And if you’re new to Twitter or aren’t sure how to get started, check out TwiTip’s 10 Easy Steps for Twitter Beginners. Give it a whirl!

Now for the Great Links… and some real stinkers that also deserve attention.

Via EIA, Andrew Sullivan and Michelle Rhee – two peas in a pod? Believe it or not, yes. I suppose even Sullivan gets to be sensible every once in a while. Blind squirrel, broken clock, etc. etc.

There aren’t too many men teaching K-12, reports Eduflack. In MA, fewer than 25% of K-12 teachers are men. And it’s everywhere, too – in April 2007 I wrote a post about male elementary teachers in NY dropping to 9%, a 40-year low. Some folks like MenTeach have been trying to raise awareness for a while now. Check them out and subscribe.

Ted Tedesco of Woodbury, Vermont is a hero. He’s worked to restore the Pledge of Allegiance in that small school district. The admins’ solution to his request is ridiculous, but at least everyone sees it. That, and a generation of kids in Woodbury knows how important it is to defend their country and their culture. As I wrote in the comments of the Core Knowledge post:

“A few months ago I attended a reunion banquet for a tiny, rural high school that closed shop during the consolidation efforts of the 1950s. Their meeting included the Pledge of Allegiance. When the Pledge came up in the agenda, all of the ~100 in attendance rose – and some with great difficulty, as they were in their 80s and 90s – to recite it.”

You know where I stand on this issue, and there’s a reason why I call the Green Mountain State “The People’s Republic of Vermont.” [Sorry, Jessie.]

Across the pond, here’s why I like the Tories. They’ve got a plan to re-introduce a bit of rigor to GCSEs and A-levels. The GCSEs in particular have been gutted – remember this physics teacher begging the government via petition to return mathematical rigor to secondary physics?

“Hot Boys”? I’d prefer that EdSector’s Quick and the Ed bloggers had a bit more self-respect. I already have trouble taking them seriously – these post titles don’t help.

Schools suing bloggers? You betcha. PRO on HCPS links to a libel case against an unhappy parent. Well, if “libel” means “a school district seething when held accountable by the public.” Guess who won? [UPDATE: PRO on HCPS gives us a better link for schools suing bloggers.]

Litigation is expensive when you’re trying to fire a teacher, administrator or school employee. In nearby Utica, NY, Craig Fehlhaber’s hearings have cost the Utica City Schools $250,000 – and counting. If Fehlhaber wins, the district will likely have to reimburse his attorney’s fees as well. We went through the same process in Cooperstown several years ago. If you ever wondered why schools tend not to dismiss bad employees, now you’ve got one reason.

Dave at ‘Friends of Dave’ – a very sharp blog, subscribe with all deliberate speed – highlights some recent irony in California. The California Association of School Business Officers have a conference at which they’ll discuss our tough economic times and how their districts can cope. And that conference is at a hotel/spa/golf course in Newport Beach. Dave has a sensible take on it all, but c’mon, CASBO. He says, “It is a bit ironic that the people who are typically the ones telling their co-workers that they can’t have an extra ream of paper are the ones having a really nice time at a Hotel and Spa on the beach.” Agreed.

Victory in Iraq Day – November 22, 2008. ZombieTime has declared 11/22/08 VI Day and I’m with him 100%. Read his post to see why it’s appropriate to declare VI Day and you’ll see why I support it, too.

“Building a GREAT teaching workforce,” described by American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence’s Dave Saba. Saba/ABCTE sing the praises – rightly – of a new report on the effectiveness of alternative certification programs.

There’s a lot going around re: the 21st century global economy – part myth, part truth, part sense, part insanity. I’ve written several times on the film Two Million Minutes and responded to a few articles about education and the global economy.

The Teaching Company just sent the following bulletin which offers a free video lecture about China, India and the 21st century economy. My experience with TTC has been excellent, and their free lectures are top quality. I’d recommend them to anyone.

There is substantial interest in the future of the global economy because of the rising influence of rapidly growing countries like China and India. As a thank you for being our customer, here is a specially commissioned video lecture on the future of the global economy: Will China and India Dominate the 21st-Century Global Economy? delivered by award-winning Professor Lee Branstetter of Carnegie Mellon University.

Economists predict that China and India are set to dominate the 21st-century global economy and become the new engines that drive economic growth. But how will this transition affect the standing of the United States within the global economy? What are some of the challenges that the United States will face in adjusting to the rise of these Asian economies? What are the opportunities for American growth and prosperity in this situation?

View this free video lecture between now and September 29, 2008, to discover what startling effects the rapid growth of these two countries may have on the economic future of the United States.

Will China and India Dominate the 21st-Century Global Economy? is delivered by Professor Lee Branstetter of Carnegie Mellon University. An Associate Professor of Economics and Public Policy, Professor Branstetter received his Ph.D. from Harvard University. His teaching skills have earned him the Thomas Mayer Distinguished Teaching Award and a Harvard University Certification for Teaching Excellence. Professor Branstetter’s award-winning research has been supported by the National Science Foundation.

Feel free to send the link to this free video lecture to family or friends who might enjoy it—it is free for them as well.

Sincerely,

Brandon C. Hidalgo, CEO
The Teaching Company

The title of this post is what it really boils down to – but there’s more to the story than apathy.

In “How Our Culture Keeps Students Out of Science,” Peter Wood argues that our dependence on foreign STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, Math] students, including Bill Gates’ 2008 call for the extension of H-1B visas to these graduates, shows how poorly the United States develops its own STEMmies. Actually, we don’t develop too many – we just cross our fingers and hope that kids have their priorities straight and the resources they need:

“Success in the sciences unquestionably takes a lot of hard work, sustained over many years. Students usually have to catch the science bug in grade school and stick with it to develop the competencies in math and the mastery of complex theories they need to progress up the ladder. Those who succeed at the level where they can eventually pursue graduate degrees must have not only abundant intellectual talent but also a powerful interest in sticking to a long course of cumulative study. [...]

“It [contemporary American education] begins by treating children as psychologically fragile beings who will fail to learn — and worse, fail to develop as “whole persons” — if not constantly praised. The self-esteem movement may have its merits, but preparing students for arduous intellectual ascents aren’t among them. What the movement most commonly yields is a surfeit of college freshmen who “feel good” about themselves for no discernible reason and who grossly overrate their meager attainments.”

That isn’t terribly conducive to the study of science, math and its brethren. If you needed one line to sum up Wood’s argument, here it is:

“The intellectual lassitude we breed in students, their unearned and inflated self-confidence, undercuts both the self-discipline and the intellectual modesty that is needed for the apprentice years in the sciences.”

At PhiBetaCons, Mr. Leef beat me to a point Wood didn’t make:

“I think that a significant part of this problem is that to do science you need to be good at math. Sadly, as this recent NCTQ study found, math is often poorly taught in elementary schools because many of the teachers are weak in math themselves and ill-prepared to teach it.”

Not only are they ill-prepared to teach it, they don’t know it in the first place.

Elementary school teachers have a tenuous grasp of the most basic mathematics – and that isn’t an understatement.

Our elementary teachers score about 521 [out of 800] on the Quantitative section of the GRE, a subset of the test that examines algebra, geometry and basic statistical reasoning skills. A score of 520 is not only well below the national mean of 584; it’s around the 31st percentile of all test-takers. In other words, 7 out of 10 test-takers with undergraduate degrees score better on a basic math skills test than elementary teachers en route to graduate school [pages 13 and 18, available for download, 4.1mb Adobe PDF].

Our high school teachers fare little better. They pull in at 576 – about the 42nd percentile of all test-takers.

And these aren’t just statistics, they’re personified in communities everywhere. When I was in high school, I chose not to take AP Calculus because the teacher was such a useless dolt – he just plain didn’t know math [he still teaches at my alma mater, so if he's reading this, Hi!]. I waited and took calculus with the engineering students in my first semester of college.

K-12 teachers don’t know much about even the most foundational mathematics. That our schools don’t cultivate students interested in STEM careers shouldn’t surprise anyone.

From The Homeroom, the LA Times’ Southern CA Schools blog: The misnomer that is ‘teacher.’

One thing that education blogosphere is wonderful at is saying something and meaning nothing. Take, for example, this re-definition of ‘teacher’:

The problem with the label that educators have cornered themselves into is that it doesn’t provide a clear picture of what a teacher does. New teachers, student teachers and still developing teachers can teach until they are blue in the face and –- if they aren’t engaging their students –- not actually have a class of young people learning anything.

As a result, much of the beginning of the year, my classroom interaction with students is such that I try to make it clear to my students that we are a community of learners, committed toward common thematic and academic objectives. As such, I am aiding these students in their quest toward literacy and content proficiency.

Perhaps instead of framing the job as a “teacher” a new phrase would be more appropriate. I’m happy to hear your proposals. For now, I think I’ll try out “Learning Practitioner.”

… or you could stick with the unpretentious “teacher,” which works just fine. Relax, do your job, and the professional respect follows.

From InsideHigherEd.com: “The Innumeracy of Intellectuals.”

Professor Orzel, who blogs at Uncertain Principles, has a remarkable ability to restrain himself:

Ignorance of math can even be a source of a perverse sort of pride— the bit of the blog post that reminded me of this is a call-back to an earlier post in which he relates his troubles with math, and how he exploited a loophole in his college rules to graduate without passing algebra. To me that anecdote reads as more proud than shameful— less “I’m not good at math” and more “I’m clever enough to circumvent the rules.”

It’s not entirely without shame, of course.

Not without shame, indeed.

When I was in a Ph.D. program in the social sciences, I was floored by the innumeracy of my peers [and, at times, professors]. If I were a dean or provost, I’d expect that those to whom I awarded a doctorate would have a command of 10th grade math.

… and I’d be sorely disappointed.

From the Freedom of Information Committee Blog: “Cheap e-mail archiving software eliminates technical barriers to access.”

In some states – like New York and Florida – e-mail communications between public employees/servants are in the public domain. You can FOIL them because you’re entitled to them.

And if you ever request this information, you’ll likely get two reactions:

1. “What?” After which you explain that the information is public, and that you’d appreciate it in a timely fashion pursuant to the regulations in your State;

2. “What?” Followed by a litany of excuses, one of which is usually, “… but that’s too hard/costly to be practical.”

Sorry, public employees, but Waterford Technologies just eliminated your reliance on #2. For $99, a public institution can have unlimited licenses for e-mail archiving software.

#1, however, will still present itself nearly every time – such is life.

If your message fails, blame the medium – or otherwise go for semantics over substance.

That’s a fair charge for Jay Mathews’ latest WaPo-whine titled “Why I Am A TV Loser.”

You’ll remember that Mr. Mathews debated Two Million Minutes’ Executive Producer Bob Compton about a month ago. And if you’ve forgotten, or missed it the first time around, here’s a recap:

• Fisking Jay Mathews on the Global Economy and Education, Part 1

• Fisking Jay Mathews on the Global Economy and Education, Part 2: Analyzing Creativity

It’s apparently taken Mathews a good six weeks to get up the courage to seethe publicly.

There are two major issues here. The first is about his latest piece; the second is about the global economy/education. I think we’ve got to look at these one at a time.

From Mathews’ opening line, you’d think that he’d been shouted down by Malik Shabazz:

“Don’t ever go on CNBC to debate Bob Compton, one of America’s most energetic prophets of doom, without careful preparation and a willingness to be rude.”

One of the things that initially interested me in Compton’s film was that he wasn’t a “prophet of doom.” He and his associates don’t wear sandwich signs warning that the end is nigh, or that our traffic signs will be in Hindi in 10 years if we don’t shape up. Two Million Minutes is a sensible, realistic look at how we approach education in comparison to India and China. Reality, though, doesn’t get in Mathews’ way:

“I appeared with Compton on Erin Burnett’s show “Street Signs” in early June. He killed me. I thought we would have a scholarly discussion of American public schools. Were they, as Compton argues, losing out to the rising Indian and Chinese schools or were they, as I had written, needing help but unlikely to cause a collapse of the U.S. economy? I got a few words in occasionally, but Compton — whose enthusiasm I applaud, don’t get me wrong — interrupted, sideswiped and left me looking like I was incapable of completing a sentence.”

The tendentious implication that Compton’s contribution wasn’t “scholarly” aside, Mathews appears to have gotten his own television appearance wrong. Mathews was, however, “killed,” partly by his own sputtering ineptitude, partly by Compton’s spirited argument.

And really, Jay, if that interview was the harshest, most rude encounter you’ve had in your 37 years at the Post, you’ve had a Hell of a gentle journalistic career.

99.99%+ of Washington Post readers haven’t – and won’t – see the interview in question. They’ve got to take him at his distorted word. You, dear reader, can watch the video and judge for yourself.

Mathews attempts to re-frame the debate for his unknowing readers. It was Compton’s “enthusiasm,” not evidence; it was his fascist, tour-de-force aggression, not the swift rebuttal of Mathews’ useless arguments. Again, watch and draw your own conclusion.

“That was, of course, exactly what he was supposed to do. It was cable TV, for goodness sake. Discussions there are supposed to be fast and loud. Compton tells me he thought he was being aggressive, not rude. That’s not the way my mother would see it, but I agree with Bob. I just wasn’t ready.”

The debate was your standard splitscreen talking-head matchup with the occasional full shot. But this was CNBC, and Erin Burnett isn’t Jerry Springer [though a love triangle or paternity test would have been that unexpected cherry on top].

Mathews got beat because, as he said so gently about himself, he “wasn’t ready.” And though Mathews’ mother would apparently scowl at the treatment of her little boy, I think mine would’ve found his drubbing a fairly unremarkable result considering the mismatch [my mother tends to value the substance over semantics].

Thankfully, the whining stops:

“I interviewed Compton and responded to his film twice, in a Feb. 11 column and in a piece in the spring issue of the Wilson Quarterly. I confessed I, too, was distressed to see, in his film, Carmel High’s Brittany Brechbuhl watching “Grey’s Anatomy” on television with her friends while they were allegedly doing their math homework.”

Since we’re all being honest here, I should disclose that I’m watching re-runs of “Charmed” as I allegedly write this.

“Many economists argued, I said, that our social, political and economic freedoms, not our education system, make us more productive and creative than other countries. I said Compton, an admittedly mediocre student at James Madison High School in Vienna and Principia College in Elsah, Ill., exemplifies the point. His energy and imagination found the room they needed to prosper in this country which, I said, “gives even B and C students more chances than A students in China and India have.”"

This is the second time, curiously, that Mathews has mentioned Compton’s academic “mediocr[ity]” without referencing Mr. Compton’s Harvard Business School pedigree.

“”I tried to say this on CNBC, too. But Compton cut me off, saying I obviously didn’t know what was going on in Asia because I have never been to India and haven’t visited China (where I was once The Post correspondent) since 1989.”"

This is a terribly important point, and it’s one I held off from writing about the last time I fisked Mathews because I was fairly certain he’d give me another opportunity.

It isn’t always necessary to engage in something or to witness something firsthand in order to know it. If either of those two were requirements for knowledge, we’d have no way to study history, or a host of other disciplines, with any degree of certainty.

I can’t get in Bob’s head, but I assume that he was suggesting that Mathews visit India and China because his information was, in Bob’s assessment, inaccurate. If your information isn’t solid, the most efficient way to acquire better information is to go get it yourself. This is why our most earnest politicians visit Iraq and Afghanistan to meet with our military commanders [and it's also why other politicians posture with these visits].

“Vivek Wadhwa, a high-tech entrepreneur teaching at Duke University, has shared with me some of his research, and his occasional e-mail exchanges with Compton. Wadhwa, like Compton, is a successful businessman with a first-hand grasp of the difficulties American companies have finding engineering talent. He tells both sides, supporting Compton on some points and criticizing him on others.”

Mr.  Wadhwa appeared in Two Million Minutes and has written recently about global education. In May, he wrote “US Schools: Not That Bad.” If I could fund it independently, I’d invite Mr. Wadhwa to do a speaking tour in upstate New York where he told taxpayers burdened by ever-rising school taxes [oddly enough, in the face of decreasing enrollments] that they should relax because, after all, their local schools aren’t “that bad.”

BusinessWeek couldn’t get enough of Mr. Wadhwa; they published his piece, “What the US Can Learn From Indian R&D” just this week. Its implications for this debate are clear, but there is one facet directly related to public education: Wadhwa’s latest article sweeps so broadly that it reminds me of those gigantic brooms a custodian uses to clean an entire hallway in one pass.

“What is happening in India and China is that private companies, not public school systems, are doing the training that is producing the technical elite building those economies, Wadhwa said. If U.S. corporate leaders such as Bill Gates, he said, are worried about losing to competing nations, they should do more as executives to train their own workforce. “All they are doing now is to blame our teachers and put the burden on our children,” he said.”

This is partly accurate – private companies in India and China are making up for the public school’s shortcomings [we'll get to the truth about that next time]. It also misses the point; we aren’t just concerned with our economic success, as we may be able to shore that up privately as Wadhwa claims. We have to be concerned with bleeding anywhere from $7k to $25k in per pupil expenditure – a significant factor in local taxes in some areas – and seeing little benefit for students or their communities.

Wadhwa is wrong, though. Some of us blame principals as well.

“I hope I am in better shape if Compton and I have a rematch.”

Doubt it.

“But whatever the outcome, it won’t mean much. I encourage scholars and journalists living China and India to further examine those economies and education systems and give us something more than two-week-visit impressions.”

Touche, Mr. Mathews.

“Personally, I think prosperity in other parts of the world is good news. It means happier people with more choices. It may even mean more freedom and less war. Compton and I agree that would be a good thing.”

I hasten to point out that the German higher education model was excellent; that’s why we modeled our universities after theirs. Despite this, Germany was the aggressor in two World Wars that left about 90 million dead.

If one wasn’t sure why I had to split this up into two posts, there you go – what started as a whine and a moan ended up as a third-rate college admissions essay about how better education will end war.

We’ll handle that other issue – the arguments re: Indian and Chinese businesses and how they cope with the education of their hires – next time.

Like every benevolent sector in the United States, the education crowd frequently aligns with the famous [and infamous] to get the job done. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but we’d do well to put a bit more thought in to who we select and why.

Occasionally we stumble on some pleasant surprises when education and celebrity overlap. A little diligence and awareness would keep us from relying on surprises, though.

Have a listen and weigh in – it’ll be the best 5 minutes of your day!

You can play this Education for the Aughts Podcast by clicking on the triangular ‘play’ button on the player below [or at the bottom of the post if you’re reading this in RSS] – it will expand and begin streaming audio. Alternatively, you can download an mp3 file of the podcast to listen in your own media player.

And, if you like what you hear, you can subscribe to Education for the Aughts Podcast.

[audio:http://matthewktabor.com/audio/aughts_podcast_02_shakira_final_64kbps.mp3]

RELEVANT LINKS:

• Global Campaign for Education
• Shakira’s Campaign for Education @ justjared
  
• Shakira @ wikipedia
• A. Russo @ This Week in Education: Singer Appears To Promote Global Education: Where’s Your Celebrity Spokesperson?
• George Clooney @ wikipedia
• ED in ’08 Makes Strange Bedfellows [Kanye West, ED in '08]
• ED in ’08
• May Installed as Uni Chancellor, BBC
• Mayim Bialik @ wikipedia
• Jeff Cohen @ wikipedia

It shouldn’t be a shock to anyone that education reform – an integral part of which is the way school leaders communicate with the public – is best measured in nanometers. I say nanometers because the term “millimicron,” describing exactly the same unit, is out of fashion, and something more colloquial like “baby steps” overstates things.

I wrote a month ago about a chronic offender of open, honest [I'd call this "basic"] communication – Irvington Union Free School District’s Paul Mandel. In a preliminary assessment of the upcoming budget, Mandel wrote on behalf of the Board of Education a summary that included a bit about New York State’s EXCEL Aid program, which provides funds for improving infrastructures/physical plants in districts statewide. He said:

At the time of the budget vote, the District will ask voters to approve approximately $650,000 worth of EXCEL Aid projects, one-time grants which are 100% funded by New York State. These projects will include replacing the Main Street School gym bleachers and floor, replacing the Main Street School public address and fire alarm systems and improving the Middle School public address system (providing access to the Middle School art rooms and CMS Rooms). Voters must approve these projects, but it is vital that everyone understand there is absolutely no cost to taxpayers for these important projects.

And, as I pointed out at the time, the emphases appear in the original – they aren’t mine. They could’ve been, though.

Mandel’s most recent full-length communique forces us to break out those microtubules and microscopes. In a makeshift homage to project-based learning – this teaches us about science and civics, kids! – we’ve got a nanometer begging for measurement. In the April 8th “View on Board: Superintendent’s Recommended Budget 2008-09″ Mandel informs:

At the time of the budget vote on May 20, the District will ask voters to approve a separate proposition for approximately $627,781 worth of EXCEL Aid projects, one-time grants which are 100% funded by New York State. These projects will include replacing the Main Street School gym bleachers and floor, replacing the Main Street School public address and fire alarm systems and improving the Middle School public address system (providing access to the Middle School art rooms and CMS Rooms). Voters must approve this proposition, but it is vital that everyone understand there is almost no cost to taxpayers for these important projects. (The only cost would be a minimal interest charge on a short-term loan needed to pay for the work before the receipt of the aid, approximately $20,000.)

“[A]bsolutely no cost to taxpayers” has become “almost no cost to taxpayers.”

He points out the minimal debt service, but still fails to acknowledge that the cost to taxpayers – in Irvington and the rest of New York State – bear the full burden. We’re happy to do so for responsible projects statewide, but there’s no reason to pretend that this money defies the adage and does, in fact, grow on trees.

I’d say that Mandel is irresponsible and disingenuous, but at this point I sincerely believe that he, and likely the Board for which he speaks, doesn’t understand – or, what’s even worse, doesn’t care.

I’ve reprinted at the bottom the first letter I wrote. There’s really no need to update it. The Board instructs:

As always, the Board welcomes your feedback. [clip] … feel free to contact us at: board@irvingtonschools.org

If you’re a resident of New York State, drop them a line. I did:

To the Board:

http://www.matthewktabor.com/2008/04/17/irvingtons-pismire-strikes-again-lesson-2-in-new-york-state-taxes/

I hope that you will regard my comments about Irvington’s billing of EXCEL Aid as “absolutely no cost to taxpayers” and as “almost no cost to taxpayers” with the sobriety they warrant. All districts – in New York State and nationwide – must treat their constituents with the respect they deserve and must communicate honestly. Twice your e-mails have failed to clear this relatively low moral and governmental hurdle – I’m confident, for the sake of Irvington’s citizens and those who contribute from other parts of the state, that it won’t happen a third time.

Many thanks,

Matthew K. Tabor
mktabor@gmail.com
www.matthewktabor.com
607.821.1752

And the letter that appeared a month ago:

My primary interest is public education. I read over 7,000 pieces a month on the topic and subscribe to nearly 100 district newsletters from across the country. Occasionally one district or an individual stands proud from the rest – for better or worse.

The February 14 newsletter from IUFSD’s Paul Mandel, titled “View on Board: Athletics, Transportation and Building & Grounds Budgets,” is an attempt by Mandel to justify budget increases in each of the topics in the title. It’s standard fare for board members and administrators to distribute such apologia and, in the District’s defense, most of the increases detailed are unavoidable. Such is public education.

But in the penultimate paragraph, Mandel commits an egregious error as he describes the $650,000 EXCEL Aid package on which voters will decide. This project will “replac[e] the Main Street School gym bleachers and floor” and improve the public address system in the Middle School. He goes on: “Voters must approve these projects, but it is vital that everyone understand there is absolutely no cost to taxpayers for these important projects.” The phrase “absolutely no cost to taxpayers” was made bold and underlined so you folks in Irvington wouldn’t have to bother thinking about it – Mandel has already done it for you.

Mandel’s huckster act conveniently glosses over one important point: New York State taxpayers have already given up the money used in EXCEL projects like the one proposed for IUFSD. The $2.6 billion slated for EXCEL aid didn’t appear when the Fiscal Fairy waved her magic wand.

I have to assume that Mandel meant to suggest that Irvington taxpayers wouldn’t see any additional tax burdens if the EXCEL-based project is approved. In lieu of such pesky clarity, he used sloppy language that masked the honest impact of the project’s approval.

One is compelled to wonder whether the statement is deliberately misleading – if so, it wouldn’t be the first time a school board member pulled a fast one – but that point is nearly moot. Whether out of malice or simply clumsy ignorance, Mandel’s gaffe demonstrates unforgivable contempt for taxpayers in the District and the larger state surrounding it.

Third-rate sales pitches by a public school pismire notwithstanding, honest debate about our schools depends on honest information. If IUFSD is serious about garnering the support not just of its locals but also of taxpayers statewide, they would do well to embrace that honesty.

Graham Wegner is annoyed that the rest of the world doesn’t share the same opinion about the spelling of “Celsius.”

In truth, Mr. Wignar, there’s only one way to spell it: Celsius. It isn’t “celcius” today and it won’t be tomorrow. That’s because astronomer Anders Celsius was the first to create a temperature scale with 0 as the freezing point for water and 100 as the boiling point. We pay homage by invoking his name for that system. And, as I’m sure we’d all agree, names aren’t a matter of opinion.

The Fahrenheit system is also named after a guy. We capitalize both Fahrenheit [F] and Celsius [C] because they are names.

Gramm spits some snark toward the oppressive masses that make up Wikipedia:

“I pride myself on my spelling ability. So much that I can get indignant when confronted with the accusation that my lifelong memory of a word is actually incorrect. But who can argue when the Wikipedic wisdom of crowds defines the right spelling for me…”

Well, Grehim, I’m not accusing you, I’m just telling you that you’re 110% wrong and that there’s absolutely no basis for your objection. You could’ve read all the way to the third [!] sentence of the Wikipedia entry on “Celsius” and seen this:

“Celsius” is named after the Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius (1701 – 1744), who developed a similar temperature scale two years before his death.

But you didn’t. You made a cartoon and wrote a blog post instead.

Worghner wraps up with this:

“Luckily for me, perhaps I’m merely contributing to the evolution of the English language…”

Haha! Oh, Grimm, you charming little scamp. That quip is almost as predictable and banal as me spelling your name wrong 5 times in this blog post.

What bothers me most about the post isn’t Wegner’s attempt at the lighthearted/humorous – I’m sure most of his readers chuckled. It’s the 7 comments to his blog post that really concern me.

I’ll summarize them:

1. Love the hat!
2. Paragraph citing irrelevant research that has become a pop culture meme
3. Your hat looks like a pith helmet
4. I can’t spell accommodation***
5. Wegner explains that he’s wearing a bucket hat
6. Commenter mentions something about a surname
7. Someone posts the full lyrics to “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off”

The usual drivel – nothing remarkable here. Except for Comment #6, that surname bit, which suggests gently that:

“Well, since it’s a guy’s surname, perhaps we should try to get it right.”

Unfortunately for Commenter Karyn [whose blog is a good read, by the way], no one noticed or cared.

Oh, the Read-Write/Web 2.0 at its finest. It’s not what you publish, it’s just that you participate. Gold stars and hugs for all!

The rest – like the last names of seminal scientists or conceptual/historical links between our everyday term and a man 3 centuries gone – are just pesky details that, as Wegner foreshadows, probably will be lost over time. I just won’t call it “evolution.”

*** There’s a trick for spelling accommodate and its sisters. Say to yourself, “Accommodate is a large enough word to accommodate two Cs and two Ms.” You won’t spell it wrong again.

The National Association of Secondary School Principals has released an official statement on the film Two Million Minutes: A Global Examination. On their Principal’s Policy Blog, NASSP introduces the film before applying their criticism:

“Recently, the Ed in ’08 campaign released, in cooperation with Broken Pencil Productions, a film that focuses on how students in the United States, China, and India use their “two million minutes” in high school. The film makes a compelling argument that the United States is losing its competitive edge in the global economy. Unfortunately, its lack of objectivity taints the central message and prevents a constructive dialogue around its theme.”

Two Million Minutes creator and Executive Producer Bob Compton provided a detailed – and respectful – response both on the 2MM blog and in the comments of NASSP’s original post. If you’ve got the time, read it in full. If you don’t have the time, this summary will suffice:

Compton/2MM: 1, NASSP: 0.

I wanted to take the opportunity to fisk the weirdly defensive statement by the NASSP.

Their first gripe:

The film stacks the deck against U.S. high school students. The U.S. students the documentary profiles are in the top 5% of a school that is itself ranked in the top 5% of U.S. high schools. Although impressive, this does not compare to the Chinese students profiled. One had won a math competition that placed him among China’s top 100 mathematics students, which probably puts him in the top 0.000005% (or so) of Chinese students overall. A more balanced film might have taken top U.S. students from magnet schools such as Stuyvesant High School in New York City or Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in northern Virginia for their comparison.

As Compton explains in the comments of their statement and on the 2MM site, the kids’ situations – parents/family, income, all-around achievement – were roughly equal. It’s awfully tough to take 6 high school kids from 3 different countries and ensure several constants, but the film does a fine job. Also, complaining about how the 2 US students can’t compare to the Chinese students – and then citing one example from one student and leaving the other Chinese student out of the discussion entirely – is sloppy and unconvincing.

Unless the NASSP has compelling data showing that the top 5% at the featured Carmel, IN school is significantly different than the top 5% at Stuy, I’m not interested. At this point, it’s useless conjecture.

SPOILER ALERT: It’s also important to note that despite the male Chinese student’s victory in that math competition – you know, the one that places him in the “top 0.000005% (or so) of Chinese students overall,” he failed to be admitted to his school of choice. The Chinese girl? Not admitted to Yale. The Indian boy and girl were both denied admission to the universities of their choice.

If Broken Pencil Productions “stack[ed] the deck,” as the NASSP claims, they did a rotten job.

Their second gripe:

The film implies that engineering alone will set you free, and devotes almost no attention to success in other academic subjects. The Indian and Chinese students all excel in mathematics and science, and most plan to be engineers. Although we’d all like to see more students pursue engineering, Dan Pink and even Tom Friedman convincingly argue that right-brained activities should not be sacrificed at the altar of technical proficiency.

Stating that the film “implies that engineering alone will set you free” is disingenuous and borders on obnoxious. I’m not sure why the NASSP is trying to pick a fight here, but they could have chosen an argument that didn’t rely so heavily on logical fallacy.

If we want to pull any useful conclusions – even tiny ones – out of comparing 2 students each in 3 different countries, we need a common thread. 2MM chose math/science – all 6 students are working toward fields that use both. Math/science provides a common international language, as so many jointly-awarded Nobel prizes have shown us. Just imagine how disjointed the film would be if we were comparing a physics whiz in Bangalore to an aspiring romantic poet in Texas. Though I’ve only viewed the film 3 times, nothing comes to mind that suggests for a second that writing/communication, creative endeavors, etc. are less valuable – let alone “sacrificed at the altar” of technology, science or math. Grow up, NASSP.

And, if you’re keeping score, note that the NASSP’s Gripe #1 was about how 2MM compares apples to oranges, while Gripe #2 laments 2MM comparing apples to apples.

On to Gripe #3:

The film engages in some statistical sleight of hand. While presenting disheartening statistics about U.S. dropout rates, the documentary presents no comparable statistics from China or India–and little information about school access and how students are tracked as they progress to secondary level education. A quick Google search on Asian dropout rates, for example, reveals that the primary school dropout rate in India is a staggering 53%. Nowhere in the documentary is there a conversation about closing the achievement gap in China or India.

China is, by all facts and figures, a big place. So are India and the United States. I see this omission not as “sleight of hand,” but as pragmatic.

To suggest that seeing dropout rates for China and India might add to the discussion is valid to some degree. But the challenges that the United States faces in educating all of its youth are quite different than those in China and India – and those challenges make up the context within which statistics operate. Without devoting a great deal of time to providing that context, including a raw stat gives little value. From what I understand, the film is for United States educators, businesspeople, students, parents and taxpayers – we can give them stats for the US and they largely understand the context without the film having to provide it.

I have to guess at this – after all, I didn’t make the film – but I think the reason that “[n]owhere in the documentary is there a conversation about closing the achievement gap in China or India” is because that isn’t what the film is about.

Two Million Minutes also fails at:

• Teaching you how to hit a curve ball [Rob Ellis can tell you, though];
• Debating the merits of Brig. General Joshua Chamberlain’s salute of Confederate soldiers upon their Appomattox surrender;
• Explaining how Rick Astley’s “Never Gonna Give You Up” fell far enough in popularity to even set itself up for a rebound.

Pursuing a massive, complex tangential topic – no matter how important that topic is – would do a disservice to 2MM’s point and, for example, to “closing the achievement gap in China or India.” The NASSP concludes:

Two Million Minutes opens a conversation about what we value in U.S. culture and the reality of a global economy. But it fails to prove its case against U.S. public schools.

Agreed – Two Million Minutes does a remarkable job of opening a conversation that we desperately need. It does not, however, open a “case against U.S. public schools” – any inference along those lines is owned entirely by NASSP. As Compton wrote in his reply, “Does it matter to America’s economic future that Indian and Chinese students spend more time building their intellectual foundation than American students?”

2MM is about how we use our time and the opportunity costs of those decisions.

I lament that the NASSP ignored their own conclusion – that the film “opens a conversation about what we value” – so they might release an official statement about a fabricated one-hour attack on public education. I’d prefer to see school leaders discussing how their schools and districts can use this state of affairs to forge better curricula and better instruction. The NASSP dropped the ball.

Then again, I’d probably be awfully defensive and insecure if my organization’s members averaged a GRE score of 950 [Verbal: 427, Quantitative: 523, national mean for those pursuing graduate degrees in Education Administration, page 19 of PDF].

Those one-dimensional engineering technonerds the NASSP so derided in Gripe #2? Well, their Verbal mean is 467 [40pts higher than education administration tracks], with a predictably-higher Quantitative score of 720 [197pts higher, page 18 of PDF] for a total mean of 1187.

I’m not much of a religious man, but I sure can tell when an organization needs a dose of Luke 4:23.

The edublogging technocheerleaders say ad nauseam that the most important part of not just blogging but Web 2.0 as a whole is the “conversation.”

One of the many delights I’ve experienced with this site is coming into contact and corresponding with people I’d otherwise never find. I have to assume this is the “conversation” about which I read literally hundreds of articles a month.

Gary Stager of District Administration is largely the black to my white, but I’ve found that fewer – if any – education professionals are more willing to engage in real debate. And the absolute best part is that he’s secure enough to disagree completely in a blog thread or e-mail and not take it personally. After all, education isn’t about us.

Sometimes we match up philosophically – he raised an eyebrow at the Ed in ’08 Kanye Kampaign, too – but in many matters he’s the Douglas to my Lincoln [I couldn't help but choose the better side].

But we’re at philosophical odds again. This time the issue is the value of vocational/technology education.

In “I’m Worried About America,” Stager comments on three current news stories:

1. Yesterday’s Cleveland school shooting;
2. Racism and the Jena 6 crimes;
3. The debate surrounding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program [SCHIP].

I’m not going to comment on 1, 2 or 3 – plenty of other sites address those issues adequately. I’m going to address Stager’s criticism of vocational education.

The shooting in Cleveland took place at SuccessTech Academy, a school in the Cleveland Municipal system that offers technology and vocational training. Stager said:

I do not wish to disparage the SuccessTech Academy where today’s shooting occurred, but it’s a safe bet that few affluent parents in Shaker Heights would choose to send their children there. Many urban schools are being turned into “specialized” career academies where students are “trained” for trades and low-paying jobs never contemplated for children in the suburbs. How many SuccessTech students do you imagine go on to Ivy League universities? (Note: USA Today reports that the school has a 94% graduation rate.)

Affluent parents tend not to choose vocational tracks for their children. That affluent parents insist on a wholly academic track – or that they don’t contemplate the option in the suburbs – does not legitimize it as a better option; it’s simply what they prefer for their kids.

Career academies are on the rise for many reasons, one of which is a failure of urban schools to deliver academic tracks through the 12th grade successfully. Vocational programs build on a curriculum of basic skills to offer a student expertise that guarantees them gainful employment after high school graduation.

I’m not sure why Gary put “trained” in scare quotes as if there is a difference between trained and trained. There’s nothing to suggest that SuccessTech Academy’s vocational education programs are illegitimate or substandard. As far as we can tell, a student leaves SuccessTech prepared to develop that trade further once he graduates. A 94% graduation rate is certainly not low, especially in an urban setting.

Stager’s characterization of trade skills as leading to “low-paying jobs” is also grossly inaccurate – I’ll get to that shortly.

After pointing to the school’s typically-vague mission statement, Stager continues:

A slideshow of images is prominently featured on the home page. The following photos represent one-fourth of the images presented. One shows a student welding and other depicts two African American students grooming a dog. DOG GROOMING! That sure is one ambitious educational objective.

Vocational education? An ambitious educational objective indeed.

Dog grooming is a bit suspect, but as Boris Johnson told the world weeks ago, the market has deemed seemingly-odd tracks both economically viable and worthy of study. I’d like to focus on welding.

I received training in welding in high school beginning in the 10th grade. It was one of the most valuable skills I learned in my public K-12 education and it was not training to which I had access or could otherwise afford outside of school. I spent weekends learning fine woodworking and during the week augmented that with metalworking in my school’s technology department. I was able to begin working/teaching welding literally within 48 hours after my high school graduation because of those classes.

I graduated on June 25th, relaxed on my 18th birthday on the 26th and was on a plane to Northern California on the 27th to work. Again, I got that job based on the metalworking education I received in high school.

Stager and others may or may not believe this, but it’s possible to mix technical/vocational education programs like welding with a wildly varied and rigorous academic program.

With students aged 8-16, I used welding as a means to look at everything from chemistry/physics, geometry/trigonometry, principles of design, basic principles of engineering and basic concepts in intellectual property [yes, all of these can be introduced properly to a child as young as 8]. I do wish that Stager and others had the opportunity to sit in on one of the sessions where I explained to 10-year olds the chemical differences between MIG welding and arc welding and its consequences on designing the project we were working on.

Educators are keen on assessment, so it’s important to note that after the design phase of the lesson, not a tyke put forth a proposal for an iron candle-holder that wouldn’t tolerate the weaker joints of a MIG weld. Might that be a 100% success rate using authentic assessment? The Ridgewood administration would approve.

And yes, that came from vocational training in welding, that “low-paying,” shoddy, non-rigorous discipline that a Shaker Heights parent wouldn’t be caught dead suggesting their child explore.

As I developed my skills in high school, I saw with the aid of two solid teachers that welding played quite well with the New York State Regents chemistry curriculum. The connections between that trade and academics somehow managed to penetrate my grimy blue collar and seep upward to mix with the knowledge that one receives as he earns a Regents diploma. I realize only now with Stager’s help that it was nothing short of a miracle.

Though Stager seems to think that a student putting time into vocational study hasn’t a notion of the Ivy League, I stumbled on that, too. After a year of welding one period a day and 3 hours a week afterschool in the Technology Club, I spent a semester studying history and economics at Harvard. If Stager needs an example of one who has sprinkled the salt of the earth on the forbidden fruit that is an Ivy, he need look only as far as the photo on the right sidebar of this site.

Oddly enough, Stager’s argument reminds me quite well of the attitude I encountered time and again on that campus that semester. The other residents of Winthrop House called me “Rube.”

Again: Ambitious educational objective indeed.

Snark aside, the truth is that many trades position those without a college education to earn an excellent wage as they contribute to their communities and the economy as a whole. The average urban high school graduate is, as Stager says, relegated to low-paying positions. There’s simply too much competition for better jobs that require skills many high school graduates don’t have. Trades are an avenue to contributing meaningful, sought-after labor that yields good compensation.

Take a look at this thread on the American Welding Society’s forum – it discusses the pay scale for welders. Although pay varies regionally, this discussion shows the range of wages a welder is likely to earn based on his skills. A quick glance at the discussion shows that a certified welder starts around $12-14/hr. – a solid gain from a minimum wage, “low-paying” job – and a skilled, experienced independent welder pulls ~$70/hr. Shops can charge a bit more and, of course, safety incentives come into play for more demanding jobs.

I’m not sure how much Stager makes, but I’ll freely admit that a welder with as many years of professional experience as I’ve been out of high school makes quite a bit more per hour than I do.

There’s no reason to discount vocational education, consider it a replacement for an adequate high school curriculum or to unfairly categorize trade skills as inferior. It does a disservice to education and ignores the practical application of much of the curricula in which those in Shaker Heights and the suburbs place their unwavering trust.

Those who practice a trade won’t mind if you do, though. They make a good living striking arcs, fixing plumbing and repairing the cars of the pointy-headed. Who did you think pays those $70/hr. bills?

Welders may not be Kant scholars, but they understand that a snob’s dollar spends the same as any other. Then again, they might just be Kant scholars.