Today, I read in Inside Higher Education that a New Jersey Tea Party group is attacking the planned opening of a satellite campus for a northwestern New Jersey community college.
While the college president has publicly stated that the new campus, which will be in a renovated office building, will have no impact on local property taxes, Tea Partiers have responded that the college would be better off expanding its existing campus and forcing all students to drive.
But I read another story about the satellite campus which makes wonder why the Tea Partiers are up in arms over this specific project. This satellite campus is not merely classrooms, it is also set-up to be a small business incubator as well as provide space for an alternative middle school for special needs children.
About two-thirds of the space will generate rental income in excess to $500,000 per year and the county will save the costs of paying other school systems to educate children with special needs .
Tea Partiers picked the wrong place to mount an offensive. They latched onto a project that might ultimately pay for itself as well as attract new business and new jobs.
If Tea Partiers want to attack a project or program, they should target one that offers no cost savings or no clear return on public investment. It's one thing to ask for lower taxes, or question government spending. But it's quite another to rudely second guess competent people who have put serious thought into their work. There are more competent people in government and education than the Tea Partiers would like you to know.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Utah State Senator Proposes Cure for High School Senioritis
Utah State Senator Chris Buttars has proposed an interesting idea to help his state close a $700 million budget deficit--give high school students the option of skipping their senior year, if they meet all of their graduation requirements in three years.
Buttars, who comes from the Salt Lake City area, originally proposed that senior year be eliminated altogether. According to the senator, the state would save $60 million if his proposal were adopted by the Utah legislature. If 12th grade were eliminated the state would save $102 million.
I took a look at the story a little further. Part of the problem is the sponsor. According to an ABC News Report, Buttars is a controversial state senator who last year compared gay-rights activists to Muslim terrorists.
"Almost all the industrial world uses only 11 grades. Why do we use 12? The kinds either got one foot in AP classes in college, or they're just running around taking P.E.," Buttars said. Not exactly a statement based on careful research.
Buttars proposal, according to the stories I read, is unlikely to pass. One reason is that it is unnecessary; according to state education officials, 200 students opt to graduate early every year.That cannot be significant compared with the total number of Utah high school juniors.
I have written previous posts where I have stated that high school students should be encouraged to graduate early, if they have met their requirements, and if they can go directly into college or employment.
But I have never stated that the idea be legislated. The decision should rest in the hands of students and their parents. It is not unusual to find students who need to earn good grades during their senior year to gain admission to college or be ready for employment.
My sense is that the savings in Senator Buttar's proposal come at the expense of teachers. If there is no senior year, then a host of teachers could be laid off and the expenses associated with some of the classes--science labs or auto shops, for example--could go away as well.
That would work--if there was another place for students to take those classes for no additional charges, and the school district is able to settle up with their teacher's union.
In a city such as New York, which has extensive mass transit, it is entirely possible to have students spend their senior year taking college or pre-employment courses at a public two-year or four-year college. The students are accustomed to the bus and subway and they would live at home.
In this case, the cost of tuition at the public college is likely to be less than the cost for the high school to educate that person. Public high schools that cannot afford a litany of Advanced Placement or pre-professional courses can design, support and manage these arrangements without the involvement of state legislators.
Buttars, who comes from the Salt Lake City area, originally proposed that senior year be eliminated altogether. According to the senator, the state would save $60 million if his proposal were adopted by the Utah legislature. If 12th grade were eliminated the state would save $102 million.
I took a look at the story a little further. Part of the problem is the sponsor. According to an ABC News Report, Buttars is a controversial state senator who last year compared gay-rights activists to Muslim terrorists.
"Almost all the industrial world uses only 11 grades. Why do we use 12? The kinds either got one foot in AP classes in college, or they're just running around taking P.E.," Buttars said. Not exactly a statement based on careful research.
Buttars proposal, according to the stories I read, is unlikely to pass. One reason is that it is unnecessary; according to state education officials, 200 students opt to graduate early every year.That cannot be significant compared with the total number of Utah high school juniors.
I have written previous posts where I have stated that high school students should be encouraged to graduate early, if they have met their requirements, and if they can go directly into college or employment.
But I have never stated that the idea be legislated. The decision should rest in the hands of students and their parents. It is not unusual to find students who need to earn good grades during their senior year to gain admission to college or be ready for employment.
My sense is that the savings in Senator Buttar's proposal come at the expense of teachers. If there is no senior year, then a host of teachers could be laid off and the expenses associated with some of the classes--science labs or auto shops, for example--could go away as well.
That would work--if there was another place for students to take those classes for no additional charges, and the school district is able to settle up with their teacher's union.
In a city such as New York, which has extensive mass transit, it is entirely possible to have students spend their senior year taking college or pre-employment courses at a public two-year or four-year college. The students are accustomed to the bus and subway and they would live at home.
In this case, the cost of tuition at the public college is likely to be less than the cost for the high school to educate that person. Public high schools that cannot afford a litany of Advanced Placement or pre-professional courses can design, support and manage these arrangements without the involvement of state legislators.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
What's Your Eighties Movie?
This weekend, I finished reading You Couldn't Ignore Me if You Tried, a film history of the Brat Pack, the directors--most notably John Hughes and Joel Schumacher--and their movies.
The author, Susannah Gora, writes that the Eighties were the golden age of teen-focused cinema and drama. Films such as Sixteen Candles, Ferris Buehler's Day Off, The Breakfast Club and Say Anything, while critically acclaimed, were targeted to Generation X, the generation after mine. The film that resonates with me is St. Elmo's Fire.
By 1985, when St. Elmo's Fire was released, the cast members: including Ally Sheedy, Judd Nelson, Andrew McCarthy, Emilio Estevez, Demi Moore, Mare Winningham and Rob Lowe had already been in other movies. Three: Sheedy, Nelson and Estevez had already worked together in The Breakfast Club.
St. Elmo's Fire stands out because it came out just after I had finished college and grad school. Like the cast, I was anxious to get to work, didn't know what to do with my free time and spent more than I earned. I also hoped for more from my first jobs than I got. Appropriately, I saw St. Elmo's Fire during the very first week that I lived alone in my first apartment.
This book provides interesting background about all of the movies covered. St. Elmo's Fire, for example, was set to take place on the Georgetown University campus, however the administration did not permit filming there--eleven years after they had allowed the filming of the stone steps scene in The Exorcist. The movie was filmed at the University of Maryland. The St. Elmo's Tavern and Georgetown scenes were constructed in Hollywood.
The Breakfast Club, as another example, was actually filmed in a modern Chicago-area high school building that had been closed due to low enrollment. The library, where much of the action takes place, was actually the school's gym. John Cusack was originally cast to play John Bender, the rebel with an abusive father, but Judd Nelson got the part.
I still watch The Breakfast Club, Ferris and St. Elmo's from time to time, and I still enjoy them. I have a St. Elmo's CD in my car case, too. If you also enjoyed these, and the other Brat Pack classics, I recommend this book.
Shop Indie Bookstores
The author, Susannah Gora, writes that the Eighties were the golden age of teen-focused cinema and drama. Films such as Sixteen Candles, Ferris Buehler's Day Off, The Breakfast Club and Say Anything, while critically acclaimed, were targeted to Generation X, the generation after mine. The film that resonates with me is St. Elmo's Fire.
By 1985, when St. Elmo's Fire was released, the cast members: including Ally Sheedy, Judd Nelson, Andrew McCarthy, Emilio Estevez, Demi Moore, Mare Winningham and Rob Lowe had already been in other movies. Three: Sheedy, Nelson and Estevez had already worked together in The Breakfast Club.
St. Elmo's Fire stands out because it came out just after I had finished college and grad school. Like the cast, I was anxious to get to work, didn't know what to do with my free time and spent more than I earned. I also hoped for more from my first jobs than I got. Appropriately, I saw St. Elmo's Fire during the very first week that I lived alone in my first apartment.
This book provides interesting background about all of the movies covered. St. Elmo's Fire, for example, was set to take place on the Georgetown University campus, however the administration did not permit filming there--eleven years after they had allowed the filming of the stone steps scene in The Exorcist. The movie was filmed at the University of Maryland. The St. Elmo's Tavern and Georgetown scenes were constructed in Hollywood.
The Breakfast Club, as another example, was actually filmed in a modern Chicago-area high school building that had been closed due to low enrollment. The library, where much of the action takes place, was actually the school's gym. John Cusack was originally cast to play John Bender, the rebel with an abusive father, but Judd Nelson got the part.
I still watch The Breakfast Club, Ferris and St. Elmo's from time to time, and I still enjoy them. I have a St. Elmo's CD in my car case, too. If you also enjoyed these, and the other Brat Pack classics, I recommend this book.
Shop Indie Bookstores
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Jim DeMint-Change Agent on Earmarks?
Jim DeMint fits the term "staunch conservative" more than most U.S. Senators, but on the issue of earmarks--appropriations inserted into bills that do not fit within the requirements of existing government programs--he may have a point.
DeMint has repeatedly called for a one-year moratorium on earmarks in addition to a Constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. The moratorium went to a Senate vote in December as one of the proposed amendments to the health care bill--and it was defeated 53-46.
Interestingly enough, Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), considered one of the more liberal Senators, voted in favor, as did Claire McCaskill, one of President Obama's earliest supporters during the 2008 primary season.
DeMint and Illinois' Democratic senator Dick Durban co-sponsored an anti-earmark bill two years before, as part of an ethics bill. While the bill passed the Senate 98-0, the anti-earmark provision was removed in negotiations with the House.
In a recent Forbes news story, DeMint also mentioned that President Obama, while a Senator, also introduced legislation to curtail earmarks. But, in his State of the Union Address, the President proposed that Congress post the list of earmarks online before they could come to a vote.
In DeMint's words, earmarks represent $32 billion of a $3.8 trillion 2011 budget. That's minuscule, but it has become a focal point for conservative campaigns. Democratic and Republican candidates attack earmark spending.
I understand why there are earmarks, so do many voters. They are used to trade dollars for votes. They are also the only way that a state or local official can get monies for projects they believe to be worthwhile. Quite often they are tied to the arts or economic development. Voters are less likely to be bothered about earmarks in good times than bad.
Would the trading stop if earmarks went away? Doubtful, because there are other things to trade; for example, a waiver of federal regulations or an extension to comply with them. Or a favorable vote on the right committee to fund a pet project within the guidelines of an existing government program.
There is the argument that earmarks help create jobs, but Congress already funds many education, employment and re-employment programs. President Obama has proposed new jobs programs, too.
Given that Democrats and Republicans talk about earmarks with equal veracity, new legislation should go beyond a moratorium or a list posted on a Web site. Both parties should agree on a resolution--no earmarks in times of war or high unemployment. The money is needed elsewhere. I'm sure that Senator DeMint could find a Democrat who is not up for re-election who could co-sponsor such a bill.
However, anti-earmark legislation should not be tied to a balanced budget amendment. The executive and legislative branches of government should not have their hands tied in the event of unforeseen emergencies.
Congress and the Obama Administration must achieve bi-partisanship on domestic policies. Earmarks may be the best place to start.
DeMint has repeatedly called for a one-year moratorium on earmarks in addition to a Constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. The moratorium went to a Senate vote in December as one of the proposed amendments to the health care bill--and it was defeated 53-46.
Interestingly enough, Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), considered one of the more liberal Senators, voted in favor, as did Claire McCaskill, one of President Obama's earliest supporters during the 2008 primary season.
DeMint and Illinois' Democratic senator Dick Durban co-sponsored an anti-earmark bill two years before, as part of an ethics bill. While the bill passed the Senate 98-0, the anti-earmark provision was removed in negotiations with the House.
In a recent Forbes news story, DeMint also mentioned that President Obama, while a Senator, also introduced legislation to curtail earmarks. But, in his State of the Union Address, the President proposed that Congress post the list of earmarks online before they could come to a vote.
In DeMint's words, earmarks represent $32 billion of a $3.8 trillion 2011 budget. That's minuscule, but it has become a focal point for conservative campaigns. Democratic and Republican candidates attack earmark spending.
I understand why there are earmarks, so do many voters. They are used to trade dollars for votes. They are also the only way that a state or local official can get monies for projects they believe to be worthwhile. Quite often they are tied to the arts or economic development. Voters are less likely to be bothered about earmarks in good times than bad.
Would the trading stop if earmarks went away? Doubtful, because there are other things to trade; for example, a waiver of federal regulations or an extension to comply with them. Or a favorable vote on the right committee to fund a pet project within the guidelines of an existing government program.
There is the argument that earmarks help create jobs, but Congress already funds many education, employment and re-employment programs. President Obama has proposed new jobs programs, too.
Given that Democrats and Republicans talk about earmarks with equal veracity, new legislation should go beyond a moratorium or a list posted on a Web site. Both parties should agree on a resolution--no earmarks in times of war or high unemployment. The money is needed elsewhere. I'm sure that Senator DeMint could find a Democrat who is not up for re-election who could co-sponsor such a bill.
However, anti-earmark legislation should not be tied to a balanced budget amendment. The executive and legislative branches of government should not have their hands tied in the event of unforeseen emergencies.
Congress and the Obama Administration must achieve bi-partisanship on domestic policies. Earmarks may be the best place to start.
Friday, February 19, 2010
A Proposal for College Football Conferences That Could Mean Playoffs
This morning I read a story by Bleacher Report writer Andy Staples that called for the realignment of college football's top 64 teams into four super-conferences. The story is fascinating. When I follow the reasoning, I see that playoffs are a possibility.
Staples looked at the top 64 teams by athletic department revenues. Only one school that plays in a major conference, Iowa State (Big 12), missed his cut. The Cyclones were replaced by Texas Christian University, which has earned more money and had greater success on the football field.
The four conferences would include the Southeast Conference with the additions of Louisville, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia; the Big 16, which includes the eleven Big 10 teams plus Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska and Notre Dame; the Atlantic Coast Conference with the additions of Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers and Syracuse; and, the Pacific Coast with the PAC-10 teams plus Baylor, Colorado Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Christian and Texas Tech.
Developing a playoff system using the minor bowls would be quite possible. Each conference has two divisions, so the hosts of the title game could be selected from the sites of minor bowl games that are played in major markets for that conference. For instance, a Atlantic Coast Conference championship game could be rotated between Atlanta (Chick Fil-A) Charlotte (Mineke Bowl), New York (Yankee Bowl), Tampa-St. Petersburg and Washington DC (Eagle Bank Bowl).
The four conference champions would be placed in New Year's Day bowl games. The two winners would meet the following week for the national championship.
I realize this excludes schools such as Brigham Young and Boise State that have been quite competitive against schools that have earned higher revenues from their programs.
However, that problem can be solved. Make more money from your sports and you can be super, too.
Staples looked at the top 64 teams by athletic department revenues. Only one school that plays in a major conference, Iowa State (Big 12), missed his cut. The Cyclones were replaced by Texas Christian University, which has earned more money and had greater success on the football field.
The four conferences would include the Southeast Conference with the additions of Louisville, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia; the Big 16, which includes the eleven Big 10 teams plus Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska and Notre Dame; the Atlantic Coast Conference with the additions of Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers and Syracuse; and, the Pacific Coast with the PAC-10 teams plus Baylor, Colorado Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Christian and Texas Tech.
Developing a playoff system using the minor bowls would be quite possible. Each conference has two divisions, so the hosts of the title game could be selected from the sites of minor bowl games that are played in major markets for that conference. For instance, a Atlantic Coast Conference championship game could be rotated between Atlanta (Chick Fil-A) Charlotte (Mineke Bowl), New York (Yankee Bowl), Tampa-St. Petersburg and Washington DC (Eagle Bank Bowl).
The four conference champions would be placed in New Year's Day bowl games. The two winners would meet the following week for the national championship.
I realize this excludes schools such as Brigham Young and Boise State that have been quite competitive against schools that have earned higher revenues from their programs.
However, that problem can be solved. Make more money from your sports and you can be super, too.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Old Dominion's Early Success in College Football
The business seasons for college and professional football are in full swing, and I found it interesting to read about a new college football program that started off as a success on the field and at the gate this past season.
Last week, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Old Dominion University, located in the Tidewater region of Virginia, brought football back on campus after a 69 year absence.
The Monarchs went 9-2 in their inaugural season. However, while the 23,000 student university plays in the Colonal Athletic Conference in other sports, and quite successfully in woman's basketball, they eased into college football by playing a less ambitious schedule. It included no opponents from that conference. But next season, Old Dominion will play conference games against Georgia State--which will play its first season--and William and Mary.
According to the Chronicle story, Old Dominion earned $5.4 million for football. The Monarchs sold out all of their homes games at a 20,000 seat stadium and the athletic department raised $2 million through the sale of naming rights for the stadium, luxury boxes and season tickets.
The schedule, I believe, was one reason they succeeded. They avoided teams in a highly competitive conferences. Villanova, a football member of the Colonial Athletic Association--they play Big East basketball--was the NCAA Playoff Subdivision National Champion.
But also, according to the story, Old Dominion students were willing to pay to support the team, as well as three additional woman's sports, by paying a $450 fee.
However, Old Dominion's in-state undergraduate students pay approximately $240 per credit, or approximately $7,200 By comparison, conference rival William and Mary charges Virginians more than $11,000. The lower tuition might make the athletic fee more palatable.
The story also mentions that Old Dominion has less competition for the sports entertainment dollar. The Norfolk area has been a long-time home to minor league baseball--the area once hosted the New York Mets top farm team--but has not had a major league sports franchise in thirty four years. The ABA Virginia Squires basketball team, which brought Hall of Famer Julius Erving into the national spotlight, disbanded when their league folded.
The lack of competition puts Old Dominion in a more favorable position than other schools trying to launch programs. Georgia State, for example, will play in the Georgia Dome, home of the NFL Atlanta Falcons and the Southeast Conference Championship Game. Georgia Tech has also become a college football powerhouse. UNC-Charlotte jumps into the market of the NFL Carolina Panthers as well as the NASCAR Museum and racing events.
I cannot help but be impressed at how Old Dominion's administrators thought through the return of football to campus. Whether they were to play at a scholarship or non-scholarship level, the sport is the most expensive one for an athletic department to manage. It appears that the school studied their potential fan base and donor base more throughly than most.
I hope they stay the course and not become a patsy for the guarantee games that might bring easier money, but greater pains on the field.
Last week, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Old Dominion University, located in the Tidewater region of Virginia, brought football back on campus after a 69 year absence.
The Monarchs went 9-2 in their inaugural season. However, while the 23,000 student university plays in the Colonal Athletic Conference in other sports, and quite successfully in woman's basketball, they eased into college football by playing a less ambitious schedule. It included no opponents from that conference. But next season, Old Dominion will play conference games against Georgia State--which will play its first season--and William and Mary.
According to the Chronicle story, Old Dominion earned $5.4 million for football. The Monarchs sold out all of their homes games at a 20,000 seat stadium and the athletic department raised $2 million through the sale of naming rights for the stadium, luxury boxes and season tickets.
The schedule, I believe, was one reason they succeeded. They avoided teams in a highly competitive conferences. Villanova, a football member of the Colonial Athletic Association--they play Big East basketball--was the NCAA Playoff Subdivision National Champion.
But also, according to the story, Old Dominion students were willing to pay to support the team, as well as three additional woman's sports, by paying a $450 fee.
However, Old Dominion's in-state undergraduate students pay approximately $240 per credit, or approximately $7,200 By comparison, conference rival William and Mary charges Virginians more than $11,000. The lower tuition might make the athletic fee more palatable.
The story also mentions that Old Dominion has less competition for the sports entertainment dollar. The Norfolk area has been a long-time home to minor league baseball--the area once hosted the New York Mets top farm team--but has not had a major league sports franchise in thirty four years. The ABA Virginia Squires basketball team, which brought Hall of Famer Julius Erving into the national spotlight, disbanded when their league folded.
The lack of competition puts Old Dominion in a more favorable position than other schools trying to launch programs. Georgia State, for example, will play in the Georgia Dome, home of the NFL Atlanta Falcons and the Southeast Conference Championship Game. Georgia Tech has also become a college football powerhouse. UNC-Charlotte jumps into the market of the NFL Carolina Panthers as well as the NASCAR Museum and racing events.
I cannot help but be impressed at how Old Dominion's administrators thought through the return of football to campus. Whether they were to play at a scholarship or non-scholarship level, the sport is the most expensive one for an athletic department to manage. It appears that the school studied their potential fan base and donor base more throughly than most.
I hope they stay the course and not become a patsy for the guarantee games that might bring easier money, but greater pains on the field.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Save Presidential Classroom
After 9-11, a hastily conceived broadcast of The West Wing aired on NBC. In this episode, a group of high school students visiting the White House through a group called Presidential Classroom is caught in a security "crash." No one may enter or leave the White House until Secret Service decides all is well. The students are huddled into the White House mess where they meet senior staff, as well as the President, and they get a lesson on terrorism.
I remember that the episode being panned when it came out. President Bartlet, played by Martin Sheen, and his administration were said to have given a liberal slant to the issue of terrorism while a conservative president was in the real White House. I disagreed at the time, but I know people who felt uncomfortable being lectured by actors.
I also have to admit that I did not know there was a real organization called Presidential Classroom. Until last week.
A Facebook friend signed up to join a group called Save Presidential Classroom. I joined, too. I later learned that Presidential Classroom programs had been suspended after the summer of 2009.
There is not only a Facebook group that wishes to save Presidential Classormm. Unaffiliated with their agenda, Project Eagle is an independent group comprised of alumni, former instructors and supporters that wants to see Presidential Classroom continue. Their site mentions that Presidential Classroom is going through a restructuring.
Presidential Classroom, according to the organization's Web site, has introduced over 120,000 students to the workings of American government through direct contact with political leaders, senior staff and members of advocacy groups. It was chartered in 1968, near the close of Lyndon Johnson's administration. A former schoolteacher, President Johnson worked to bring new talent into government not only through this program, but also through the White House Fellows.
Presidential Classroom has offered a one week experience to high school sophomores, juniors and seniors who have no less than a 'B' average. Presidential Classroom offered nine specialized focus weeks, including Communications and Journalism; Science, Technology and Public Policy; Law and Justice in a Democracy; Art & Architecture in Washington; Intelligence & National Security; Global Health & the Environment; and the Future World Leaders Summit. Within each focus, students interacted with stakeholders and completed a group project. They were also eligible to receive college credit through the University of Virginia.
I know that people are very down on politics, and many are calling for change. But no one can determine how a political system can be fixed unless he knows how it works. Programs such as Presidential Classroom give students an early opportunity to see what has worked, in their opinions, as well as what has not. Such programs help students to decide career interests, as well as political affiliations. Not to forget, they reinforce what it means to be an American citizen.
Project Eagle is working to collect proposals to reinvent and sustain Presidential Classroom. Wish them well.
I remember that the episode being panned when it came out. President Bartlet, played by Martin Sheen, and his administration were said to have given a liberal slant to the issue of terrorism while a conservative president was in the real White House. I disagreed at the time, but I know people who felt uncomfortable being lectured by actors.
I also have to admit that I did not know there was a real organization called Presidential Classroom. Until last week.
A Facebook friend signed up to join a group called Save Presidential Classroom. I joined, too. I later learned that Presidential Classroom programs had been suspended after the summer of 2009.
There is not only a Facebook group that wishes to save Presidential Classormm. Unaffiliated with their agenda, Project Eagle is an independent group comprised of alumni, former instructors and supporters that wants to see Presidential Classroom continue. Their site mentions that Presidential Classroom is going through a restructuring.
Presidential Classroom, according to the organization's Web site, has introduced over 120,000 students to the workings of American government through direct contact with political leaders, senior staff and members of advocacy groups. It was chartered in 1968, near the close of Lyndon Johnson's administration. A former schoolteacher, President Johnson worked to bring new talent into government not only through this program, but also through the White House Fellows.
Presidential Classroom has offered a one week experience to high school sophomores, juniors and seniors who have no less than a 'B' average. Presidential Classroom offered nine specialized focus weeks, including Communications and Journalism; Science, Technology and Public Policy; Law and Justice in a Democracy; Art & Architecture in Washington; Intelligence & National Security; Global Health & the Environment; and the Future World Leaders Summit. Within each focus, students interacted with stakeholders and completed a group project. They were also eligible to receive college credit through the University of Virginia.
I know that people are very down on politics, and many are calling for change. But no one can determine how a political system can be fixed unless he knows how it works. Programs such as Presidential Classroom give students an early opportunity to see what has worked, in their opinions, as well as what has not. Such programs help students to decide career interests, as well as political affiliations. Not to forget, they reinforce what it means to be an American citizen.
Project Eagle is working to collect proposals to reinvent and sustain Presidential Classroom. Wish them well.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Questions of Collecting Student Data Go Beyond the Academic
As more and more of us use computers to work or to shop, we have become more concerned about identity theft and privacy. Federal education officials have brought forward a new, but similar set of concerns, this time about identity creation.
The Obama Administration and the Department of Education want to follow through on a Bush Administration initiative--that states develop student databases to track and monitor student progress and to learn whether public policies and spending have proven to be effective over time.
I have been involved in data collection efforts, one for a Fortune 500 corporation and another while in the education software business, so I'm qualified to speak on this issue. But first, some terms that will become important.
Data collection of this magnitude involves raw data, individual records of people. Those who plan to study people must decide who they want to study. In the case of a policy such as No Child Left Behind, academics and policy makers might, for example, want the records of every student in a grade level who took a mandated test. They might want to know test scores and grades.
Politicians are quite unlikely to see raw data,; they are likely to see aggregate data, the sum totals. For example, they would know the total number of people who passed or failed a test, and the percentages.
But the challenge is not to collect raw data or report aggregate data--state governments and school systems already do this, so do testing companies.
The challenge is to manage longitudinal studies--how does a group of students fare over time when they are under the direction of a public school system or under a government funded program?
It's safe to say that such initiatives as charter schools will be with us for some time. However, charter schools are fairly new--the first charter school law passed in Minnesota in 1991. Other programs such Florida's voucher system are newer still. If a researcher wants to know if charter schools or vouchers work, he will track a population that begins their schooling at a very young age and follow them, quite possibly, through college or career.
The problem is that longitudinal studies can only be conducted with students who spend their pre-college lives in one place, or maybe, with those who continue into publicly supported colleges. Students who live within poorer communities, or very transitory ones (military or corporate families), are likely to move away. A state or school system cannot keep tabs on the people they lose. They can only say they lost them.
Next, if you collect student data at any early age, you need to assign each student a unique ID number. If you wanted to follow those students from school to work, it would be sensible to make that a Social Security number, too. I didn't have my Social Security card until I was old enough to sign it. Would the country allow the federal government to do this sooner?
This opens some privacy issues. Either a parent would be told to complete a form and turn it in to the federal government, or the federal government would create this record using the parent's information.
Further, educators and politicians need to agree on what must be collected. There are the obvious fields--name, address, test scores, but would they also want to know names of parents or guardian? They may change over time, and that effects policies. I would imagine students from stable families perform better in school than students who are not.
Last, there needs to be agreement on access to information. Parents should be allowed to see information on their own children. Teachers should be allowed to see it for the students they teach, at least in grades K through nine. Principals will likely want to have access for all the students in their school, and the senior administrators will want access to raw data for all students in all schools.
I'm quite concerned about schools that would use this information to place students into classes or to evaluate teachers. When I was in grade school, there were a group of students who were together in the same classes from first grade through eighth grade. The majority turned out to be among the best students in the high school. The teachers who got those students had an advantage, in terms of test scores, over the teachers who did not.
If today's schools follow this practice,it is foolish to evaluate teachers based on test scores. It stacks the deck against the teachers who do not have the good students.
The Obama Administration and the Department of Education want to follow through on a Bush Administration initiative--that states develop student databases to track and monitor student progress and to learn whether public policies and spending have proven to be effective over time.
I have been involved in data collection efforts, one for a Fortune 500 corporation and another while in the education software business, so I'm qualified to speak on this issue. But first, some terms that will become important.
Data collection of this magnitude involves raw data, individual records of people. Those who plan to study people must decide who they want to study. In the case of a policy such as No Child Left Behind, academics and policy makers might, for example, want the records of every student in a grade level who took a mandated test. They might want to know test scores and grades.
Politicians are quite unlikely to see raw data,; they are likely to see aggregate data, the sum totals. For example, they would know the total number of people who passed or failed a test, and the percentages.
But the challenge is not to collect raw data or report aggregate data--state governments and school systems already do this, so do testing companies.
The challenge is to manage longitudinal studies--how does a group of students fare over time when they are under the direction of a public school system or under a government funded program?
It's safe to say that such initiatives as charter schools will be with us for some time. However, charter schools are fairly new--the first charter school law passed in Minnesota in 1991. Other programs such Florida's voucher system are newer still. If a researcher wants to know if charter schools or vouchers work, he will track a population that begins their schooling at a very young age and follow them, quite possibly, through college or career.
The problem is that longitudinal studies can only be conducted with students who spend their pre-college lives in one place, or maybe, with those who continue into publicly supported colleges. Students who live within poorer communities, or very transitory ones (military or corporate families), are likely to move away. A state or school system cannot keep tabs on the people they lose. They can only say they lost them.
Next, if you collect student data at any early age, you need to assign each student a unique ID number. If you wanted to follow those students from school to work, it would be sensible to make that a Social Security number, too. I didn't have my Social Security card until I was old enough to sign it. Would the country allow the federal government to do this sooner?
This opens some privacy issues. Either a parent would be told to complete a form and turn it in to the federal government, or the federal government would create this record using the parent's information.
Further, educators and politicians need to agree on what must be collected. There are the obvious fields--name, address, test scores, but would they also want to know names of parents or guardian? They may change over time, and that effects policies. I would imagine students from stable families perform better in school than students who are not.
Last, there needs to be agreement on access to information. Parents should be allowed to see information on their own children. Teachers should be allowed to see it for the students they teach, at least in grades K through nine. Principals will likely want to have access for all the students in their school, and the senior administrators will want access to raw data for all students in all schools.
I'm quite concerned about schools that would use this information to place students into classes or to evaluate teachers. When I was in grade school, there were a group of students who were together in the same classes from first grade through eighth grade. The majority turned out to be among the best students in the high school. The teachers who got those students had an advantage, in terms of test scores, over the teachers who did not.
If today's schools follow this practice,it is foolish to evaluate teachers based on test scores. It stacks the deck against the teachers who do not have the good students.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Dear Organizing for America: Send Me a Memo
Last week, I received two e-mails from Organizing for America, formerly Obama for America. Their leadership sought one million hours of volunteer time for the battle for health care reform. Over the weekend, I was told, by e-mail, that they had gotten a commitment of four million hours. So they have decided to try for five million.
I voted for President Obama, and I agreed with more of his positions than I opposed. I also believe that Obama for America was the best organized presidential campaign in my lifetime. The leadership earned the victory.
However, I have some problems with the latest round of e-mails. I have some suggestions. If Organizing for America leaders are reading this, I hope they credit a couple more hours to their five million hour goal.
My biggest issue is that I am asked to support "health care reform," without suffient information on what it is. Is it the Senate bill, which looks like a loser, or something new? If President Obama's electoral apparatus proved capable of telling people to vote for Barack Obama, why can't it tell the faithful what to support?
Between Election Day, 2008 and Inauguration Day, 2009, Obama for America did an excellent job of information sharing during the presidential transition period. Voters were asked to contribute ideas. They were also invited to offer their talents. Their Web site was exceptionally open. They had no problem soliciting ideas.
I would like to see Organizing for America distill the President's, or the Democrat's, health care reform proposals to a memo no more than two pages, 12 point--the size in a letter--and double-spaced. If they can't do that, then how will they use those five million hours to best advantage?
The business classic, In Search of Excellence, mentions that Proctor and Gamble has been a successful company, in part because it asked marketing managers to master the art of the memo. If Proctor and Gamble can make multi-billion dollar wagers on new products based on a short memo, then why can't a presidential administration do the same? Voters resent confusion. They want crystal-clear information, even if they don't support a president's proposals.
If Organizing for America can successfully craft a two-page memo on health care reform, its messengers should be able to do the same on any other subject. Since the president campaigned on the belief in transparency, would it possible to go a step further? Demand that every bill be summarized, again no more than two pages, double-spaced, before it is assigned to committee and post the summary to the public.
If a bill cannot be summarized in two pages or less it is too complex to be supported, opposed or debated. If Organizing for America needs my help to craft these short messages, I'm interested. But I won't do it for free.
I voted for President Obama, and I agreed with more of his positions than I opposed. I also believe that Obama for America was the best organized presidential campaign in my lifetime. The leadership earned the victory.
However, I have some problems with the latest round of e-mails. I have some suggestions. If Organizing for America leaders are reading this, I hope they credit a couple more hours to their five million hour goal.
My biggest issue is that I am asked to support "health care reform," without suffient information on what it is. Is it the Senate bill, which looks like a loser, or something new? If President Obama's electoral apparatus proved capable of telling people to vote for Barack Obama, why can't it tell the faithful what to support?
Between Election Day, 2008 and Inauguration Day, 2009, Obama for America did an excellent job of information sharing during the presidential transition period. Voters were asked to contribute ideas. They were also invited to offer their talents. Their Web site was exceptionally open. They had no problem soliciting ideas.
I would like to see Organizing for America distill the President's, or the Democrat's, health care reform proposals to a memo no more than two pages, 12 point--the size in a letter--and double-spaced. If they can't do that, then how will they use those five million hours to best advantage?
The business classic, In Search of Excellence, mentions that Proctor and Gamble has been a successful company, in part because it asked marketing managers to master the art of the memo. If Proctor and Gamble can make multi-billion dollar wagers on new products based on a short memo, then why can't a presidential administration do the same? Voters resent confusion. They want crystal-clear information, even if they don't support a president's proposals.
If Organizing for America can successfully craft a two-page memo on health care reform, its messengers should be able to do the same on any other subject. Since the president campaigned on the belief in transparency, would it possible to go a step further? Demand that every bill be summarized, again no more than two pages, double-spaced, before it is assigned to committee and post the summary to the public.
If a bill cannot be summarized in two pages or less it is too complex to be supported, opposed or debated. If Organizing for America needs my help to craft these short messages, I'm interested. But I won't do it for free.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
A More Important Lincoln Anniversary Comes Up in About Two Weeks
Tomorrow, February 12, is the true Lincoln's Birthday. But this year February 27 may be a more significant anniversary in the life of our 16th President. February 27 is the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's address at New York's Cooper Union which set him on his quest for his first term as President.
There are interesting similarities between the campaigns of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and Barack Obama in 2008. Both ran for the presidency as citizens of Illinois, though they were born in other states, and both began their journey towards the office from the state capital in Springfield. But the similarities run deeper.
Like Obama, Lincoln's chief rival for his party's nomination was a Senator from New York. In 1860, Lincoln's rival was William E. Seward, who according to Lincoln Prize winner Harold Holzer, was also considered the front runner. Nearly a century later, Obama entered a primary race where New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was considered a lock. After Lincoln was elected President, he appointed Seward Secretary of State. Obama appointed Clinton to the very same position.
Similarities go further when it comes to landmark addresses. Quite possibly, Obama's defining speech was his address about race. Lincoln's address at Cooper Union was about slavery--the issue of slavery could not separated from the issue of race--and the power of Congress to end it.
In his address on February 27, 1860, Lincoln, a Republican, challenged the conservatives of the day. He stated that 21 of the original 39 signees to the Constitution, a majority, believed that Congress should control slavery in the territories, not allow it to expand, and that 16 of the remaining 18 signees had no stated position at all.
Lincoln was considered as much of a Constitutional scholar as one might have found in 1860. President Obama, like President Lincoln, is also a Constitutional scholar and a lawyer. And both presidents attempted to be a unifier through their speeches.
For example, in his Cooper Union address Lincoln stated:
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"
To be sure, what the robber demanded of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.
Although we hear rumblings about secession, they are far from the noises that rang out in Lincoln's day. We read of governors who refuse stimulus money because they do not wish to be "controlled by Washington." The country, thankfully, remains as one.
There are interesting similarities between the campaigns of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and Barack Obama in 2008. Both ran for the presidency as citizens of Illinois, though they were born in other states, and both began their journey towards the office from the state capital in Springfield. But the similarities run deeper.
Like Obama, Lincoln's chief rival for his party's nomination was a Senator from New York. In 1860, Lincoln's rival was William E. Seward, who according to Lincoln Prize winner Harold Holzer, was also considered the front runner. Nearly a century later, Obama entered a primary race where New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was considered a lock. After Lincoln was elected President, he appointed Seward Secretary of State. Obama appointed Clinton to the very same position.
Similarities go further when it comes to landmark addresses. Quite possibly, Obama's defining speech was his address about race. Lincoln's address at Cooper Union was about slavery--the issue of slavery could not separated from the issue of race--and the power of Congress to end it.
In his address on February 27, 1860, Lincoln, a Republican, challenged the conservatives of the day. He stated that 21 of the original 39 signees to the Constitution, a majority, believed that Congress should control slavery in the territories, not allow it to expand, and that 16 of the remaining 18 signees had no stated position at all.
Lincoln was considered as much of a Constitutional scholar as one might have found in 1860. President Obama, like President Lincoln, is also a Constitutional scholar and a lawyer. And both presidents attempted to be a unifier through their speeches.
For example, in his Cooper Union address Lincoln stated:
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"
To be sure, what the robber demanded of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.
Although we hear rumblings about secession, they are far from the noises that rang out in Lincoln's day. We read of governors who refuse stimulus money because they do not wish to be "controlled by Washington." The country, thankfully, remains as one.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
College Could Be Less Expensive if Colleges Didn't Help Students Slide By
This afternoon, as New Jersey gets hit with its second round of wintry mix for the day, I read a fun column by Kevin Carey, policy director at Education Sector, a non-profit and non-partisan think tank based in Washington D.C. I have cited Carey's columns before, and I've actually met him twice, but his latest was more enjoyment than policy analysis.
This column was called How I Aced College—and Why I Now Regret It. The comments were equally interesting as well.
Carey, like me, was a political science major at an excellent public university. I went to Rutgers while he went to SUNY-Binghamton. However, unlike me, he began college with more than a semester's worth of advanced placement credits, all by earning a grade of '3' or better on an exam. The '3' grade is considered to be equal to a 'C' in a college course. Not all colleges give credit for the '3' grade, though advanced standing for the next course is not impossible to achieve.
Carey is a little younger than I am, but I knew high school classmates who went in a different direction when it came to calculus. Instead of taking the AP test or advanced standing in college, they took calculus again. It was essentially a "gut" for the more "mathletic" students; they were taking a high school course all over again. That is one way college students think strategically about course selection. Carey pointed out many others in his column.
Carey mentions examples of his personal strategic thinking. During his undergraduate education at SUNY-Binghampton, he earned course credit for lifesaving--useful for immediate summer employment--and basketball. He also shopped for a science course that he could easily take pass-fail, and pass with little effort.
If you were an undergraduate liberal arts major like Carey or me, raise your hand if you did similar things. Something tells me that a few readers will be typing with one hand for a few seconds.
I will admit, when it came to preparing a schedule, I shopped courses a few times. I had no choice about some classes; there were requirements in poli sci and urban planning that I had to complete, and some of those classes were given only once a year. I also had intro courses, such as micro and macro economics,geography--which turned out to be more interesting that I expected--and sociology, which were imposed by my school.
I always tried to find the one class that would be interesting and give me a welcome break from the required courses. I also had an English minor. Rutgers has an excellent English department, but their best courses are also their hardest. I saved Modern Drama for the last semester of my senior year. I was far from the only one who planned their schedule this way.
While Carey got a bump in his undergraduate education, I got my bump in grad school. I went to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for my master's in urban planning. I chose Illinois because it has a long history with the profession, received a tuition and fee waiver, and wanted to go to a school with a big-time football team. Illinois played in the Liberty Bowl during my first year in grad school and won the Big Ten title during my last semester, so I got what I wished for.
I also got an unexpected benefit--advanced standing and credit. During my junior and senior years at Rutgers, I took upper-level undergraduate poli sci and urban planning courses that also had a graduate course number. I showed the syllabuses from these courses to graduate faculty--they didn't ask me for my grade--and received a semester's worth of graduate credits! I could leave school a semester early and take a shot at the job market!
Carey's personal story, and mine, are not unusual. Neither he nor I studied business, education or engineering, where the path is very well structured, and the opportunities to shop courses are more limited. Had I been, for instance, an accounting major, I might not be writing this piece.
Carey wrote his piece not to state his undergraduate resume, but to explain how even a fairly selective school can make it easy for students to graduate without learning very much. As a professional, he says that colleges could ask for more effort from their students, provided the students receive better teaching in return.
These are valid points, and they make me wonder: how much latitude should the faculty have in adding and closing courses?
If school officials are so concerned about academic reputation and grade inflation, and must make budget cuts, why not target the so-called gut courses that offer a student no employable skills or intellectual credibility with a graduate or professional school?
Wouldn't it be better to offer more sections of required courses in the more subscribed majors? At least that way you would have introductory courses that demanded more than a high score on a multiple choice test.
There is no reason colleges should offer course credit in basketball or for playing an intercollegiate sport. Nor should they offer credit for such subjects as Figure Drawing or Theater Appreciation. True, these courses are popular and heavily subscribed, but they have their costs, including the student's time and money.
Carey does not directly say, but he alludes to a point: there is no clear definition of quality when it comes to a college-level course. Is, for example, the best course in college-level Economics or English Literature taught by a) a high school teacher b) a master's degree graduate at a community college, c)a newly-minted doctorate, or d)a tenured scholar? When a college allows credit or advanced standing for the high school teacher's class, it validates that the high school teacher is as good a teacher as the distinguished scholar.
If that's the case, maybe we should continue to question two old chestnuts: the senior year in high school and the time and credits required to earn an undergraduate degree.
If students can earn credits or advanced standing so easily, then why force them to stick around high school or college for full four years? Let them save a little money and get an earlier start on their working life. Colleges can also save face, and money, by cutting down on gut courses that allow students to slide by.
This column was called How I Aced College—and Why I Now Regret It. The comments were equally interesting as well.
Carey, like me, was a political science major at an excellent public university. I went to Rutgers while he went to SUNY-Binghamton. However, unlike me, he began college with more than a semester's worth of advanced placement credits, all by earning a grade of '3' or better on an exam. The '3' grade is considered to be equal to a 'C' in a college course. Not all colleges give credit for the '3' grade, though advanced standing for the next course is not impossible to achieve.
Carey is a little younger than I am, but I knew high school classmates who went in a different direction when it came to calculus. Instead of taking the AP test or advanced standing in college, they took calculus again. It was essentially a "gut" for the more "mathletic" students; they were taking a high school course all over again. That is one way college students think strategically about course selection. Carey pointed out many others in his column.
Carey mentions examples of his personal strategic thinking. During his undergraduate education at SUNY-Binghampton, he earned course credit for lifesaving--useful for immediate summer employment--and basketball. He also shopped for a science course that he could easily take pass-fail, and pass with little effort.
If you were an undergraduate liberal arts major like Carey or me, raise your hand if you did similar things. Something tells me that a few readers will be typing with one hand for a few seconds.
I will admit, when it came to preparing a schedule, I shopped courses a few times. I had no choice about some classes; there were requirements in poli sci and urban planning that I had to complete, and some of those classes were given only once a year. I also had intro courses, such as micro and macro economics,geography--which turned out to be more interesting that I expected--and sociology, which were imposed by my school.
I always tried to find the one class that would be interesting and give me a welcome break from the required courses. I also had an English minor. Rutgers has an excellent English department, but their best courses are also their hardest. I saved Modern Drama for the last semester of my senior year. I was far from the only one who planned their schedule this way.
While Carey got a bump in his undergraduate education, I got my bump in grad school. I went to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for my master's in urban planning. I chose Illinois because it has a long history with the profession, received a tuition and fee waiver, and wanted to go to a school with a big-time football team. Illinois played in the Liberty Bowl during my first year in grad school and won the Big Ten title during my last semester, so I got what I wished for.
I also got an unexpected benefit--advanced standing and credit. During my junior and senior years at Rutgers, I took upper-level undergraduate poli sci and urban planning courses that also had a graduate course number. I showed the syllabuses from these courses to graduate faculty--they didn't ask me for my grade--and received a semester's worth of graduate credits! I could leave school a semester early and take a shot at the job market!
Carey's personal story, and mine, are not unusual. Neither he nor I studied business, education or engineering, where the path is very well structured, and the opportunities to shop courses are more limited. Had I been, for instance, an accounting major, I might not be writing this piece.
Carey wrote his piece not to state his undergraduate resume, but to explain how even a fairly selective school can make it easy for students to graduate without learning very much. As a professional, he says that colleges could ask for more effort from their students, provided the students receive better teaching in return.
These are valid points, and they make me wonder: how much latitude should the faculty have in adding and closing courses?
If school officials are so concerned about academic reputation and grade inflation, and must make budget cuts, why not target the so-called gut courses that offer a student no employable skills or intellectual credibility with a graduate or professional school?
Wouldn't it be better to offer more sections of required courses in the more subscribed majors? At least that way you would have introductory courses that demanded more than a high score on a multiple choice test.
There is no reason colleges should offer course credit in basketball or for playing an intercollegiate sport. Nor should they offer credit for such subjects as Figure Drawing or Theater Appreciation. True, these courses are popular and heavily subscribed, but they have their costs, including the student's time and money.
Carey does not directly say, but he alludes to a point: there is no clear definition of quality when it comes to a college-level course. Is, for example, the best course in college-level Economics or English Literature taught by a) a high school teacher b) a master's degree graduate at a community college, c)a newly-minted doctorate, or d)a tenured scholar? When a college allows credit or advanced standing for the high school teacher's class, it validates that the high school teacher is as good a teacher as the distinguished scholar.
If that's the case, maybe we should continue to question two old chestnuts: the senior year in high school and the time and credits required to earn an undergraduate degree.
If students can earn credits or advanced standing so easily, then why force them to stick around high school or college for full four years? Let them save a little money and get an earlier start on their working life. Colleges can also save face, and money, by cutting down on gut courses that allow students to slide by.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Cyberbullying Investigated and Explained
Last week, I received a copy of a recently published book: Teen Cyberbullying Investigated, Where Do Your Rights End and Consequences Begin?
I have some interest in this subject, not only because I write about education-related issues, and have worked with schools on Internet-related issues, but also because I have been trying to gain a better understanding of social networking as I operate and promote my own site. Cyberbullying, as you'll learn from this book, affects not only students, but teachers, school administrators and employers.
Cyberbullying includes harassing e-mails and other person-to-person messages online, hateful comments, password theft, sending threatening messages using a false identity and, building a Web sire to target specific people.
Written by Tom Jacobs, a former Arizona assistant attorney general and Superior Court judge, Teen Cyberbullying Investigated explains the ramifications of teen cyberbullying in a very readable format.
While the Internet is fairly new technology, cyberbullying cases are often based on the outcome of a 1969 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. This resulted in a standard for expressions of free speech in the schools that became known as the Tinker Standard.
In 1965, four Tinker children and a friend decided to express their opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. They were sent home, not to return to school until they removed the armbands. In 1969, their case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled that school officials must tolerate student expression as long as it does not materially or substantially disrupt the educational environment or invade the rights of others to be secure. In 1975, the court affirmed the Tinker decision, saying that the court did not have the right to intervene "absent violations of specific constitutional guarantees."
However, subsequent court decisions have protected the rights of school officials to take action against lewd and offensive comments against students or teachers, the right for them to intervene in the editorial content of school newspapers and the right to censure speech that encourages illegal activity; in 2007 this applied to encouraging drug use through a banner calling for Bong Hits for Jesus. In 2008, Congress passed two acts dealing with cyberbullying: the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act and the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act. Twenty one states have passed their own laws on cyberbullying since 2006.
With respect to cyberspace, issues of free speech may extend off-campus to social networking tools and Web sites. This book mentions several examples including cases of derogatory and misleading information about teachers and students to threats to pull "another Columbine" to tamer incidents such as comments that would appear on student evaluations of teachers at the college level.
The major contention from reading the case examples and the rulings is the level of damage or disruption caused by the activity. In some cases, as you will read, the school district won, and expelled offenders. However, in others, the student won, and school districts were forced to pay the student's legal fees.
I recommend this book to school officials as well as parents who are concerned about their son's or daughter's use of the Internet. Complex legal issues are explained very well, to provide sufficient warning to potential cyberbullies.
Shop Indie Bookstores
I have some interest in this subject, not only because I write about education-related issues, and have worked with schools on Internet-related issues, but also because I have been trying to gain a better understanding of social networking as I operate and promote my own site. Cyberbullying, as you'll learn from this book, affects not only students, but teachers, school administrators and employers.
Cyberbullying includes harassing e-mails and other person-to-person messages online, hateful comments, password theft, sending threatening messages using a false identity and, building a Web sire to target specific people.
Written by Tom Jacobs, a former Arizona assistant attorney general and Superior Court judge, Teen Cyberbullying Investigated explains the ramifications of teen cyberbullying in a very readable format.
While the Internet is fairly new technology, cyberbullying cases are often based on the outcome of a 1969 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. This resulted in a standard for expressions of free speech in the schools that became known as the Tinker Standard.
In 1965, four Tinker children and a friend decided to express their opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. They were sent home, not to return to school until they removed the armbands. In 1969, their case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled that school officials must tolerate student expression as long as it does not materially or substantially disrupt the educational environment or invade the rights of others to be secure. In 1975, the court affirmed the Tinker decision, saying that the court did not have the right to intervene "absent violations of specific constitutional guarantees."
However, subsequent court decisions have protected the rights of school officials to take action against lewd and offensive comments against students or teachers, the right for them to intervene in the editorial content of school newspapers and the right to censure speech that encourages illegal activity; in 2007 this applied to encouraging drug use through a banner calling for Bong Hits for Jesus. In 2008, Congress passed two acts dealing with cyberbullying: the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act and the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act. Twenty one states have passed their own laws on cyberbullying since 2006.
With respect to cyberspace, issues of free speech may extend off-campus to social networking tools and Web sites. This book mentions several examples including cases of derogatory and misleading information about teachers and students to threats to pull "another Columbine" to tamer incidents such as comments that would appear on student evaluations of teachers at the college level.
The major contention from reading the case examples and the rulings is the level of damage or disruption caused by the activity. In some cases, as you will read, the school district won, and expelled offenders. However, in others, the student won, and school districts were forced to pay the student's legal fees.
I recommend this book to school officials as well as parents who are concerned about their son's or daughter's use of the Internet. Complex legal issues are explained very well, to provide sufficient warning to potential cyberbullies.
Shop Indie Bookstores
Monday, February 8, 2010
Tea Party Movement Better Off Thinking Local
I follow politics and I have some sense of 1980's history, so I have to wonder why conservatives across the country are so upset about President Obama's record on several issues.
Obama has delivered on a middle class tax cut and increased defense spending, and he has followed through on education policies including greater accountability, charter schools and school choice, all foundations of conservative public policy.
Obama has been inaccurately labeled as a "socialist" in part of introducing a large economic stimulus bill that included numerous programs for jobs and infrastructure. However, Ronald Reagan also signed an infrastructure bill, the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, early in his presidency.
While known to conservatives as a tax-cutter, Reagan signed a bill that increased the federal portion of the gas tax by a nickel; at the time, the increase was the first in twenty three years. Obama did not propose a gas tax increase to fund his stimulus package.
Reagan also signed a jobs program into law early in his first term: The Job Training and Partnership Act of 1982. The Act proposed a series of public-private employment partnerships to help employ disadvantaged workers and re-employ the unemployed. Obama has proposed public-private employment partnerships in his most recent State of the Union address.
These contrasts between Reagan's early accomplishments and Obama's are more interesting as I read about the Tea Party movement that is growing across the country. I watched Sarah Palin's speech this weekend, but I am still confused by this movement's intentions.
Is this a movement that might help conservatives who cannot attract establishment Republicans to fund their campaigns, or is it something entirely different? I hope it's the latter. Calling a president a socialist is a ticket to nowhere, and putting considerable energy towards a Palin presidential campaign would be a losing cause.
The way I understand the Tea Party movement, it has no national center. There are numerous state groups that promote conservative principles such as individual freedom, limited government and lower taxes. Tea Party groups have worked to elect conservative candidates.
However,Republicans had a more conservative choice over Chris Christie in the New Jersey governor's race and they had a more conservative option over Scott Brown in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate Race. Republican Bob McDonnell became Governor of Virginia in a near landslide, so I doubt the Tea Party movement held much sway in that election.
The Tea Party movement is similar to Obama for America, now Organizing for America, in that it primarily relies on small donations and link-ups through the Internet. But while the Web sites for a couple of the Tea Party organizations I saw, such as Tea Party Patriots and Tea Party Nation, have features similar to Obama for America, their content is less transparent. Odd, for organizations that claim to demand more transparency in government--and Palin hit the transparency issue hard in her speech.
I realize that Tea Partiers have become involved in races because "they are tired of what is going on in Washington." They say they have allegiances to principal over political party. That will lead to some very difficult choices for House and Senate races some states. It would be especially difficult for such a fragmented organizational structure to organize around a presidential candidate.
Do you back the candidate who has run and won on your principals through several elections, or do you try something new, hoping that your candidate will not be "brainwashed" when he or she gets to Washington? Do you throw out, for example, a Blue Dog Democrat like Ben Nelson, who has voted a conservative line and looked out for his state's interests on Medicaid, when his seat comes up in two years?
If I were in the leadership of a movement with no national center, I would concentrate on state and local races to bring conservatives into the levels of government closest to the people. The races are less expensive and the states are where ideas float to the surface. Any governor, whether they are a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative or moderate, runs on their resume of accomplishments if he or she runs ever runs for president, and those accomplishment guide the legislative agenda if the governor makes it to the White House.
The brain trust that elected Ronald Reagan Governor of California operated with the intention that one day their man would be President. It took sixteen years, from Goldwater's defeat through two successful gubernatorial campaigns and the experience of losing in the first presidential run, for Reagan's supporters to put their man in the White House.
It would be smarter for this movement to steal a page from the Reagan playbook and elect governors and state legislators first before leaping deep into congressional or presidential races. The victorious governors and the legislators of the majority party set up the congressional districts and have a say on who becomes their nominees for the House and the U.S. Senate. This is how a "bottom-up" movement, which the Tea Party folks consider themselves to be, works in practice.
And one last thing. An organization that charges $349 a plate for dinner--the full convention was the better value at $549--is not necessarily populist. They are elites who have no ties to a political party. But they are elites nonetheless.
Obama has delivered on a middle class tax cut and increased defense spending, and he has followed through on education policies including greater accountability, charter schools and school choice, all foundations of conservative public policy.
Obama has been inaccurately labeled as a "socialist" in part of introducing a large economic stimulus bill that included numerous programs for jobs and infrastructure. However, Ronald Reagan also signed an infrastructure bill, the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, early in his presidency.
While known to conservatives as a tax-cutter, Reagan signed a bill that increased the federal portion of the gas tax by a nickel; at the time, the increase was the first in twenty three years. Obama did not propose a gas tax increase to fund his stimulus package.
Reagan also signed a jobs program into law early in his first term: The Job Training and Partnership Act of 1982. The Act proposed a series of public-private employment partnerships to help employ disadvantaged workers and re-employ the unemployed. Obama has proposed public-private employment partnerships in his most recent State of the Union address.
These contrasts between Reagan's early accomplishments and Obama's are more interesting as I read about the Tea Party movement that is growing across the country. I watched Sarah Palin's speech this weekend, but I am still confused by this movement's intentions.
Is this a movement that might help conservatives who cannot attract establishment Republicans to fund their campaigns, or is it something entirely different? I hope it's the latter. Calling a president a socialist is a ticket to nowhere, and putting considerable energy towards a Palin presidential campaign would be a losing cause.
The way I understand the Tea Party movement, it has no national center. There are numerous state groups that promote conservative principles such as individual freedom, limited government and lower taxes. Tea Party groups have worked to elect conservative candidates.
However,Republicans had a more conservative choice over Chris Christie in the New Jersey governor's race and they had a more conservative option over Scott Brown in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate Race. Republican Bob McDonnell became Governor of Virginia in a near landslide, so I doubt the Tea Party movement held much sway in that election.
The Tea Party movement is similar to Obama for America, now Organizing for America, in that it primarily relies on small donations and link-ups through the Internet. But while the Web sites for a couple of the Tea Party organizations I saw, such as Tea Party Patriots and Tea Party Nation, have features similar to Obama for America, their content is less transparent. Odd, for organizations that claim to demand more transparency in government--and Palin hit the transparency issue hard in her speech.
I realize that Tea Partiers have become involved in races because "they are tired of what is going on in Washington." They say they have allegiances to principal over political party. That will lead to some very difficult choices for House and Senate races some states. It would be especially difficult for such a fragmented organizational structure to organize around a presidential candidate.
Do you back the candidate who has run and won on your principals through several elections, or do you try something new, hoping that your candidate will not be "brainwashed" when he or she gets to Washington? Do you throw out, for example, a Blue Dog Democrat like Ben Nelson, who has voted a conservative line and looked out for his state's interests on Medicaid, when his seat comes up in two years?
If I were in the leadership of a movement with no national center, I would concentrate on state and local races to bring conservatives into the levels of government closest to the people. The races are less expensive and the states are where ideas float to the surface. Any governor, whether they are a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative or moderate, runs on their resume of accomplishments if he or she runs ever runs for president, and those accomplishment guide the legislative agenda if the governor makes it to the White House.
The brain trust that elected Ronald Reagan Governor of California operated with the intention that one day their man would be President. It took sixteen years, from Goldwater's defeat through two successful gubernatorial campaigns and the experience of losing in the first presidential run, for Reagan's supporters to put their man in the White House.
It would be smarter for this movement to steal a page from the Reagan playbook and elect governors and state legislators first before leaping deep into congressional or presidential races. The victorious governors and the legislators of the majority party set up the congressional districts and have a say on who becomes their nominees for the House and the U.S. Senate. This is how a "bottom-up" movement, which the Tea Party folks consider themselves to be, works in practice.
And one last thing. An organization that charges $349 a plate for dinner--the full convention was the better value at $549--is not necessarily populist. They are elites who have no ties to a political party. But they are elites nonetheless.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
In Building College Football Teams The Stars Are Not Enough
At the beginning of the movie 2010: Odyssey Two, astronaut David Bowman ventures out into a monolith in space. The last words Mission Control hears from the intrepid man are "Oh my god, it's full of stars."
He could have just as easily been talking about the football recruiting class at the University of Florida, or Texas or Alabama.
Last night, I went to Rutgers' version of National Signing Day. New Jersey's state university is still relatively new to this event, but it's a very nice program. Free pasta fills your appetite, the prospect of three big and tall offensive linemen to protect your sophomore quarterback soothes the football appetite. Rutgers didn't get a five-star recruit, but, based on past classes, some very good players will emerge from the class of 2010.
Curious to see how much stars matter, I went to Scout.com to look at past Rutgers recruiting classes.
In 2002, Rutgers got one five-star player, among the best of the best. He didn't stick around to graduate. However, Brian Leonard, then a three-star player, is beloved on campus. He won the Draddy Award, considered the Academic Heisman, he and was a second-round pick in the 2007 NFL Draft. Clark Harris, a two-star, became a NFL prospect, too. He and Leonard are teammates on the Cincinnati Bengals. Rutgers got a starting quarterback from this class, Ryan Hart; he took the Scarlet Knights to the first of five straight bowl games. He was a three star prospect. There were three four-stars in this class who did nothing of note.
The next season, 2003, Rutgers recruited seven two-star players who became starters. Two: Eric Foster and Derick Roberson, play in the NFL. Foster will play for a Super Bowl ring as a member of the Indianapolis Colts.
Two one-stars in the Class of 2004 became starters. One tried out the Kansas City Chiefs. The lone four-star, Jeremy Zuttah, became a third-round pick of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Place kicker Jeremy Ito came this season, he was a three-star, and the hero of Rutgers most important games in 2006 and 2007. Quarterback Mike Teel, a four-year starter was a three star, too. Today, he is with the Seattle Seahawks.
Ray Rice was part of the Class of 2005. He was a three-star. Now, he's a NFL all star. Jason McCourty, a two-star, started this season for the Tennessee Titans. One one-star player and eight two-stars became starters. One, Darnell Stapleton, earned a Super Bowl ring last season with the Pittsburgh Steelers while another, Tiquan Underwood, plays in Jacksonville. There were no four-star or five-star players in this class.
In 2006, Rutgers went 11-2. Starting wide receiver, Kenny Britt, a freshman was a three-star. So was Ryan D'Imperio, later to become an all-conference linebacker. Two three-stars, Antonio Lowery and Zaire Kitchen, started last season. Four two-stars become starters, too. There were no four-star or five-star players in this class. But Britt, the three-star from Jersey, became Rutgers' first-ever first-round NFL draft pick.
The season after, 2007, Rutgers hit on a five-star player. Left tackle Anthony Davis started for three seasons. He is expected to go in the top half of the first round of the NFL draft. One four-star linebacker, Antonio Lowery, starts, too. However, a two-star running back, Joe Martinek, starts ahead of three-star and four-star recruits from his class. In terms of "star power," this has probably been the best recruiting class in Rutgers history.
The later classes have produced some very good players but only one, Art Forst, an offensive lineman, was a four-star prospect. Forst starts and so does Tom Savage, Rutgers' current quarterback, and Mohemed Sanu, wide receiver and Wildcat specialist. Savage and Sanu were three-star prospects.
Rutgers class of 2010 ranks 48th in the country. The ranking is based on the numbers of stars earned by the recruits for past performance as well as player rankings at each position. This is a bit like ranking colleges based on the students in their freshman class. It's a little silly. Most of these students are not on campus.
Rutgers has won 43 games, and four consecutive bowl games, over the past five seasons. It seems like they have gotten a lot out of their recruiting classes, no matter how many stars they had in high school.
More fascinating, however, is the success of Boise State, which has won 58 games over the same period, including two undefeated seasons and a Fiesta Bowl win over perennial power Oklahoma. From a distance, I would have wondered if Boise State had banner recruiting years; the Broncos have been so good.
Yet, according to Scout.com, no Boise State recruiting class has ranked higher than 57th since 2002. In fact,no Boise State recruiting class has ranked higher than the Rutgers recruiting class in each of the past nine seasons.
I have nothing but respect for Rutgers coach Greg Schiano and what he has done for the school. But I had to wonder how the Boise State staff under Chris Peterson would have fared with Rutgers players and their schedule.
Would a different approach take the Scarlet Knights to undefeated seasons and January bowl games? Our only common opponent over the past five years has been Fresno State. Rutgers lost to them at home 24-7 in 2008 while Boise State has beaten them in each of the past four seasons.
I wondered about this because I believe coaching matters most, not the pre-college resumes of the players. A roster full of four and five star players does not assure a national championship. It does not even assure the fans that the highest ranked players will ever see the field.
He could have just as easily been talking about the football recruiting class at the University of Florida, or Texas or Alabama.
Last night, I went to Rutgers' version of National Signing Day. New Jersey's state university is still relatively new to this event, but it's a very nice program. Free pasta fills your appetite, the prospect of three big and tall offensive linemen to protect your sophomore quarterback soothes the football appetite. Rutgers didn't get a five-star recruit, but, based on past classes, some very good players will emerge from the class of 2010.
Curious to see how much stars matter, I went to Scout.com to look at past Rutgers recruiting classes.
In 2002, Rutgers got one five-star player, among the best of the best. He didn't stick around to graduate. However, Brian Leonard, then a three-star player, is beloved on campus. He won the Draddy Award, considered the Academic Heisman, he and was a second-round pick in the 2007 NFL Draft. Clark Harris, a two-star, became a NFL prospect, too. He and Leonard are teammates on the Cincinnati Bengals. Rutgers got a starting quarterback from this class, Ryan Hart; he took the Scarlet Knights to the first of five straight bowl games. He was a three star prospect. There were three four-stars in this class who did nothing of note.
The next season, 2003, Rutgers recruited seven two-star players who became starters. Two: Eric Foster and Derick Roberson, play in the NFL. Foster will play for a Super Bowl ring as a member of the Indianapolis Colts.
Two one-stars in the Class of 2004 became starters. One tried out the Kansas City Chiefs. The lone four-star, Jeremy Zuttah, became a third-round pick of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Place kicker Jeremy Ito came this season, he was a three-star, and the hero of Rutgers most important games in 2006 and 2007. Quarterback Mike Teel, a four-year starter was a three star, too. Today, he is with the Seattle Seahawks.
Ray Rice was part of the Class of 2005. He was a three-star. Now, he's a NFL all star. Jason McCourty, a two-star, started this season for the Tennessee Titans. One one-star player and eight two-stars became starters. One, Darnell Stapleton, earned a Super Bowl ring last season with the Pittsburgh Steelers while another, Tiquan Underwood, plays in Jacksonville. There were no four-star or five-star players in this class.
In 2006, Rutgers went 11-2. Starting wide receiver, Kenny Britt, a freshman was a three-star. So was Ryan D'Imperio, later to become an all-conference linebacker. Two three-stars, Antonio Lowery and Zaire Kitchen, started last season. Four two-stars become starters, too. There were no four-star or five-star players in this class. But Britt, the three-star from Jersey, became Rutgers' first-ever first-round NFL draft pick.
The season after, 2007, Rutgers hit on a five-star player. Left tackle Anthony Davis started for three seasons. He is expected to go in the top half of the first round of the NFL draft. One four-star linebacker, Antonio Lowery, starts, too. However, a two-star running back, Joe Martinek, starts ahead of three-star and four-star recruits from his class. In terms of "star power," this has probably been the best recruiting class in Rutgers history.
The later classes have produced some very good players but only one, Art Forst, an offensive lineman, was a four-star prospect. Forst starts and so does Tom Savage, Rutgers' current quarterback, and Mohemed Sanu, wide receiver and Wildcat specialist. Savage and Sanu were three-star prospects.
Rutgers class of 2010 ranks 48th in the country. The ranking is based on the numbers of stars earned by the recruits for past performance as well as player rankings at each position. This is a bit like ranking colleges based on the students in their freshman class. It's a little silly. Most of these students are not on campus.
Rutgers has won 43 games, and four consecutive bowl games, over the past five seasons. It seems like they have gotten a lot out of their recruiting classes, no matter how many stars they had in high school.
More fascinating, however, is the success of Boise State, which has won 58 games over the same period, including two undefeated seasons and a Fiesta Bowl win over perennial power Oklahoma. From a distance, I would have wondered if Boise State had banner recruiting years; the Broncos have been so good.
Yet, according to Scout.com, no Boise State recruiting class has ranked higher than 57th since 2002. In fact,no Boise State recruiting class has ranked higher than the Rutgers recruiting class in each of the past nine seasons.
I have nothing but respect for Rutgers coach Greg Schiano and what he has done for the school. But I had to wonder how the Boise State staff under Chris Peterson would have fared with Rutgers players and their schedule.
Would a different approach take the Scarlet Knights to undefeated seasons and January bowl games? Our only common opponent over the past five years has been Fresno State. Rutgers lost to them at home 24-7 in 2008 while Boise State has beaten them in each of the past four seasons.
I wondered about this because I believe coaching matters most, not the pre-college resumes of the players. A roster full of four and five star players does not assure a national championship. It does not even assure the fans that the highest ranked players will ever see the field.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Yale the Musical
My niece, Nicole, is eleven, and she is a big fan of High School Musical. I confess that, thanks to her, I've seen it more than once, but I have yet to watch the sequel. Coincidentally, Nicole and her family live in Connecticut, so I'd tell them to watch this Yale YouTube clip when she gets older and closer to her college decision. On the other hand, while Yale is close to home, I wonder if her parents might kill me.
This video, That's Why I Chose Yale, has a cast of more than 100 Yale students--plus NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who has a daughter at Yale, in a cameo role. It was produced for approximately ten percent of the costs of a professional admissions video. No matter; the high definition production has had nearly 345,000 views on YouTube as of today. Imagine how many could turn into applications for admission.
In little more than fifteen minutes, about the time it would take to read a glossy admissions brochure, you get a great picture of Yale--liberal arts with a catalog as thick as a large state school, four-year residential college life (probably not for everybody), collegiality and tradition. Yale is also strong in music and drama, and that comes out as well. Weak points, such as Ivy League sports (a reason more athletically inclined might choose Duke or Stanford),the quality of life in New Haven (the least attractive city in the Ivy League)and the lack for internship-for-credit opportunities are excluded.
If I could get into Yale, would I be swayed to go after watching the video? Probably yes. I'd have a good sense of how I would get along at the school. I would also be impressed that more than a hundred students and alumni thought enough of the school to make the time to participate in their advertising. They are the best salespeople, and they knew what was important when they had to choose a college. Better they made the video and spared the admissions office from guessing and relying on surveys.
I imagine Yale's idea will be copied by many schools and spoofed by Harvard. No doubt, content and quality will vary. But if your school has the spirit to sell then why not?
This video, That's Why I Chose Yale, has a cast of more than 100 Yale students--plus NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who has a daughter at Yale, in a cameo role. It was produced for approximately ten percent of the costs of a professional admissions video. No matter; the high definition production has had nearly 345,000 views on YouTube as of today. Imagine how many could turn into applications for admission.
In little more than fifteen minutes, about the time it would take to read a glossy admissions brochure, you get a great picture of Yale--liberal arts with a catalog as thick as a large state school, four-year residential college life (probably not for everybody), collegiality and tradition. Yale is also strong in music and drama, and that comes out as well. Weak points, such as Ivy League sports (a reason more athletically inclined might choose Duke or Stanford),the quality of life in New Haven (the least attractive city in the Ivy League)and the lack for internship-for-credit opportunities are excluded.
If I could get into Yale, would I be swayed to go after watching the video? Probably yes. I'd have a good sense of how I would get along at the school. I would also be impressed that more than a hundred students and alumni thought enough of the school to make the time to participate in their advertising. They are the best salespeople, and they knew what was important when they had to choose a college. Better they made the video and spared the admissions office from guessing and relying on surveys.
I imagine Yale's idea will be copied by many schools and spoofed by Harvard. No doubt, content and quality will vary. But if your school has the spirit to sell then why not?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Leave Tim Tebow Alone
Yesterday's USA Today had a feature editorial on former Florida quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his decision to be featured in an upcoming Super Bowl ad produced by the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family. It is not know whether an organization opposed to a pro-life message has planned a counter-ad. As of last week Super Bowl spots were still available.
The ad will supposedly feature testimony by Tebow's mother, Pam, about faith and how it guided her through her son's difficult birth, even after doctors warned of her son's possible disabilities and advised abortion. At the time, Tim's mother and father were Christian missionaries stationed in the Philippines.
I see no reason CBS should not take the money from either side of a culture war. All TV networks take negative political ads from all viewpoints. Why should the Super Bowl be an exception? It is not a holy day.
I don't share Tebow's religious or political views, but too much has been made of an ad that has not been seen. Tebow's college football eligibility expired on New Year's Day and he was on schedule to graduate, so he can make any commercials he wants.
It may also be a mature decision. Tebow is at the height of his visibility as an athlete. He is not expected to start immediately as a pro; he is more likely to be the back-up or third-string quarterback, the man who wears the headset or holds the clipboard. As soon as Tebow becomes known as the understudy, rather than the star, his recognition diminishes dramatically, especially if he plays on a team outside the Sunshine State.
This ad will likely feature little to nothing about Tebow's ability to play football, but it can affect his ability to earn a living in the game. For one thing, NFL teams do not want to alienate their fan bases. A strong, pro-life message might dissuade teams in large, pro-choice cities--San Francisco or Seattle, for example--from drafting him. They do not want negative attention if they can avoid it. It is also possible that fans in large conservative cities might plead for their home team to draft him based on his values and college resume; they would be quite hopeful about his athletic ability.
Or maybe, Tebow does not see football as his ultimate calling. Danny Wuerffel, also a Heisman-winning Florida quarterback with a national championship and impressive college resume, retired from pro football after only six seasons. Wuerffel, who had been a journeyman at best, played for four NFL teams, as well as in NFL Europe. The longer he was a journeyman, the less he became known for his past successes on the field. Tebow's pro prospects, according to various football magazines and Web sites, appear to be no better; like Wuerffel he is intelligent but he is inexperienced in a pro-style offense. He also releases the ball too slowly.
Today, Wuerffel runs Desire Street Ministries in New Orleans, the city where he first played. He has worked to rebuild the church community following Hurricane Katrina. If Tim Tebow has learned from Danny Wuerffel's example, as well as his parents, then no one should jump to condemn him.
The ad will supposedly feature testimony by Tebow's mother, Pam, about faith and how it guided her through her son's difficult birth, even after doctors warned of her son's possible disabilities and advised abortion. At the time, Tim's mother and father were Christian missionaries stationed in the Philippines.
I see no reason CBS should not take the money from either side of a culture war. All TV networks take negative political ads from all viewpoints. Why should the Super Bowl be an exception? It is not a holy day.
I don't share Tebow's religious or political views, but too much has been made of an ad that has not been seen. Tebow's college football eligibility expired on New Year's Day and he was on schedule to graduate, so he can make any commercials he wants.
It may also be a mature decision. Tebow is at the height of his visibility as an athlete. He is not expected to start immediately as a pro; he is more likely to be the back-up or third-string quarterback, the man who wears the headset or holds the clipboard. As soon as Tebow becomes known as the understudy, rather than the star, his recognition diminishes dramatically, especially if he plays on a team outside the Sunshine State.
This ad will likely feature little to nothing about Tebow's ability to play football, but it can affect his ability to earn a living in the game. For one thing, NFL teams do not want to alienate their fan bases. A strong, pro-life message might dissuade teams in large, pro-choice cities--San Francisco or Seattle, for example--from drafting him. They do not want negative attention if they can avoid it. It is also possible that fans in large conservative cities might plead for their home team to draft him based on his values and college resume; they would be quite hopeful about his athletic ability.
Or maybe, Tebow does not see football as his ultimate calling. Danny Wuerffel, also a Heisman-winning Florida quarterback with a national championship and impressive college resume, retired from pro football after only six seasons. Wuerffel, who had been a journeyman at best, played for four NFL teams, as well as in NFL Europe. The longer he was a journeyman, the less he became known for his past successes on the field. Tebow's pro prospects, according to various football magazines and Web sites, appear to be no better; like Wuerffel he is intelligent but he is inexperienced in a pro-style offense. He also releases the ball too slowly.
Today, Wuerffel runs Desire Street Ministries in New Orleans, the city where he first played. He has worked to rebuild the church community following Hurricane Katrina. If Tim Tebow has learned from Danny Wuerffel's example, as well as his parents, then no one should jump to condemn him.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Will Better Teacher Evaluations Make Better Teachers?
Last year, Congress approved approximately $48 billion in stimulus dollars for public schools. In order for states to receive their share of these funds they had to make progress in four areas, according to the non-partisan Center on Education Policy (CEP):
+ Improving teacher effectiveness and addressing inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers; the thought is that teachers need more and better professional development and that better teachers are needed in the neediest schools.
+ Developing and using data systems that track a single student's progress from pre-K through college.
+ Developing and implementing rigorous standards for college and career readiness, including high-quality assessments.
+ Providing targeted support and interventions to turn around poor-performing schools.
Since there is a strong emphasis on numbers, assessments, scores and standards, there is a need to provide a set of numbers by which teachers can be evaluated. Teachers have traditionally been evaluated on how they manage classrooms, not individuals.
It has been taken for granted that disorderly students were expected to perform poorly, but they could be removed from the classroom. Under stricter evaluations based on test scores, it becomes more difficult for teachers to pass their worst students onto someone else--a disciplinarian principal, a remedial instructor, the teacher in the next grade.
I thought about some of the numerical measures that could be used in a teacher evaluation.
+ Student attendance. Good attendance is not necessarily a given in a poor-performing classroom or school. I would also believe that the poorer performing students who like school the least are the least likely to show up for a good teacher or a bad one. The teachers with an extraordinary number of student absences would stand out to a principal or department head.
+ Student scores on standardized tests. This assumes the teacher knows the content of the test in advance. It also assumes that one unit advances to the next, so that students do not forget what they learned earlier in the school year.
+ Student improvement from the beginning of the school year to the end. This assumes the student data system will provide an accurate profile of each student, and that the teacher can manage his time to help the neediest students. But if teachers are laid off, I would guess that class sizes do not get smaller. I would assume larger classes and longer school days. That sounds like a recipe for less individual attention.
+ Failing grades per student. This has always been tracked throughout a school year, but students who fail a test are often passed on to the next lesson. A string of failures hurts the student and the teacher. But I believe that one of the most important things a school can do is catch the failing students early, match them with another teacher, or provide remedial instruction.
+ Parents ratings through comments. If teachers can be evaluated based on their effectiveness with students, the parents who confer with them should have the opportunity to express their satisfaction, too.
If I were a student considering an education major, or a recent graduate in my first teaching job, I would have to ask myself if I could survive an evaluation based on measures such as these. The more measures I'd have to achieve, the more difficult my chances of success. Unless I played to the measures important to my department head and principal. That's the point of evaluations in any job.
If I were a parent who was concerned about my son's/daughter's education, I would be curious to know if their teacher did. I might not be so crazy about supporting a raise for every teacher--most voters would feel the same way in hard times. However, I'd have no problem saying that my child's teacher deserved one if she earned it. And I'd hope that my voice, combined with the voices of other parents, counted for something.
+ Improving teacher effectiveness and addressing inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers; the thought is that teachers need more and better professional development and that better teachers are needed in the neediest schools.
+ Developing and using data systems that track a single student's progress from pre-K through college.
+ Developing and implementing rigorous standards for college and career readiness, including high-quality assessments.
+ Providing targeted support and interventions to turn around poor-performing schools.
Since there is a strong emphasis on numbers, assessments, scores and standards, there is a need to provide a set of numbers by which teachers can be evaluated. Teachers have traditionally been evaluated on how they manage classrooms, not individuals.
It has been taken for granted that disorderly students were expected to perform poorly, but they could be removed from the classroom. Under stricter evaluations based on test scores, it becomes more difficult for teachers to pass their worst students onto someone else--a disciplinarian principal, a remedial instructor, the teacher in the next grade.
I thought about some of the numerical measures that could be used in a teacher evaluation.
+ Student attendance. Good attendance is not necessarily a given in a poor-performing classroom or school. I would also believe that the poorer performing students who like school the least are the least likely to show up for a good teacher or a bad one. The teachers with an extraordinary number of student absences would stand out to a principal or department head.
+ Student scores on standardized tests. This assumes the teacher knows the content of the test in advance. It also assumes that one unit advances to the next, so that students do not forget what they learned earlier in the school year.
+ Student improvement from the beginning of the school year to the end. This assumes the student data system will provide an accurate profile of each student, and that the teacher can manage his time to help the neediest students. But if teachers are laid off, I would guess that class sizes do not get smaller. I would assume larger classes and longer school days. That sounds like a recipe for less individual attention.
+ Failing grades per student. This has always been tracked throughout a school year, but students who fail a test are often passed on to the next lesson. A string of failures hurts the student and the teacher. But I believe that one of the most important things a school can do is catch the failing students early, match them with another teacher, or provide remedial instruction.
+ Parents ratings through comments. If teachers can be evaluated based on their effectiveness with students, the parents who confer with them should have the opportunity to express their satisfaction, too.
If I were a student considering an education major, or a recent graduate in my first teaching job, I would have to ask myself if I could survive an evaluation based on measures such as these. The more measures I'd have to achieve, the more difficult my chances of success. Unless I played to the measures important to my department head and principal. That's the point of evaluations in any job.
If I were a parent who was concerned about my son's/daughter's education, I would be curious to know if their teacher did. I might not be so crazy about supporting a raise for every teacher--most voters would feel the same way in hard times. However, I'd have no problem saying that my child's teacher deserved one if she earned it. And I'd hope that my voice, combined with the voices of other parents, counted for something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)