April 27, 2015--Testing One, Two, Three

All over America school kids are being tested. Some are taking tests that derive from what their states require while others are being tested to see how well they have absorbed the material associated with the controversial Common Core curriculum which 44 states have adopted.

And then there are the hundreds of thousands of children not taking any tests at all. This, for many, to protest the importance assigned to tests that supposedly call for rote learning or have high-stakes consequences. Consequences for the kids, their schools and districts, and for their teachers.

Let me be clear that in virtually all instances it is the parents lodging these protests by keeping their children home, not the kids themselves making these decisions. Sort of like the anti-vacine parents.

There are many layers that require unpacking in order to understand what is going on. It is not as simple as it may seem.

First, whose fault is it that we have all these tests? Some say it's former president George W. Bush's since he allegedly wanted to break teachers' unions by holding them accountable for the results. And Teddy Kennedy's, who wanted to show he could work in a bipartisan way and made a deal with Number 43 when he signed off on Bush's signature school reform program, No Child Left Behind that required universal testing and meet certain standards in order for states to leverage federal funds. And, of course, like everything else people do not like, it's Barack Obama's fault since he has a radical agenda for the federal government to snatch authority from the states and take over the education of our children, very much including indoctrinating and testing them. Some feel, through the imposition of Common Core.

If you live in New York and watch TV, you are being flooded with ads paid for by the state's teachers' unions that claims it's governor Andrew Cuomo's fault. He's doing a Scott Walker, they say, by showing how tough he can be on teachers, using testing as a way to fire teachers he doesn't like. All this presumably to get ready to run for president if Hillary Clinton continues to falter.

And then there are those (me included) who feel requiring some forms of achievement testing is one way, one way, to see if kids are learning and to use what the tests show as part of the mix, part of the mix, of evaluative tools available to hold everyone involved accountable for how well students are faring--individual teachers, school principals, school districts, states, and the children themselves.

Then there is the matter of using test results to distinguish between the achievement of individual students. This is very complicated business in a society that conservatives sees as guided by meritocratic values--that there is a natural hierarchy based on talent, hard work, and success--while at that same time to others, progressives, there is the belief in human equality and thus call for polices to assure not just equality of opportunity but equality of results.

This in a society that often overpraises children, awarding trophies to all, including to those who come in last. Awards for showing up and trying. Or maybe just for showing up.

Often the anti-testing people are the very ones seeking advantages for their own children at all levels of schooling, especially those that can afford to supplement what is available even in private schools to assure their own children's ultimate advantages.

Some years ago when the arguments about testing first roiled discourse about schooling and its outcomes, I had a colleague at the very progressive Ford Foundation, actually the vice president to whom I reported, who was a fierce critic of traditional forms of testing and a strong advocate of what was thought to be "authentic assessment." Approaches that called for more nuanced and three-dimensional methods to measure student achievement. Including non-traditional forms of assessment where student outcomes would be evaluated by things such as portfolios of their work. It was felt that this was a fairer approach than the usual testing and would thus contribute to narrowing the achievement gap.

She at the time had high-school-age twins who attended a selective private secondary school. At that school, as you might imagine, they emphasized authentic assessment. One Saturday mornings we ran into my colleague on lower Broadway. We stopped to chat. It turned out that she was there, far from where she lived, to take her daughters to an SAT-prep workshop.

I not-so-innocently asked her how come, if she rejected the validity and fairness of tests such as the SAT, she was paying for her daughters to prep for it.

"Because I want them to do as well as possible," she said, "So they can get into good colleges."

I asked, "Then in your Ford Foundation role how come you resist funding programs that would help low-income students have the same test prepping opportunities?"

She stammered something I couldn't quite hear and ran off to an appointment.

I am still waiting for her answer.

November 5, 2014--The New Mediocre

As if we didn't have enough to complain about. We need to make it worse?

That's just what Vanessa Friedman did in a column in last Sunday's New York Times Review, "Mired in Mediocrity."

The title of her piece says it all--things globally, but especially in the United States, are stalled out because we are accepting, even embracing what she calls "the new mediocre."

Her bonafides? She is the Times' chief fashion critic and fashion director. More about that in a moment.

Let me summarize her indictment--

The idea that mediocrity is "the new normal" originates, Friedman claims, with Christine Lagarde, director of the International Monetary Fund, who applied that term to the global economy. It could use a jolt, Lagarde correctly suggests, to get it going, mired as it is, "muddling along with subpar growth."

Fine. But to generalize this to just about everything else is questionable. I do not want to come a across as Pangloss, seeing everything to be the best in "this best of all possible worlds," but to see everything to be the worst in this worst of all possible worlds goes way beyond the defensible and slips more into whining than legitimate analysis.

When she sees the newly emboldened Republicans putting forth an economic agenda that is made up of "a compendium of modest expectations," Friedman sees this this to be a manifestation of "the new mediocre."

Ranging far afield, she sees Twitter losing participants and thus income not because as a fad it is fading but because it has become an example of "the new mediocre."

"Old-guy action films" and "comic-book-hero" flicks that are predominating at the box office, squeezing out higher-quality art-house Indies, is yet more evidence that the the movies that are thriving--what else is new--are yet more evidence that "the new mediocre" is all-pervasive.

And then there is clothing, fashion, Friedman's expertise. Here she sees the same thing--mediocrity.

Enduring the recent spate of fashion shows in New York and Europe, she sees little evidence of new ideas among designers. Rather, she unhappily reports, everything seems deja vu--1960s-style "rock chick dresses," 1970s "flared trousers," 1980s "power jackets," and even 1920s "flapper frocks."

It doesn't get any worse than this, in this worst of all possible worlds.

I've been hearing from disillusioned and generally despondent friends that the Friedman piece sums up what they have been thinking and feeling about the contemporary world. That we are in fact mired in mediocrity. That this not only explains what they are seeing but also helps reconcile themselves to their own unhappy and frustrating circumstances. "It's not my fault," they are in effect saying, "but the larger world's."

I have been pushing back, claiming that though there is much to not feel good or optimistic about, to balance things, one could contemplate making a case in opposition to "the new mediocre" in support of "the new excellent."

A list of things to feel optimistic about would include--

All the advances in medicine and healthcare. Yes, the system for its delivery is deeply flawed, but if one has various types of cancer or needs life-saving, minimally-invasive surgery, with any good fortune, methods and tests and medications are now available that a scant few year ago were only dreams. "The new excellent."

If one is fortunate enough to be in the top 25 percent academically, public education capped by still the best higher-education system in the world could be considered an example of the new or continuing excellent.

Then there is Google, wirelessness, iGadgets, the Internet itself and all the possibilities that these enable--more "new excellent."

Evidence-based philanthropy, best exemplified by the Gates Foundation, which just last week announced it is stepping up its promising efforts to eradicate malaria, is, as part of "the new excellent," making progress on many fronts from environmental conservation to potable water to sustainable economic development. Yes, I know the counter list, but the picture is more balanced than the "new mediocre" people are claiming.

Even in regard to military hardware, while waiting for peace and sanity to break out in the world, drones, as one example of excellence of its own sort, enable battles to rage that inflict fewer civilian casualties than conventional methods. I know many of my anti-war friends (include me among them) will blanch at this, but in realpolitik terms this represents "progress."

At a different level of things to feel good about is the New Brooklyn, ATM machines, E-ZPasses, and the ubiquitousness of really wonderful coffee--my counter case to worrying too much about power jackets and flapper frocks.

One reason to consider the excellent to be at least as pervasive as the mediocre is that it can motivate one to shake the funk, get up off the couch, turn off the TV and iPhone (at least for a few hours a day), and look for ways to become engaged with making things a little better for yourself and the larger world. To take the opposite tack is to me to waste one's life.

October 24, 2014--Midcoast: Just Talk

After a complicated breakfast with Jim, during which a nuanced and balanced conversation about affirmative action and same-sex relationships descended into indiscriminate Obama bashing (Jim whispered conspiratorially as we were leaving, after I confessed disappointment in Barack Obama's presidency, "Don't you agree that he's working to bring down America?") over anniversary dinner later in the evening with other friends, we got to talking about how in small towns such as this one, where people depend upon, even need each other to get through life's perils, we generally find ways to disagree and often those with whom we have the sharpest disputes are the very ones we call on when things are most urgent; and, if we are honest about that and, more important about ourselves, we discover that our differences almost always amount to just words.

They amount to just words because, in truth, most of us are not actively or directly engaged in working to bring about social or political change (no matter its ideological direction or content) and are not that active in fraternal or civic organizations. Rather we talk. Talk passionately about things we believe in while remaining relatively unengaged.

Is this too cynical a view?

In some ways yes. In other cases maybe not. Like so much here this too can be complicated.

It is not cynical when it comes to holding accountable many of my fellow liberals (me as well) who are especially adept at the talking while this cynical view is unfair for many of those of more conservative persuasion who tend to be more actively and directly involved in the life of the community.

They are more likely to be volunteer firemen or, as a member of the EMS squad, are the ones likely to come in the middle of a stormy night to race us to the local ER. Or active on the Town Board. Or lead discussions about why source separation of trash is important--not necessary as liberals would have it to preserve the environment but because the Town can make money selling recyclables and thereby lower taxes.

About that, Rona wondered out loud if our environmentalist-minded friend, Peggy (to pick on her), back in New York City recycles as much or as assiduously as Jim in Bristol, Maine.

"No way," I said, agitated by my awareness of Peggy's hypocrisy as well as mine.

Jim, who is 81, is active on the local school board even though his youngest is in her thirties. "I have grandchildren, you know," he shrugs as if that explains it all.

And though he's not so sure about including a lot about climate change in Earth Science or referring too much to Evolution in Biology, he's out there in the middle of winter determined not to miss even one meeting while I talk, talk, talk about how we can't ignore the lessons of science, not only if we want to try to repair our planet but also to prepare our youngsters to be competitive in the global world of the 21st century. And though the signboard by the school I drive by at least twice a day says "All Are Welcome" to board meetings I haven't made it to one yet though every year I intend to make them all.

When I confess this to him, to help alleviate my guilt, he reminds me that I was an educator for more than 40 years and I do write and publish my views on schooling. That I've "paid my dues," and--

"But," I say before he can finish making excuses for me, "Yes, but still . . . I know. . . Maybe next . . .

He smiles to let me off the hook but . . .

Bottom line--a lot of things seem to work better here because at the most fundamental level we all know it is our relating and caring for each other that counts more than the talk, which in spite of various forms of inflation, is still cheap.

September 8, 2014--Two Cheers for Obamacare

I've been wondering why we've been hearing relatively little recently from Republicans about Obamacare. It had been thought that in the run up to the November midterm elections the GOP would be all over it, savaging it as an assault on both our freedom and the federal budget. It was to be their political trump card. The route to majority control of both houses.

Could it be that there is now relative silence because Obamacare is actually . . . working.

Many millions have signed up, and with the exception of some anecdotal horror stories the vast majority with health care coverage for the first time are happy with it; and, perhaps most surprising, in spite of all the scary stories about how the Affordable Care Act would bust the budget, it has in fact not only been cost effective but has already been contributing to deep cuts in the federal deficit.

Just as Obama said it would.

So then two cheers for Obamacare. It is too soon to offer three because, though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's projections show significant downward trends in overall Medicare costs (the result in part of aspects of the ACA law) and thus dramatic deficit reductions over the decade, we still do not know how many more will sign up, how much subsidy they will require, and the nature of the care these new enrollees will require.

The CBO, adjusting for inflation, recently reported that the average amount spent annually per Medicare recipient declined from $12,000 each in 2011 to $11,200 this year and will be reduced further to $11,000 per Medicare enrollee by 2017. Technically, this is called "negative excess cost growth."

All told, the CBO is projecting that, as a result, over the next ten years the federal deficit will be reduced by $715 billion. Nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars.

To be fair, this good news is not fully the result of the ACA. This downward trend is also a consequence of "young" Baby Boomers becoming eligible for Medicare for the first time and the apparent, not entirely understood, reduction in costly tests, treatments, and drug use. All good things as our health care system has grown bloated with over-testing and the over-selling of unneeded treatments and medications.

This $714 billion in savings dwarfs all deficit reduction plans being discussed, including Paul Ryan's draconian budget.

Wouldn't it be good if we could stop playing demagogic games with the budget and health care and get on to the real problems we face--how to create more jobs, improve the treatment of veterans, fix our crumbling infrastructure, improve public education, and tackle the inequality crisis.

Why am I not optimistic?

March 27, 2014--We Can Never Go Back to Before

In response to a number of recent blogs in which I wrote about our public education system, guest blogger Sharon has a number of interesting perceptions and recommendations--

The March 25 blog, "Chem Lab," brought to mind my reaction to a sound byte I recently heard. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel briefly stated his goal is to make sure that every child in Chicago is college ready.

I'm not sure that's the right goal, unless he also meant community college and even then . . .

Here I cite an observation from a long-time teacher in Maine who from her experience concluded that most of the kids she encountered were just "average." Yes, there were kids who wanted help figuring out how they might be the first ones in their family to go to college, but unlike the hyper-competitive era we now live in, most of these kids aspirations and aptitudes were more modest.

So I thought, wouldn't a better goal for the Mayor and other leaders be to prepare these children for skills that would make them ready for the realities of today's job market?

And for some (many) this doesn't mean a B.A. with graduate school to follow. The cost alone is increasingly prohibitive.

Of course the larger challenge is to remove the "second best" stigma, a perception that I admit I've been guilty of.

Senior year of high school I chose not to take physics or calculus and instead took fashion design and merchandising courses and guiltily, since I was an academic track kid, made off with the top awards in both areas at graduation. In those days NYC high schools had academic, commercial and general tracks.

I really loved those classes, although no more than history, but a lot more than math and science. I got applications for FIT and Parsons but at 16, I got the message from friends and teachers that this would waste my academic promise and didn't apply.

But after a B.A. and graduate education in history, there were few openings for history professors then and for the next 20 years. Although still an advocate for a liberal arts education, given the economic realities of today (my first apartment's rent was $235 a month so paying back my loans wasn't tough) I wonder if my career path would have been clearer if I had completed the other applications and was accepted.

Relating training and education with employability and quality of life, I've encountered many small business owners: car repair, salon owners, restauranteurs, contractors, etc. living very comfortable lives without college degrees.

Yet I was especially surprised to read recently the comments of a young German woman noting that her college-bound friends didn't get why she would want to participate in a factory-based apprenticeship. These long-existing successful programs in Germany are now being considered in the U.S. as a possible answer to the skills gap and unemployment. Yet even in Germany peer and perhaps parental pushback exists.

Although I think the unequal deployment of resources is wrong morally and philosophically, sadly I think even if you could wave a magic wand and bring all facilities up to code, I don't believe it would change much. Not unlike the impact of technology and globalization on the economy, these forces too have made our traditional education structures obsolete. Many on the right and left are still thinking (or wishing) we could go back to before, at least the parts that seemed to work.

Instead of applying limited resources to buildings maybe there needs to be more channels for access and financial support to rescue kids from under-performing schools who do want to go to college and beyond as early as possible. I've seen a few very gifted and privileged kids who fell behind out of boredom when they were sent to schools with under-achieving children.

This brings to mind my last year of high school and my first and only experience with a teacher who couldn't control the class, who didn't want to be there, the shape of the things to come. I learned nothing. And this in a public school that produced senators and a Supreme Court justice. A few years later, but before metal detectors, kids were afraid to go to the bathroom.

Perhaps opportunity of access and a better fit for aspiration, drive, and ability would provide better results, rather than zip code and financial support. Danger and disruption to learning not only take place in failing schools. Bullying takes place in schools where kids have every advantage--one child was threatened that his house would be burned down if he told. Other children have told me they want to avoid a hyper-competitive atmosphere where there are a few suicides each year. The difference between them and the kids at Roosevelt is their parents can more easily remove them from the situation.

One of the reasons charter schools are popular is parents and students who care enough see them not only as a way out of their struggling public schools but a refuge from the scary kids who go there who are impeding their children’s progress and safety.

Creating a pathway for teachers who can spot and rescue the academically inclined kids and another for those who may not be so inclined, but are motivated and teachable, and getting them into more appropriate schools might be a start. It’s such a waste that bullies in better equipped schools get to squander their advantages while others have to enter lotteries to get their motivated kids into a better situation.

And with increasing income inequality where a few people own five houses and many can't even afford rent, I return to a comment made by Steven Zwerling’s dad, "What does happiness have to do with anything?"

We may have come to the end of a brief golden period where many of us sought careers that would be satisfying and not just a means to provide food, clothing and shelter. Maybe future generations who aren't technology whizzes for now will need to refocus on education and training commensurate with their potential before they have the luxury of a career path to happiness. And society needs a way to identify the children who can and want education and or training and make sure they are not penalized by where they live.

Thinking everyone wants to or can succeed on a path to college or better circumstances for all is thinking for another time. And what will become of the bullies and disaffected? There's a job waiting for them on Wall Street . . . .

August 19, 2013--With Charity to Some

A friend from an old southern family lived off income from her grandfather's trust. He was wise to place his assets there since his only daughter, my fiend's mother, wasn't all that well physically or, more germane, mentally. She had a troubled life that included much drinking and ended sadly, in the custody of an institution. There was a great deal of family money and the place she lived out her final years was at least kindly and situated in a luxurious park-like setting.

Grandfather S____  set up the trust so that when his only daughter and grandchild, my friend, who also had issues that included too much drinking, died, all remaining assets would pass to the ASPCA. He was that devoted a lover of animals.

When my friend and I spoke about him and how he made and planned to dispose of his money, though we too cared about animals, we wondered why someone like her grandfather wanted to help cats and dogs but not people.

And then later, when I went to work at the Ford Foundation, I wondered further that with all the suffering in the world the foundation didn't devote all of its assets to alleviating poverty, inequality, intolerance, and violence.

Why make tens of millions of dollars a year in grants to cultural institutions when children are ill, starving, and in too many places brutalized? Yes, preserving indigenous cultures and the arts of disenfranchised people is a worthy effort; but in comparison to the more basic needs of people, why would one want to make that choice?

This was not for me to say. It wasn't my money that was at issue, but the foundation's; and, on balance, I felt I could live with Ford's agenda, most of which was devoted to alleviating various forms of human inequality and suffering.

But, as a liberally-educated person, who enjoyed the arts, even finding them essential to a rich and diverse life, I did not press these issues, feeling fortunate to be able to direct most of the resources for which I was responsible to institutions and individuals who were struggling to improve schools, end discrimination, and foster equality of opportunity.

But now, as more money becomes available for institutional and individual philanthropy, people in the field of charitable giving are also asking versions of my ASPCA question.

For example, why give $100,000 to a museum building fund when that same $100,000 could reduce the incidence of trachoma (which leads inevitably to blindness in affected young people), at $100 a treatment, for 1,000 people?

For arts lovers with money to donate, this is a complicated conundrum.

In an ideal world, we should do both and many more important and worthwhile things--protect natural resources, reform schools, expand health care, build cultural institutions, save indigenous languages, provide potable drinking water, reduce violence against women, support efforts to reduce intolerance, fund struggling artists, endow universities and schools of music . . .

But to those who advocate "effective altruism," the choices--even though it's "your money"--are clear in a less than perfect world. As much as we want dogs and cats to be treated well, shouldn't eliminating trachoma (which is doable) come first?