Pages

Selasa, 19 Juli 2011

The New Normal

Too many Americans appear willing to accept the hand they're dealt. Most shockingly, many of our political, educational and civic leaders seem to have fallen into the same trap. "The New Normal," they call it. Like Death and Taxes. Etched in stone. Undefined, yet not re-definable. Inevitable.

Fortunately, there are those among us willing to demand a new deck of cards -- and a new dealer!

We've seen the rise of the Forces For Fairness in states like Wisconsin where there is no disguising the unsubtle, in-your-face, anti-democratic, vitriolic, bought-and-paid-for policies of Governor Scott Walker, the Brothers Fitzgerald, ALEC, the Koch Brothers and their yes men and women (even the few remaining Republican moderates - if they still can be called such - who should know better). In the Badger State, tens of thousands took to the streets of Madison and are now actively participating in recall efforts to change the equation and prevent Wisconsin from being turned into a place totally unrecognizable.

Nationally, I see a rising consciousness and an emerging consensus that congressional Republicans have one-upped their Gingrichian colleagues from the 1990s in overreaching on fiscal matters. Voters do not like the draconian cuts being pushed through by House Republicans, the intransigence and obstructionism practiced as a religion by Senate Republicans, the GOP's willingness to hold America's bond rating and our economic recovery hostage by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, and an adherence to a baseless and extremist anti-tax philosophy. In a recent CBS News poll, 71 percent of Americans are opposed to the way the Republicans are approaching the debt limit debate. As well they should be.

Americans are NOT opposed to raising taxes on the wealthy to address our national debt. A recent Reuters poll found that 52 percent of Americans believed that "a combination of spending cuts and tax increases was the best strategy to reduce deficits." Republicans are so constrained by anti-tax pledges that they even believe a repeal of ANY tax cut or the closing of ANY tax loophole (even those for corporate jet owners!) would result in Grover Norquist gagging them with a mouthful of tea bags and ordering them to a permanent political purgatory.

If more Democrats had shown the courage to stand up sooner and establish the terms of the debate, this emerging consensus could have been precipitated. The likes of Vermont's Bernie Sanders have had it right for some time in the call for "shared sacrifice." Others, including President Obama, appear to be catching up to the reality that was evident to Sanders and other Progressives: Congressional Republicans are economic extremists willing to drive the American economy into the ground in order to assuage the Anti-Tax God (don't let it go to your head, Mr. Norquist).

"The Rock and the Hard Place on the Deficit", an op-ed in last Sunday's New York Times, written by Christina Romer, is one of the best articles I've read that puts the substance of this issue into context. For the benefit of you non-Times subscribers, here are some key highlights:
The economic evidence doesn’t support the anti-tax view. Both tax increases and spending cuts will tend to slow the recovery in the near term, but spending cuts will likely slow it more. Over the longer term, sensible tax increases will probably do less damage to economic growth and productivity than cuts in government investment.
...

There is a basic reason why government spending changes probably have a larger short-term impact than tax changes. When a household’s tax bill rises by, say, $100, that household typically pays for part of that increase by reducing its savings. Its spending tends to fall by less than $100. But when the government cuts spending by $100, overall demand goes down by that full amount.

Wealthier households typically pay for more of a tax increase out of savings, and so they reduce their spending less than ordinary households. This implies that tax increases on wealthy households probably have less effect on the economy than those on the poor or the middle class.

All of this argues against any form of fiscal austerity just now. Even some deficit hawks warn that immediate tax increases or spending cuts could push the economy back into recession. Far better to pass a plan that phases in spending cuts or tax increases over time.

But if federal policy makers do decide to reduce the deficit immediately, reducing spending alone would probably be the most damaging to the recovery. Raising taxes for the wealthy would be least likely to reduce overall demand and raise unemployment.

The politics behind this issue is another matter. But it has huge implications for issues like education. Too many educational advocates, policy types, and yes, even elected leaders seem all too willing to accept "The New Normal" -- and even pontificate about it -- as opposed to fight for a new deal and attempt to redefine the debate. President Obama too often appears to allow congressional Republicans to define the terms of the conversation, such as tying long-term deficit reduction to the debt ceiling, as Robert Reich noted over Twitter yesterday.

There's a time and a place for acknowledging political realities and accepting half a loaf. The problem is we've entered the second coming of the Robber Barons where the rich are hoarding their loaves of bread and too many Americans aren't getting a chance to get their hands in the dough at all. Until we address the historic economic inequality in this country and put spending power back in the pockets of working families, there is a tremendous likelihood that the economy will never fully recover. Never. That requires us -- and our elected leaders -- to speak out and act.

The time is now. Reality is what we make it. More of us have got to be willing to step up and say, "Enough!" I've witnessed Democrats and independents get energized in Wisconsin. We need a similar dynamic to take hold nationally. My guess is that it will build in time. But will it be enough to change the equation?

The forces of fiscal lunacy had better listen to the American people now or my guess is that they'll be hearing from the silent majority of sensible Americans at the ballot boxes in 2012 -- and even sooner in states like Wisconsin. If the "Republican Revolution" in the 1990s is any signal, past is prologue.

Senin, 18 Juli 2011

Twin Toddler Room, Updated for Preschool!

Levern and Shirley Style Montessori Floorbeds....They are big enough for box springs now.  I got two fleece blankets and did 'hospital corners' on the box springs to cover them up and make them look a little more like a big kid bed.  A big step, they are now 20" from the floor.  They are growing up!!!  Above their beds, outside this photo, are their names painted in cursive.  The bedding I made from one twin-sized comforter, cut in half.  It fits just right one them, so they don't struggle with the sheets.  Next to the bed is their bins for their sleep stuffed animals and baby dolls.
A close up view of the floor bed, update for preschoolers!
Their toys are in this dollhouse shelf, positioned as a T at the end of their back to back IKEA bin clothing drawers.  Now they have their own clothing space, whereas they were sharing just a few weeks ago.  It's all hers and hers today!!


Their tiny table, and their tiny art :)



Grace & Courtesy with Gifts

Click here: Crace and Courtesy Lesson: Gift Receiving

Jumat, 15 Juli 2011

Hidden Control Panel accessed from your Screen

This is a quick and easy how-to from the guys over at How to Geek. It is a basic one but useful in its simplicity. Your students may not be aware of this feature. Enjoy!!!



If you upgraded to the latest iOS release on your iPad, only to figure out that the screen orientation lock doesn’t work anymore, here’s how to lock the screen using the new, annoying method.


We’re definitely irritated with Apple for making this change—the hardware screen lock was one of the best features of the iPad, and now it’s gone. At least you can still lock it.

Locking the Screen Orientation
Start by holding the iPad in the direction you’d like to lock it, and then press the Home button twice quickly, like a double-click.


The new task switcher will show up at the bottom of the screen, and then you’ll want to slide your finger over to the right to access the new screen hidden on the left.


Once you can see the new screen, click the button on the bottom left-hand side of the screen, and it will lock.


If you wanted to lock the iPad in landscape mode, you’d have to hold it in landscape mode before going through all of this.


Once in this Control Panel you also have access to your Screen Brightness, Volume Control and Play, Rewind and Skip buttons for your Music.




Kamis, 14 Juli 2011

Reading in an iPad Transmedia Universe: Five Real-World Issues

This is a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the issues with students using the iPad as a reader. It is written by Annette Lamb an educational consultant who has taught both at a K/12 and at a University level. There are some interesting points here that I had not considered prior to reading this article. It is one of the first academic referenced articles that I have come across that so clearly and concisely highlights the use of interactive books on the ipad in education.

Annette discusses the five main issues with students using the iPad as a reader. These include;
  • Ease of use of the Devices
  • A listing of Resources available
  • Educational benefits
  • Motivation
  • Approaches to using Tablets.
This would be a must read article for anyone writing a proposal/grant submission for utilising iPads in the classroom or someone trying to convince their administrators of the educational benefits of using iPads in the classroom. We thank Annette for sharing this with us. Be sure to visit her site. It makes for interesting reading.


READING IN IPAD TRANSMEDIA UNIVERSE: FIVE REAL-WORLD ISSUES

DK Travel AppTechnology in the classroom is changing how children learn and how we teach. While some children are reading books about castles, others are using the DK Eyewitness App to explore castles.
In her article Digital Literacies, Lotta Larson (2009, p.255) points out the today's readers are "immersed in multimodal experiences and, consequently, have a keen awareness of the possibility of combining modes and media to receive and communicate messages. This awareness results in an urgent need for teachers and researchers to address the discrepancy between the types of literacy experiences students encounter at school (paper, pencil, and print texts), and those they practice in their daily lives outside the school environment (Web 2.0). One way to bridge such incongruity is to expand the types of texts students are exposed to and engaged with at school by turning attention to electronic books, or e-books".
Let's explore five real-world issues.

1 - THE DEVICES

The classroom of the future will be filled with devices that serve different purposes. There isn't one answer. Instead, there are many to fit different needs.
  • Kindles. A group of advanced readers are reading novels independently.
  • iPads. A reading group reads independently while the teacher works with another group.
  • iPod Touch. Students refer to a dictionary, vocabulary game, encyclopedia while working on a project.
  • Laptop. Students conducting research create a Glogster, interactive poster.
  • Desktop. A group sits together at one computer with a large monitor working on a video production.
MoneyThere are lots of ways to share Apps and e-books with the entire class.
You can hook up your device to the data projector. There are many foreign language books that are available as e-books. If you have the book on Kindle, use the Mac or Windows software to display on the big screen.
Barack Obama's Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters is available in the Kindle book format. For more examples, go to Amazon's Children's eBooks section. This book can be read on a Kindle, however it can also be read on an iPad or computer desktop. If you connect your computer or iPad to your data projector you can see the book in color.
If you have a book like Five Little Monkeys Jumping on the Bed on your iPad, simply point your document camera at the screen of an iPhone or iPad.
Portability. I take my ibird books with when I go bird watching. With my tracks app, I can easily identify animals. Larson (2010) noted that in early studies of e-books read on larger computers, participants often complained of discomfort. However no complains were logged with the new, smaller e-book readers.
Goldsborough (2010 , p.11) pointed out the new digital readers combine the portability of books with the "search and storage capabilities" of computers.
Read the full article:
http://eduscapes.com/fluid/3f.html


Annette Lamb's Website:
http://eduscapes.com/


Affordability and Attainment in Wisconsin Public Higher Education

As I noted in a prior post, last week the Wisconsin Scholars Longitudinal Study (which I co-direct) hosted a statewide conference on the issues of affordability and attainment in Wisconsin Public Higher Education.

The research released became part of this morning's UW Regents discussion (start around 1:03).

In case you missed the event, which was attended by more than 150 leaders from all over Wisconsin, you can watch most of it on Wisconsin Eye. The main presentation of findings is here (see part1).

We will also be posting conference materials on the WSLS website soon.

Rabu, 13 Juli 2011

Petrilli on Educating Poor Kids is Problematic

One of the few conservative edu-pundits I follow is Michael Petrilli. I disagree with him that high-stakes testing, rigid accountability schemes, disempowerment of teachers unions, and a focus on hiring and firing policies will lead us down the path towards better education. And he seems entirely too focused on specific outcomes, compared to improving the overall quality of teaching and learning. But he has some ideas worth considering and has great insights into the political process. Plus, he is reasonable, thoughtful, and open to respectful debate.

This recent post of his (and he wrote a similar one a while back) explored two questions:
"First, whether affluent parents should be satisfied with the public schools to which they send their own children. And second, whether those same parents can be energized to fight on behalf of school reform for the poor." 
Given the positive things I say above, I had to read the post several times before I figured out why it bothered me so much. 


First:
"The No Child Left Behind backlash in the suburbs isn’t due to concerns that the law isn’t working to fix urban education. Plenty of evidence shows that it’s helped. The anger comes from a feeling that the federal law is starting to make middle-class public schools worse–or at least worse in the eyes of their customers."
I agree that NCLB is harming the quality of education in middle-class and more affluent schools alike--I've not heard or read otherwise from those parents. But I vehemently disagree that NCLB "is working to fix urban education." Where's this "plenty of evidence"? Juked testing stats? I would argue, in fact, that the poorer the population of any school (which often means the lower the test scores), the more draconian and harmful the interference of NCLB. I am NOT saying that it's worthless to invest in quality education of poor kids until we fix poverty--far from it. I am saying that NCLB is interfering with quality pedagogy and curriculum in ALL schools, especially in poorer ones. 

Next:
"The second question, it seems to me, will soon be answered by Michelle Rhee’s new endeavor, Students First. Rhee’s potential donors and supporters surely include many well-educated, well-to-do parents; she is encouraging them to contribute money and time in order to fix the schools of other people’s children, not their own. (Teach For America alumni–sensitized to the plight of inner-city education–will play a key role, I would bet.) The gambit is whether a “social justice” pitch to fix urban education can resonate–and be sustained–with people with the resources to engage politically, but without a personal stake in the fight. Time will tell whether Rhee can pull it off."
So affluent people's dedication to improving education for poor children is measured by the amount of money they fork over to people like Michelle Rhee and organizations like Students First? Really? First of all, where's the evidence that Michelle Rhee is "fixing the schools" of anybody's children? And wasn't it the affluent DC residents who overwhelmingly supported her while the ones who didn't were the poorer people whose schools she was supposedly fixing? I have no tolerance, either, for Richard Whitmire's cringe-worthy thesis that the poorer, black people in DC were too ignorant and full of race pride to realize that Rhee-form was good for them.

Lobbying groups like Stand For Children and Students First give money to politicians, many of whom these days advocate for policies that are harmful to the poorer people they profess to want to help, not to schools or to classrooms. Does Petrilli actually believe the only way to help poor children is via expanding our dysfunctional, lobbyist-run political system and buying politicians? How does that help improve the quality of education for poor kids? "Fixing the schools" is actually long-term and painstakingly difficult work that requires collaboration with educators and local communities. Rhee turned her back on many of the community-based groups working for school reform in DC and many lost funding as affluent and influential citizens decided, as Petrilli seems to, that all would be will since Michelle Rhee was there to "fix the schools." A more proper measure of their dedication would be the extent to which more affluent people a) support SES-integrated schools, b) support the poorer populations and schools in their own district, and c) support grassroots and community groups that work directly with poorer families. See here, for example.

Finally,
"The best schools for children of poverty focus on all aspects of their students’ development. At the same time, they look a lot different than the schools affluent families send their kids to. They are more focused on making sure their charges have mastered the basics; they spend a lot of effort inculturating their kids in middle-class mores; they give regular assessments to diagnose progress." (Emphasis mine.)
Neo-liberals like Mike Petrilli, Matt Yglesias, and David Brooks can cite research showing that some schools (translation: KIPP) are very good at boosting some poor kids' performance. But these schools differ from traditional public schools on several dimensions: massive resources, often high attrition, longer school days, more books, longer school years, a richer and more varied curriculum, and sometimes yes, "a different school culture." I have no problem with more emphasis on basics for those who need more basics (as long as that doesn't mean reading strategies or test prep), but I have a huge problem with the idea that "inculturating their kids in middle-class mores" helps kids to succeed academically. The assumption there is that the reason these kids are poor students is due to their parents' values or morals rather than due to the lack of privilege they were born into. (And please don't tell me that when Petrilli, Yglesias, Brooks, and their conservative brethren say "mores," "moral culture," or "bourgeois norms" in this context that they mean good study habits. These men are educated and write for a living. If they meant "habits of a good student," then that's precisely what they would say.)


Petrilli's desire to help poor children and to improve the quality of our education system is genuine. Since I find it valuable to hear the ideas of those with different views, I will continue to listen to what he has to say. Unfortunately, this and other posts show that many of his solutions to the achievement gap are superficial and ideological, failing to address the roots of the opportunity gap: gross societal inequities. Furthermore, like Brooks and Yglesias, his assumptions about human behavior and the causes of poverty are based on assumptions and a philosophy which is, thus far, irreconcilable with my own.