National Standards: A society gets the schools it deserves

AFT President Randi Weingarten arguing for national standards said in an opinion piece in the Washington Post, “I am not so naive as to think that it would be easy to reach consensus on national standards, but I believe that most people would agree that there is academic content that all students in America's public schools should be taught, and be taught to high standards.”

Do most people agree on the academic content for America’s public schools? What do we, as a nation, expect high school graduates to know and what skills would we like them to have? Despite, the various commissions that recognize the need for 21st Century workers to have good communications skills and the ability to analyze and resolve problems creatively, there is little if any consensus on how schools can produce that highly skilled workforce. There are so many conflicting interests and aspirations that we are forced to consider why we teach certain things, and not others. Can we reconcile the difference between the education of the individual from the education of the citizen?

In our haste to establish national standards, let’s not neglect those students who fail to complete high school. These are the youngsters who increasingly end up in our penal system. This is a national disgrace, but is it an accident of neglect and indifference or is it intentional? Could there be a hidden curriculum in our schools? Before we can establish national standards we have to honestly assess whether those standards will be for all children or will there always be a neglected class that will have to fend for itself?

Obviously, if there are national standards, unlike NCLB, there should be funds to support the mandates. But, would costs force legislators to limit the scope of what schools teach? Will schools only provide “essential” instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic and drop all the other “non-essential” subjects like music, art, social studies, science and health? In other words, will schools and teachers be forced to teach to the test?

I recall former New York State Governor George Pataki saying that he would not approve increased funding for public education because the state constitution only guaranteed a sound education until the 8th grade. So despite all the talk of improving NYS schools, the Governor fought against additional funding for NYC public schools. Where there’s a will there’s a wallet!

Since education has traditionally been a local issue, and a public school education in Massachusetts is generally much better than one in Mississippi, national standards should start to raise all the boats in the harbor. But, local control of schools is so closely guarded that any perceived imposition from Washington will be bitterly opposed. Local politicians wary of outside control, will scare the citizenry with threats of increased costs from higher taxes. Only the most enlightened communities will look at the increases as an investment in their children and the future of the country. 

A society gets the schools it deserves.

Tribune-a bellwether for the industry's future.

The news that the Chicago Tribune is declaring Chapter 11 because of its excessive debt and shrinking revenues makes me believe that we will be witnessing the collapse of print news media over the next fifty years.

The bellwether company signals the general direction the entire industry faces. Despite the fact that most papers remain profitable, there has been a general decline in advertising revenues and a greater decline in readership as more consumers rely on the Internet for their news delivery.

The financial problems like poor investments and carrying excessive debt for most print media conglomerates is only the tip of the iceberg. There is a more basic problem facing the print media. It has more to do with the fact that newspapers have always been primarily a one way news delivery system without major input from readers or the public. There is a very limited "talk back" factor for print, but it is unlimited in the electronic news delivery paradigm. This is the paradigm shift that the Internet makes possible.

This may sound strange, but because of the impending financial collapse of some of these print giants we have an opportunity to restore the "agora" concept of news delivery. The news that's fit to be transmitted will be what comes up in our browsers. (See Newser, see newsworldmap.com, see igoogle, etc.)

Yet some companies like the New York Times have positioned themselves well enough in electronic media to make the transition into this brave new world as long as they make a clean break with the print paradigm and start thinking of becoming Internet broadcasters. That's why the Tribune collapse may be the signal to the industry that it is time to make serious move to the Internet. That means to rethink the way news is developed and delivered, and start to consider how they will make that happen using a broadcast medium like the Internet. 

Think of all the trees we're going to save.

Not Better off? Better off with Obama!

The source for this information is CNN Money.

I’ve been receiving a tirade of emails claiming that Obama’s tax plan will sink small businesses and take a major tax bite out of the income of ordinary Americans. Here is something that’s closer to the truth.

The candidates tax plans:



Source:The Tax Policy Center

McCain: Even though everyone gets a cut under the McCain plan, high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else. According to CNN Money and the Tax Policy Center, the highest-income households - those with incomes of at least $603,000 - would see a boost in after-tax income of 3.4%, or more than $40,000. The McCain plan gives nearly one-quarter of its benefits to households making more than $2.8 million annually - the top 0.1% I guess that will benefit the McCains, too.

Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. The lowest income groups would benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes. Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000, and he would increase the capital gains tax. (I guess Wall Street doesn’t like this, but Main Street doesn’t give a hoot.)

Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion if they remained intact for 10 years.

So let’s be realistic: Which tax policy would benefit the average Joe—not the plumber? Which tax plan will be better for the country? In reality, I don’t think candidates will be able to live up to their campaign promises on taxes, because the Bush/Cheney administration hasn’t been a careful steward of our economy. The next president is going to have to try and clean this mess up. I’m reminded of the bumper sticker—“we’re spending our children’s inheritance”—often seen on retirees cars. Our children and grandchildren will be paying for fifty years to correct the fiscal malfeasance of the last 8 years.

Oh, and for you fiscal conservatives out there--How do you like the recent acts of socialism by the US government? Now the taxpayer is part owner and guarantor of the financial industry. The “we the people” will have to make up for the fiscal irresponsibility of the financial industry. I hope Paulson knows what he’s doing and that he’s an honorable man, because certainly there are only a few people in this country who understand what he’s doing. By the way, none of those people are in the White House.

Also, if I remember correctly, “W” ran a few other enterprises into the ground and had to seek a bail out for those, too. It’s nice to have a rich Pappy, huh?

Council approves Bloomberg’s power grab

The City Council agreed today to extend term limits to three four–year terms by a 29-22 vote. (See how your representative voted.)

Many of the council members who voted for the proposal offered two arguments. The first is that the current financial crisis requires an experienced hand at the helm and who can manage our finances better that our own resident billionaire. Well, that kind of argument didn’t work for Guiliani in 2001 who wanted to extend his term for only 90 days. Bloomberg opposed that suggestion then and continued to oppose extending term limits until very recently.

The second argument goes something like this: The change in the charter does not in any way usurp the democratic process, because the people will continue to have the right to vote for the candidate of their choice in the primaries and the general election in 2009.

But, that’s a bogus argument since incumbents who would have been term-limited will undoubtedly run again and more than likely be the candidate of choice in their party primaries. How many Republicans or Independents will oppose Bloomberg in the primaries? In essence this ruling has limited the field of possible candidates.

Remember, that in 2006 Bloomberg spent a little more than $84 million, setting a record for any campaign other than national campaigns for president. (See what the current presidential candidates are spending. ) Add to that Bloomberg’s ability to control most of the media and Anthony Weiner and Bill Thompson would be little more than a blip on the media radar. And Tony Avella, well, he wouldn't even make a showing.

A Quinnipiac poll found that registered voters generally disapproved of Bloomberg’s plan and overwhelmingly thought that it should be the voters who make the decision and not the City Council. But the mayor autocratically decided that he can go over the heads of the voters and the lapdogs in the council succumbed to the pressure, or made deals with Bloomberg and approved the measure. Up until recently the mayor didn’t support extending term limits. He even vetoed a 2002 bill to amend it, saying it was an attempt by politicians to change the rules for personal gain.

Take a hike Mike!

But, Bloomberg is not invincible. He failed to get a new football stadium built on Manhattan’s West Side. He failed to get the 2012 Summer Olympics and he failed to win over the state Legislature to approve his congestion pricing plan. Consider also the construction crane failures that the DOB botched up. Or, judge him on the effectiveness of the school system he now controls. (Mayoral control sunsets in 2009 and maybe then will we be able to accurately measure any progress.) Or, judge him on the Housing Stability Program that failed miserably to reduce the number of homeless in the city.

Another four years will be more of the same. Take a hike Mike!

Take a hike Mike

There’s something suspicious about the mayor calling for the end of term limits so that he can have another four years at the helm of the city, especially since it is early enough to schedule another referendum on the issue. Why is he trying to bypass the need to take it back to the voters?

Mayor Bloomberg said in his press release, ”I also understand that people voted for a two-term limit, and altering their verdict is not something that I think should be done lightly.” Remember, that the people voted twice (1993 and 1996) for this two-term limit.

However, the Mayor adds, that according to the Charter, the Council has the right to change the law without a referendum that tests the will of the people.

“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

Mayor Mike and all the other mayoral candidates (except for Green) in the aftermath of 9/11, disapproved of Giuliani’s call to extend his term for 90 days in the wake of the disaster and turmoil we experienced at that time. So why are people lining up behind this idea now for Mayor Mike?

If 9/11 wasn't a good enough reason for Giuliani to extend his term for 90 days, then why does this financial crisis rise to the level of an emergency that requires Mayor Mike to hold office for another 4-year term?

A Daily News online poll shows that a large percentage of people oppose the potential power grab and a New York Times piece quotes several people who expressed opinions that this Wall Street crisis doesn’t justify suspending the election rules.

Read Mark Green’s blog on the Huffington Post where he says there’s plenty of time to bring the issue to the people in a public referendum. He adds that if this is the time to have a financial manager run the city, then why don’t we just suspend the mayor’s office and city government and hire Warren Buffet?

One way to cure an addiction to power and fame is to cut the person off from the source. So take a hike Mike and let someone else carry the baton.

Middle School Critical for Developing Complex Thinking Skills for Youngsters

I'm back! I just couldn't pull myself together to do any posts over the summer, but it's September (almost October) and I'm starting to feel guilty about not writing anything here for more than three months.

One of the resources I use to motivate me to write about education is the Public Education Newsblast that comes out every Friday.

This week's edition had an interesting report of research that was done at the University of Texas at Dallas that found that the middle school years are the optimal time for training adolescence in complex reasoning skills, and critical thinking skills.

The study used teenagers diagnosed with attention deficit problems, and researchers applied recent cognitive neuroscience findings to create a program called SMART-Strategic Memory and Reasoning Training-to teach teens how to think critically and effectively use the information they learn.

Dallas Morning News reporter Robert Miller says that the university researchers are ready to apply the findings to develop a Web-based training program to teach strategic reasoning to all students, teachers and parents. All they are seeking is $20 million.

One of the researchers, Dr. Jacquelyn Gamino, says that if the SMART program works with ADHD students, "then it makes sense that those without cognitive deficits will be able to improve as well."

That's not necessarily so, especially if you remove the personal interactions that adolescents connect to. A Web-based program might be too impersonal. Yet, the research sounds interesting because it does attempt to bring the latest findings in brain research into the realm of pedagogy. Think about how a person learns, or how you learn as an adult and then think about how you can codify that knowledge and use it in a daily classroom environment.Then think about how you learned to think critically about a subject.

Also, how does this research stand up against Reuven Feuerstein's Structural Cognitive Modifiability theories? Feuerstein worked with special ed and other low functioning children and young adults and proved that they could learn high order thinking skills.

Now there is another push to improve middle schools in NYC. Maybe instead of the DOE turning things over to bureaucrats who unenthusiastically deal with the challenge, the DOE can turn program development over to brain/cognitive development researchers. Egad, I can't believe that I'm opening the door for more Aussies and Teacher's College programs!

How about something simpler--require that all middle school teachers be subject certified middle school specialists instead of Common Branch non-specialists and reduce class sizes so that teachers and students can connect with each other for more than a minute or two a day? How about hiring school leaders who have specialized knowledge of middle school education and perhaps even taught in middle schools? How about that?

Connecting the Tots… Obama’s Education Plan

There is no denying the fact that the earlier children are exposed to a high quality, organized learning environment, the more successful they will be in school and in life.

The classic Head Start, founded in 1965, and more recently, the Early Head Start (for infants and toddlers) programs have made positive impacts on the academic and social development of children and their families. The overall goal of these programs is to develop school-readiness for the children of low-income families. Even though there are uneven results because children score higher on academic measures early, but later, especially for minority children, the scores drop to the levels of those children who never attended pre-school programs. However, there are collateral benefits like greater earning power, more stable marriages, reduced dependence on welfare, less time on average in the penal system and lower rates of drug use for those who attended early childhood preschool programs.

Despite under-financing, mixed reviews and what some may characterize as “soft-statistics,” the programs have staved off “bang-for-the-buck” critics and continue to service under-privileged children. That’s because most everyone sees the benefits: White children have a 22 percent higher high school graduation rate; African-American youth have a 12 percent less chance of being charged with a crime and being arrested. (The increase in academic achievement for African-American youth, however, is not statistically significant after the third or fourth grade.)(See Ludwig and Phillips, 2007)

Even the “bang-for-the-buckers” know that studies show that Head Start has a 7 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. That means that for every dollar spent for pre-school programs you get a benefit equal to at least 7 dollars. (Just consider what it costs to incarcerate our youth.)Those same studies show that there is a direct relationship with increased funding to an increase in school attainment and a likelihood of attending some college.

So maybe, Obama has it right! He is making early childhood education the keystone of his education program and proposes spending $10 billion a year on his “Zero to Five” pre-school proposal. That kind of an investment could even provide a higher benefit-cost ratio.