "we can do better," then Dionne's concern will be realized. One significant issue will be the impact of high capacity weaponry. And, I'll admit that I've long wondered how that is defensible. As Robin Williams asked years ago on stage, "Is there some big-ass moose out their with a bulletproof vest and night vision goggles?" The assault weapon/machine gun issue seems to fall in with the laws against hand grenades and flamethrowers in my opinion. On that issue, William Salatin offers some thoughtful commentary on "The Volume Killers" and the significance tied to how quickly these people have inflicted mass carnage - a scope that is simply not possible with lower capacity weapons.
America has plenty of guns. Plenty. And more guns are not the answer to gun violence. Schools should maintain crisis plans and lockdowns, cities should promote the presence of SROs - school resource officers - and communities should seek to get better at identifying potential threats. That said, it won't be perfect. There will be more tragedies. There will always be these types of tragedies. But we can do more about it. And, so, I will say it - we should consider some restraints on the gun industry. A country that requires registration and licenses for people to own or operate a car, or sell cookies out of a home kitchen, should certainly require more stringent and traceable licensing of deadly weapons.
America certainly has a problem with gun violence. However, I am not going to assert that any specific gun legislation would curtail that. Additionally, America has a problem with mentally ill people becoming deranged and acting out violently and publicly. But this is not simply an issue of mental illness. The sad reality is that we have a considerable number of mentally deranged people who don't get the necessary treatment to prevent them from acting on homicidal impulses. And it is far too easy for these people to gain access to implements of catastrophic destruction. Yet, it's not simply a matter of passing an assault weapons ban or perhaps strengthening the health care system. One is an easy act; one seemingly impossible. And neither will solve the problem.
Neither will armed teachers and principals in school.
In the past decade, schools and public buildings have made great strides in putting together response plans to decrease the impact of these tragedies. But we haven't decreased the tragedies. And armed teachers won't help. For one, it's simply not going to happen. I and millions of other teachers and school officials would simply refuse. Secondly, proponents are delusional if they think that teachers and administrators would calmly and effectively be able to take out a shooter. Police officers and soldiers practice shooting and crisis situations for thousands of hours - and they still make mistakes. They still don't hit the right target. They still commit friendly fire. They still die in shootouts. And they are trained to do nothing less than take out assailants. The average citizen will not do better. This is true, despite many middle class suburban Rambos out there who think a math teacher could step into the hallway and squeeze off a few rounds with little problem.
Certainly, there are plenty of commentators who are decrying the gun violence and calling for action on gun control or mental health issues or both. And there are extreme views on each side. However, some important perspectives on the seriousness of the issue and the need to act now are worth considering. EJ Dionne of the Washington Post asks "Will We Forget the Kids Of Newtown?" If society does nothing different, if people ignore President Obama's simple point that "we can do better," then Dionne's concern will be realized. One significant issue will be the impact of high capacity weaponry. And, I'll admit that I've long wondered how that is defensible. As Robin Williams asked years ago on stage, "Is there some big-ass moose out their with a bulletproof vest and night vision goggles?" The assault weapon/machine gun issue seems to fall in with the laws against hand grenades and flamethrowers in my opinion. On that issue, William Salatin offers some thoughtful commentary on "The Volume Killers" and the significance tied to how quickly these people have inflicted mass carnage - a scope that is simply not possible with lower capacity weapons.
America has plenty of guns. Plenty. And more guns are not the answer to gun violence. Schools should maintain crisis plans and lockdowns, cities should promote the presence of SROs - school resource officers - and communities should seek to get better at identifying potential threats. That said, it won't be perfect. There will be more tragedies. There will always be these types of tragedies. But we can do more about it. And, so, I will say it - we should consider some restraints on the gun industry. A country that requires registration and licenses for people to own or operate a car, or sell cookies out of a home kitchen, should certainly require more stringent and traceable licensing of deadly weapons.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
How Long Will You Live? Try Standing Up.
Being an information junkie, I am a big fan of Yahoo News/Health/Sports, etc. In fact, I have Yahoo as my homepage and I've found their Associated Content to be a worthwhile information source. One of the standards on YahooHealth is the list of habits you should or shouldn't be doing, as well as advice on what your habits say about you. With that in mind, Yahoo offers this simple test of longevity based on research by Brazilian doctors who recently published:
Can you easily sit down on the floor and rise from that position?
According to doctors, people who are unable to comfortable get down on the floor and then stand up from a sitting position are considerably more likely to die younger. It would seem to be a matter of basic fitness, and it's probably a significant red flag if you can't do this.
Can you easily sit down on the floor and rise from that position?
According to doctors, people who are unable to comfortable get down on the floor and then stand up from a sitting position are considerably more likely to die younger. It would seem to be a matter of basic fitness, and it's probably a significant red flag if you can't do this.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Are MOOc's like Coursera a Bad Idea
Change is coming to higher education, and that is non-negotiable. With the advent of on-line learning and a blurring of lines between degrees and competency, the field for associate, bachelor, and master's degrees is shifting. At A Teacher's View, I have long argued that my philosophy of education is "Whatever Works," and while I firmly assert that not everyone needs a bachelor degree - or a thorough K-12 experience - I would not disagree that more education is better than less. It's the vehicle by which it's delivered that is changing and probably should. Thus, we've seen the rise of alternative classes and credentialing that is changing the dynamic for how we determine that someone is competently educated and skilled for a job.
The University of Phoenix pioneered the online degree - albeit for a great profit among school shareholders. And, Phoenix and lessers like Westwood have developed a reputation of being diploma mills. In response, or perhaps in spite of, the rise of online education at some elite institutions has changed the game again. After Khan Academy made online learning look so appealing, the rise of companies like Coursera stepped in to provide all the information of a degree program for free. What began as professors at places like Stanford and MIT posting syllabi and lessons online became a company through which "students" could basically access and complete all coursework for degree programs at highly respected institutions without ever stepping foot on campus. And there is a certain degree of reason behind the plan by which a competent student could complete the work and receive "certificate" which validated competence. And the idea is that at some point employers would have to decided whether an applicant needed a full degree or simply a certificate to qualify for a job.
Not so fast, says Doug Guthrie who writes in the Chronicle this month that we should Jump Off the Coursera Bandwagon. The traditionalists will reasonably argue that an education is never simply about the coursework. The loss of human interaction and collaboration and the classroom environment can only serve to weaken and dilute whatever knowledge is gleaned from reading all the course materials. And, most companies will always prefer someone who could actually get in to Stanford and graduate rather than just read the materials and pass some generalized assessment.
Still, the world is probably big enough for both Stanford grads and Coursera certificate holders.
The University of Phoenix pioneered the online degree - albeit for a great profit among school shareholders. And, Phoenix and lessers like Westwood have developed a reputation of being diploma mills. In response, or perhaps in spite of, the rise of online education at some elite institutions has changed the game again. After Khan Academy made online learning look so appealing, the rise of companies like Coursera stepped in to provide all the information of a degree program for free. What began as professors at places like Stanford and MIT posting syllabi and lessons online became a company through which "students" could basically access and complete all coursework for degree programs at highly respected institutions without ever stepping foot on campus. And there is a certain degree of reason behind the plan by which a competent student could complete the work and receive "certificate" which validated competence. And the idea is that at some point employers would have to decided whether an applicant needed a full degree or simply a certificate to qualify for a job.
Not so fast, says Doug Guthrie who writes in the Chronicle this month that we should Jump Off the Coursera Bandwagon. The traditionalists will reasonably argue that an education is never simply about the coursework. The loss of human interaction and collaboration and the classroom environment can only serve to weaken and dilute whatever knowledge is gleaned from reading all the course materials. And, most companies will always prefer someone who could actually get in to Stanford and graduate rather than just read the materials and pass some generalized assessment.
Still, the world is probably big enough for both Stanford grads and Coursera certificate holders.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Great Games for the Holidays
Hanukkah is over, but there are still eight shopping days until Christmas. In my family, we are constantly on the lookout for new games, especially at this time of year. Whether it's something small for a stocking stuffer or a big new board game for under the tree, the holiday season is the perfect time to add new games for the family. Board games are still the best, and many families could certainly use some fun activities to gather around the coffee table with. One of our favorite activities in the winter is to head over on cold, snowy weekend days to our neighborhood Starbucks for holiday drinks and a couple hours of game playing. Consider some of the following.
You can, of course, never go wrong with the classic card game Uno, which should be in every house. And Yahtzee is a classic that never goes out of style. However, for a new twist on the dice circuit consider adding Yam-Slam to your game stock. Yam-Slam is like Yahtzee, except players collect chips for the standard rolls, rather than write down the points. We love this one for travel as well - great airport time killer. And, if your family is into dice games and you have never played Farkle, this new spin on dice games is a must.
We recently discovered games from the Blue-Orange, which bills itself as "Hot games for a cool planet." One of our favorites is Spot-it, which contains multiple card games. The makers of Spot-it also feature a great game called Trigger which is fun for all ages. These games are really simple because they only use cards which have all the necessary information. Both Trigger and Spot-it are the perfect party games. Blue-Orange is also the home of Yam-Slam, as well as a new version of dominoes called Bendomino, which is the same basic idea but the tiles are curved.
Whatever it is this year, get your game on for the holidays.
You can, of course, never go wrong with the classic card game Uno, which should be in every house. And Yahtzee is a classic that never goes out of style. However, for a new twist on the dice circuit consider adding Yam-Slam to your game stock. Yam-Slam is like Yahtzee, except players collect chips for the standard rolls, rather than write down the points. We love this one for travel as well - great airport time killer. And, if your family is into dice games and you have never played Farkle, this new spin on dice games is a must.
We recently discovered games from the Blue-Orange, which bills itself as "Hot games for a cool planet." One of our favorites is Spot-it, which contains multiple card games. The makers of Spot-it also feature a great game called Trigger which is fun for all ages. These games are really simple because they only use cards which have all the necessary information. Both Trigger and Spot-it are the perfect party games. Blue-Orange is also the home of Yam-Slam, as well as a new version of dominoes called Bendomino, which is the same basic idea but the tiles are curved.
Whatever it is this year, get your game on for the holidays.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
States Don't Need Right-to-Work Laws
The state of Michigan continues to dominate news discussion of jobs and labor after the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a new law restricting the ability of unions to collect dues from workers and effectively turning Michigan - home of the auto industry and an original bastion of organized labor - into a Right-to-Work state. This move follows similar changes to the law in Wisconsin and Indiana and has severely challenged the strength of labor unions. Conservatives and Republicans tout these laws as a move to protect liberty, while liberals and Democrats paint it as a toxic attack on working people and a move by corporate America to further erode wages.
Certainly, there are reasons to oppose being "forced" to join a labor union. Some people feel the union "does nothing for them" and they would rather not pay dues to an organization that they may not believe in. Certainly, in the education field, many teachers support collective bargaining at the local and even state level but do not believe in or support the positions of the National Education Association (NEA). At the same time, however, there are reasons to allow automatic deduction for fees related to contract work by the union or association. If the union has negotiated the contract and work conditions, no worker should be able to benefit from those conditions with financially supporting the work that went into crafting them.
However, this issue should not be legislative, and the country should look to Colorado for guidance on Right-to-Work laws. Colorado is not a Right-to-Work state, but it is also not a Not-Right-to-Work state. In Colorado, the decisions on whether to require union membership and automatically deduct union dues from paychecks to pay for benefits such as collective bargaining are made on a shop-to-shop basis. Each industry and/or company decides what works for its particular management and employees.
And this is the way it should be.
Certainly, there are reasons to oppose being "forced" to join a labor union. Some people feel the union "does nothing for them" and they would rather not pay dues to an organization that they may not believe in. Certainly, in the education field, many teachers support collective bargaining at the local and even state level but do not believe in or support the positions of the National Education Association (NEA). At the same time, however, there are reasons to allow automatic deduction for fees related to contract work by the union or association. If the union has negotiated the contract and work conditions, no worker should be able to benefit from those conditions with financially supporting the work that went into crafting them.
However, this issue should not be legislative, and the country should look to Colorado for guidance on Right-to-Work laws. Colorado is not a Right-to-Work state, but it is also not a Not-Right-to-Work state. In Colorado, the decisions on whether to require union membership and automatically deduct union dues from paychecks to pay for benefits such as collective bargaining are made on a shop-to-shop basis. Each industry and/or company decides what works for its particular management and employees.
And this is the way it should be.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Common Core Does Not Mandate the End of Literature
Despite what many teachers fear, the Common Core has not mandated the end of teaching literature. Two years after the fact, as teachers finally get around the reading the content and learning standards that have been adopted by 42 states, many teachers are frantic about an alleged "mandate" that 70% of the reading students do in English class be non-fiction or informational texts. Alas, it's not true. And the only thing we can be sure of is that administrators and principals and teachers have not read or do not know how to read the standards.
Certainly, the Common Core recommends that informational texts be introduced as part of the curriculum and that this genre increase in emphasis until 70% of the reading high school students do is "informational texts." However, that recommendation and ratio in no way focuses on, or is limited to, the English classroom. English class generally counts for one-sixth of a high school student's day. Thus, more than 70% of a student's time is spent in classes like math and science and social studies and health and fine arts. And in those classes students should be reading and thinking critically about non-fiction texts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)