The book does not feel partisan, but is it direct. Exactly what we do about our economy and climate will be a matter of debate, but the writers insist that we are running unsustainable deficits, and it is getting hotter (backed by all science, except a few deniers usually found on Fox. Remember, there were some researchers who said smoking wasn't really a big deal too). It is easy to pick on teenagers as impulsive and incapable of delayed gratification, but adults in this country seem to want it all. Higher wages and lower taxes. Lower energy costs and higher credit limits. Wars waged with the hope of protecting the many, but that are shouldered by only a few (who sacrifice, suffer, and die while the majority pays no cost). The optimistic view is that, as we cut spending and raise taxes, we can make smarter investments in infrastructure and research that will act as catalysts for the economy.
But what gets cut? Some politicians talk about spending cuts to get votes, but don't come through on specifics. Do we cut the military budget? Decrease/Change Social Security and Medicare benefits? Those are big line items. Or do we scour the books for smaller cuts: a few million here, a few million there (or 10s of millions / 100s of millions)? And the tax structure? I hear some argue the business tax rates are too high, but there are so many loopholes that major corporations pay next to nothing. Why do major oil companies and agribusiness conglomerates still get subsidies? I heard a billionaire being interviewed from his private jet say that he has no problem paying more individual/business taxes as long as his business is growing. That requires that those in the 99% have money too spend. Reminder: Reagan raised taxes five times. While I don't mean to demonize him, the right has sanitized him to the point of sainthood.
The authors concede that the Republicans, in limiting collective bargaining rights and decreasing benefits for public employees, are attempting to weaken (destroy) the democratic base of support.
However, they don't let us off the hook. When teaching salaries were lower, job stability and benefits made the total compensation worthwhile. But as wages have increased, people are much more certain that they know we are compensated too generously. Granted, things are different in different parts of the country. All teachers have not seen their wages increase, and many have been furloughed. However, for the most part, much of the stability remains and (locally) the benefits are substantial. Should we be expected to pay more for the same coverage? Some days, I would point out that no one in the private sector would offer to reduce his or her overall compensation voluntarily. Other days, I feel so lucky that I have access the highest-quality coverage that I don't mind paying a little more. Many public sector employees have made concessions around the country, but if the goal is more political than financial, the attacks will continue. So, questions abound: Should Illinois police and firefighters be able to retire at 75% of their pay at age 50? Should the retirement age be pushed back? Should benefits be decreased? Yeah, Obamacare, but what about universal health care? How can the healthcare system be made even more effective and efficient? Should pensions be reduced for future employees? Who should pay more taxes? Politicians get elected by promising to give things to people; however,
"For the next decade at least, to be a mayor, governor, college
president, or president of the United States will mean, on more days and
in more ways, taking things away from people."
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Average is Over
The authors point out that everyone will have to go above and beyond to keep from being "outsourced, automated, digitized, or treated as an interchangeable commodity." Or as Mr. Flieder says, "fungible." My brother recently attended a two-day retreat where his law firm was counseled by a consultant on how to distinguish itself in an ultra-competitive marketplace: doing their "job in a way that truly enriches the experience for the person paying for it."
I guess it shows my lack of entrepreneurial spirit, but I am struck by how often the authors mention starting a business, citing technology as the great-leveler (the world is flat). As they stress in the book, the authors are optimistic about a future where the US will continue to innovate and create, as we think like "immigrants," "artisans," and "waiters/waitresses." And an education based on "critical thinking, effective oral and written, and collaboration" will be essential. I love the story about Steve Jobs dropping in on the calligraphy class and how, although he did not realize it then, it informed his aesthetic sensibility in designing the fonts for the Mac. While education should be relevant and practical, we shouldn't encourage students to see their educations as job-training only. They cannot be so fixated on whether they find all their educational experiences relevant. Just because information is available online does not mean students need only be able to access it. Students need to know stuff to think creatively. Students need to know stuff to innovate. Students need to know stuff to collaborate: "Creativity only comes from a genuine understanding of a discipline." Having a well-rounded educational experience is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Furthermore, students need to realize that getting a good education and doing good work is not always fun in the way they think of it (that is, easy): "A lot of the completion of a really creative task is boring." We need "to foster imagination but also teach execution. Persistence trumps talent, but it is best to have both." I have been reading lately that students who are praised for working hard take more academic risks and persist longer, which leads to growth. On the other hand, those that are praised for being smart often play a defensive game. In order to preserve their view of themselves and the one they perceive others to have of them, they play it safe. They take fewer academic risks. And when they do struggle or fail, they identify the source outside themselves: the test was unfair, the teacher doesn't like me, nobody else got it either, this stuff is stupid. Finally, I love the "I kill jobs" guy at the end of the section. His tough love is shockingly honest: "Any job that can be eliminated through technology or cheaper labor is by definition not coming back."
I guess it shows my lack of entrepreneurial spirit, but I am struck by how often the authors mention starting a business, citing technology as the great-leveler (the world is flat). As they stress in the book, the authors are optimistic about a future where the US will continue to innovate and create, as we think like "immigrants," "artisans," and "waiters/waitresses." And an education based on "critical thinking, effective oral and written, and collaboration" will be essential. I love the story about Steve Jobs dropping in on the calligraphy class and how, although he did not realize it then, it informed his aesthetic sensibility in designing the fonts for the Mac. While education should be relevant and practical, we shouldn't encourage students to see their educations as job-training only. They cannot be so fixated on whether they find all their educational experiences relevant. Just because information is available online does not mean students need only be able to access it. Students need to know stuff to think creatively. Students need to know stuff to innovate. Students need to know stuff to collaborate: "Creativity only comes from a genuine understanding of a discipline." Having a well-rounded educational experience is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Furthermore, students need to realize that getting a good education and doing good work is not always fun in the way they think of it (that is, easy): "A lot of the completion of a really creative task is boring." We need "to foster imagination but also teach execution. Persistence trumps talent, but it is best to have both." I have been reading lately that students who are praised for working hard take more academic risks and persist longer, which leads to growth. On the other hand, those that are praised for being smart often play a defensive game. In order to preserve their view of themselves and the one they perceive others to have of them, they play it safe. They take fewer academic risks. And when they do struggle or fail, they identify the source outside themselves: the test was unfair, the teacher doesn't like me, nobody else got it either, this stuff is stupid. Finally, I love the "I kill jobs" guy at the end of the section. His tough love is shockingly honest: "Any job that can be eliminated through technology or cheaper labor is by definition not coming back."
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
The Education Stuff
I used to dismiss some international test score comparisons because I assumed other countries focused primarily on an elite pool of lucky and hardworking students. That our best and brightest would compare well to the best and brightest from other countries. However, the authors suggest that we do not stack up well no matter how you slice it: "There are millions of students in modern American suburban schools 'who don't realize how far behind they are.'" I used to think we looked bad because we try to educate everyone, yet "most top performing countries do a better job of educating students from low-income families." I am appalled at the number of students that have to take remedial classes in college: "about a third." The authors also point out that many good jobs that exist now (with even more possible in the future) do not require a four-year degree, but do require high-quality vocational education. Obama does mention technical education, but what usually is emphasized is college for all. It is practical and realistic, not elitist to say that college is not the right route for all.
The authors point out that teacher quality can vary greatly from school to school and class to class. I am always floored by the following stat: "we lose 50 percent of teachers in the first three to five years." That is a pretty high attrition rate. The upside is that many of the people who are not cut out for the job take themselves out before they can do much damage. The downside is that good teachers may find themselves in terrible conditions without proper support and, therefore, leave a profession that could really use them. I also wonder whether the stat is misleading, as it may include women who leave teaching to stay and home with children (even though they may return to teaching years later). And then there's the increasingly popular "make 50 percent of every teacher's and principal's performance evaluation based on demonstrated student growth." Where do I begin? While standardized test scores can do a pretty could job of telling us what students know and can do (I lose patience quickly with those who dismiss them as useless or evil) they are not designed to evaluate instruction. There are so many variables that play into a student's performance that a teacher has no control over (including the quality of instruction the student had in the previous year). Even in the same year, as an English teacher, I am not the only one supposed to be teaching kids to read and write. If one student in my class works hard (or doesn't work hard), gets an A and scores really well, but another students gets a C and scores below basic, am I a good teacher or a bad teacher? And this growth model or Value Added Assessment is fraught with statistical problems as well. From what I have read, there winds up being a fine line between top-tier, mid-range, and bottom-level teachers when rankings are done. Relative standings can fluctuate wildly from class to class and year to year which points to the weak reliability. Administrators must make their expectations clear, then get into classrooms often (all the time / every day) to evaluate if teachers are creating and environment where students can be successful. That is all they can be accountable for. If too few students are successful, administrators should counsel teachers on what they want to change in the classroom or the teachers should be given the freedom to make adjustments as they see fit (could also be a combination of the two).
The governor of Delaware says we need to be honest with students about what it means to be proficient. We need to have high expectations and help students achieve them, but we cannot lower the bar and pander to kids looking for a high grade for mediocre work (this becomes tough when they get to fill out surveys on whether they like you or if they think you like them). And even though effort often trumps IQ, "American young people have got to understand from an early age that the world pays off on results, not on effort. Not everyone should win a prize no matter where he or she finishes."
I think it is interesting that the authors had another take on the Race to Nowhere film we saw this year: "They have to juggle homework, soccer, Facebook, wrestling practice, the school play, the prom, SAT prep, and Advanced placement exams. Some would call that stress. We call it misplaced priorities." According to the authors, some students can't do it all, but they better get the academics under control: "[O]ur students are spending more time texting and gaming and less time than ever studying and doing homework. Unless we get them to spend the time needed to master a subject, all the teacher training in the world will go for naught." Amen!
The authors point out that teacher quality can vary greatly from school to school and class to class. I am always floored by the following stat: "we lose 50 percent of teachers in the first three to five years." That is a pretty high attrition rate. The upside is that many of the people who are not cut out for the job take themselves out before they can do much damage. The downside is that good teachers may find themselves in terrible conditions without proper support and, therefore, leave a profession that could really use them. I also wonder whether the stat is misleading, as it may include women who leave teaching to stay and home with children (even though they may return to teaching years later). And then there's the increasingly popular "make 50 percent of every teacher's and principal's performance evaluation based on demonstrated student growth." Where do I begin? While standardized test scores can do a pretty could job of telling us what students know and can do (I lose patience quickly with those who dismiss them as useless or evil) they are not designed to evaluate instruction. There are so many variables that play into a student's performance that a teacher has no control over (including the quality of instruction the student had in the previous year). Even in the same year, as an English teacher, I am not the only one supposed to be teaching kids to read and write. If one student in my class works hard (or doesn't work hard), gets an A and scores really well, but another students gets a C and scores below basic, am I a good teacher or a bad teacher? And this growth model or Value Added Assessment is fraught with statistical problems as well. From what I have read, there winds up being a fine line between top-tier, mid-range, and bottom-level teachers when rankings are done. Relative standings can fluctuate wildly from class to class and year to year which points to the weak reliability. Administrators must make their expectations clear, then get into classrooms often (all the time / every day) to evaluate if teachers are creating and environment where students can be successful. That is all they can be accountable for. If too few students are successful, administrators should counsel teachers on what they want to change in the classroom or the teachers should be given the freedom to make adjustments as they see fit (could also be a combination of the two).
The governor of Delaware says we need to be honest with students about what it means to be proficient. We need to have high expectations and help students achieve them, but we cannot lower the bar and pander to kids looking for a high grade for mediocre work (this becomes tough when they get to fill out surveys on whether they like you or if they think you like them). And even though effort often trumps IQ, "American young people have got to understand from an early age that the world pays off on results, not on effort. Not everyone should win a prize no matter where he or she finishes."
I think it is interesting that the authors had another take on the Race to Nowhere film we saw this year: "They have to juggle homework, soccer, Facebook, wrestling practice, the school play, the prom, SAT prep, and Advanced placement exams. Some would call that stress. We call it misplaced priorities." According to the authors, some students can't do it all, but they better get the academics under control: "[O]ur students are spending more time texting and gaming and less time than ever studying and doing homework. Unless we get them to spend the time needed to master a subject, all the teacher training in the world will go for naught." Amen!
Monday, June 25, 2012
The Computer Ain't My Job AND The Computer Ate My Job
"Once everyone is connected, your prosperity will depend on how well you or your company or country can analyze and apply all the data pouring through" these networks..." "Once technology is a given, all the old-fashioned stuff will start to matter even more." Problem-solving, creativity, and imagination: "the human stuff." Clearly, it's not enough just to know the technology. Students must learn to use technology not only for entertainment / social purposes, but in the context of innovation, analysis, and problem-solving.
The authors point out that there may still be the potential for some high-skill manufacturing jobs if the US pursues clean-energy technology; however, they are very clear that many are just not coming back. Present workers will have to retrain for new work.
Important wake-up call: "If you do a nonroutine high-skilled job in a routine way...you will be vulnerable to outsourcing, automation, or digitization, -or you will the first fired in an economic squeeze." Watch out teachers: here comes online education, Khan Academy videos, and charter schools.
The authors point out that there may still be the potential for some high-skill manufacturing jobs if the US pursues clean-energy technology; however, they are very clear that many are just not coming back. Present workers will have to retrain for new work.
Important wake-up call: "If you do a nonroutine high-skilled job in a routine way...you will be vulnerable to outsourcing, automation, or digitization, -or you will the first fired in an economic squeeze." Watch out teachers: here comes online education, Khan Academy videos, and charter schools.
The Five Pillars
The Five Pillars of Prosperity seem reasonable: More and Better Public Education, Building and Modernizing Infrastructure (they make a good point about how we have come to accept the shoddy state of ours versus other nations), Smart Immigration Policy (they want more of our citizens qualified for high tech jobs, but believe we still have room and a need for new citizens), Increase Basic Science Research (Americans spend more on potato chips), Improve / Implement Necessary Regulations (we can't afford to have Wall street drive us off the cliff again, but they recognize some existing regulations impede rather than improve our progress). They keep hammering home the idea that we will need to cut spending and raise revenues to achieve long term success (yeah, raise taxes: never not been done during wartime - we've waged 2 for 10 years and got tax cuts) . Unfortunately, this is troublesome for politicians who are too busy trying to win re-election to focus on the the job of governing (i.e. solving problems). This requires them to back off their extreme positions in order to compromise. Remember when that wasn't a dirty word? I am not saying this would be easy, but it's got to be better than the present state of sabotage politics.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Comment on ME Frey's State Inspection Post
Having trouble commenting. This is a comment on ME Frey's State Inspection post:
In response to the comment about students doing worse they longer they are in school: It may be that in some schools, the quality of education levels off, while in other countries it continues to rise; however, as our students get older, they are more subject to the distractions of pop/teen culture and their academic stamina wanes. Teacher quality is important, but student effort is crucial. Which brings me to the comment that teachers are the solution. While I am flattered, I am also cynical. Many politicians focus on teachers to flatter them or demonize them (either way, it is to get votes). But more problematic is the fact that no politician seems likely to blame the children of voters for their poor performance.
In response to the comment about students doing worse they longer they are in school: It may be that in some schools, the quality of education levels off, while in other countries it continues to rise; however, as our students get older, they are more subject to the distractions of pop/teen culture and their academic stamina wanes. Teacher quality is important, but student effort is crucial. Which brings me to the comment that teachers are the solution. While I am flattered, I am also cynical. Many politicians focus on teachers to flatter them or demonize them (either way, it is to get votes). But more problematic is the fact that no politician seems likely to blame the children of voters for their poor performance.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
State Inspection
I sat for 2.5 hours on Tuesday for my state inspection on my car; it isn't the inspection that takes up all the time (according to the manager)--it is the time it takes for the car to be hooked into the "state computer." I had plenty of time to read! Maybe this should be a "problem-based, authentic learning" for our students "how to increase the efficiency of the state computer system when performing state inspections." According to Friedman anyway, we have a long way to go in improving the quality of education. This was my favorite section of the book, beginning on page 100, "Homework X 2 = the American Dream. I think it is challenging to read and then communicate in the blog about what stood out for me--there was so much in this chapter. I underlined, starred, and wrote comments in the book while waiting in TiresPlus (they really should provide more comfortable chairs) -- looking over these "notes" I had to chuckle this morning at the first one I underlined, "To prosper, America has to educate its young people up to and beyond the new levels of technology" maybe we should start with state inspections! Here are a few more:
Happy Reading!
- "the longer American children are in school, the worse they perform compared to their international peers" page 103
- "The teachers' unions have, since the advent of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, conducted a campaign to convince people that these scores do not really matter very much. Here they are flatly contradicted by the evidence." page 110
- "We are not focusing on teachers because teachers are the problem," said Johnson, "It's because they are the solution." page 114
Happy Reading!
Monday, June 18, 2012
Part I - The Diagnosis
After reading 'The Diagnosis' I am left puzzled over whether the authors feel Americans still don't recognize the problem or no one is willing to do what it takes to solve it? If most of what they quote is from a year ago or further back then most politicians and I would imagine the general public are aware of what is happening in our own country. Are politicians and corporations rallying internally for a big push or does the notion of asking each and every one of us to act differently for the greater good concern them?
Please share and respond to Part I with your own thoughts and opinions...
Please share and respond to Part I with your own thoughts and opinions...
Friday, June 15, 2012
Congratulations. . . .
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Asked Thomas Friedman to join. . .
. . .our blog. Send a tweet to: @NewYorkTimesFriedman
Would you be willing to send a tweet to get him to join us? How many of you are on Twitter? I follow lots of educational folks as well as Stephen Colbert (:
Now that you are all blogggers. . .twitter is next!
Would you be willing to send a tweet to get him to join us? How many of you are on Twitter? I follow lots of educational folks as well as Stephen Colbert (:
Now that you are all blogggers. . .twitter is next!
Catch 22?
I'm finally getting into the book a bit (that is, when I can stay awake until 9PM) and my reading last night got me thinking about what Friedman said about some of the things that made us prosper (ie., land-grant colleges, social safety nets (social security, medicare,) and the ability to declare bankruptcy. According to the author, in order for a capitalistic society to prosper, we have to feel free to take financial risks and invest in new products, etc. If we failed, declaring bankruptcy was relatively easy and one could start over again. Of course, now, we are all paying the price for taking these "risks" (the mortgage crisis, easy credit). Social security and medicare are broke, too. I've got a lot of reading to do and am very curious about public education. That's for another night when I can stay awake (:
So, the very things that created made us "That Used to Be Us" are not? Catch 22? What do you think?
So, the very things that created made us "That Used to Be Us" are not? Catch 22? What do you think?
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)