Mediocrity: There’s an app contest for that

I’ve only participated in one science fair, in eighth grade. My partner and I tested the life of various batteries using a camera flash. We got a silver medal – OK, a silver sticker on a certificate – but so did about one-third of the participants, because our middle school was awful. Hopefully, the technology contest proposed by Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) will only have one winner for each medal. Even more hopefully, the second contest will have more actual technology than the first.

Miller, along with Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA), has put forward a resolution calling for a national academic competition administered by the House of Representatives. (Leave your “What do they know about learning?” jokes in the comments.) After three pages describing the necessity of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) to the U.S. economy, this is what the two want to see in the competition:

Because of the importance of computer science it would be appropriate to initially challenge students to develop so-called “apps” for mobile, tablet, and computer platforms.

Putting aside the hilarity of “apps” being in quotes – the word is in actual dictionaries, for God’s sake – really? Really? All this talk about STEM and app building is the best contest they could invent? When I was taking courses in public relations, one of our assignments was to dream up an app interface for a client. Had we actually been required to build the app, I guarantee they would have let us outsource the technical work to one of the computer science students – the people who are into STEM already.

Perhaps Miller and Brady’s thinking on this went as follows:

Let’s see. What do high school students like? Well, they like smartphones, right? So let’s have them create cool stuff for their smartphones! That’s pretty science-y! Think of all the immigrants we won’t need!

Here’s a list of online app building programs, several of which promise that you can build an app in minutes. Science-y, indeed.

In fairness, the resolution does call for input from actual STEM practitioners before the final competition rules are set. Still, the possibility that the competition will only attract students who are already planning STEM careers is real. If a student has decided by high school, as I did, that they have neither aptitude nor interest in STEM, no amount of prize money or D.C. internships will change their mind.

Changes to the way schools approach science, math and trades education would go a much longer way to helping kids develop passions for STEM over time, as would changes to the way America tries to keep its high-skilled immigrants in America (such as trying). This is little more than Miller and Brady’s half-hearted attempt to look productive on the STEM issue.

Some debt aid would be nice right now

Under some circumstances, a choice between saving people’s jobs, when the jobs in question are badly needed, and limiting federal spending can be enough to make your head explode. (My libertarian and liberal friends alike will disagree on that point, but I have shades of both.) The issue of increasing aid to halt teacher layoffs is one of those circumstances. Being the daughter of two teachers (although one teaches at a university), I am fully aware of their inherent value, but debt is debt.

President Obama is touting his proposal for $25 billion in education aid to states as a jobs effort. The money would be spent to rehire or retain teachers and “other education jobs,” in light of 300,000 of those having been lost since 2009 and student-to-teacher ratios increasing by 4.6 percent since 2008. Obama consequently points out that the public sector has been shedding jobs, hoping that will stave off standard-issue “big government” accusations (despite that this was already tried in the 2008 stimulus package).

It won’t if “other education jobs” refers to new bureaucrats, which should be the first rule governing how this aid is to be spent, if it is to be spent at all. It should be devoted entirely to the people who do the teaching. I would add a requirement that each school rehire no more teachers than they laid off since 2009, and apply for aid individually with that number. This may not improve student-to-teacher ratios markedly, but I’ve heard of worse than the national average of 16 students to one teacher.

Some critics of this proposal will charge that rehiring teachers will help their unions rake in more dues, which they would subsequently use to donate to Democrats. It’s hardly grounds for dismissing the idea, but it is a valid point. If anyone has a plan for constraining the ability of unions to bilk the people they represent for political reasons, please present it now.

Other critics will remind us what we need to do before we even think about new federal spending projects, namely shoring up the job/small business market and resolving the debt crisis. I agree; this is far from the economic boost America needs. 300,000 public sector jobs, even if we agree that they’re the rare useful public sector jobs, certainly won’t score a sufficient amount of political points. But it’s something Congress might be able to grin and bear.

Of course, I’d be quicker to embrace this aid proposal if I knew it were part of broader efforts to a) boost hiring across the country and b) refocus federal spending on the most valuable stuff. But we’ve experimented with broad efforts and failed too often. Let’s settle for one OK idea at a time.

Don’t get off yo couch just yet

As I write this, I’m watching an episode of my favorite trashy talk show, in which the majority of advertisers are for-profit colleges and personal injury law firms. I’m going to keep a running tally of how many commercials for the former air during this one hour of television. This will serve as an illustration of a point made by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and others in a report on for-profit colleges: The $32 billion in federal funding they receive is far from a worthwhile investment. As if we didn’t already know.

As of 2010, the graduation rate at for-profit colleges across the country was 22 percent, and the median debt for their students was almost twice that of students who attended private universities. The report named a number of steps Congress could take to make these colleges more accountable for those funds: “more rigorous” performance standards, preventing them from spending the money on marketing and minimum standards of student services, i.e. job search assistance and tutoring.

Attacking these colleges for their students failing to find jobs after graduation is a bit spurious; one could easily chalk that up to poor economic conditions. But there are other contingencies for continued federal support they could consider. For example, do they make a concerted effort to help students find jobs, as the ads always claim, or not? Do they really pay their executives based on profits instead of outcomes? Can their recruiting practices charitably be described as “deceptive?” All signs point to yes.

Frankly, none of this surprises me. This has a chance of happening whenever a public or partially public service – education, health care, corrections – is performed by a for-profit entity. It’s not a guarantee, but it’s certainly likelier to happen under that circumstance, and something every student should fear if they know that their school bases its success on how much money it rakes in. (Of course, you’re likelier to know that if you’re the type of person who can succeed at a not-for-profit university.)

If I were to name my ideal fix for the for-profit college problem, it would probably involve all of them being stomped on by one of these. But, short of that, everything in Harkin’s report will do. If anything needs a bigger marketing budget, it’s his report, lest anyone fall for the commercials and waste thousands of dollars on empty promises.

Final ad tally: six for Everest College, two for Charter College, one for Le Cordon Bleu – and that seems to be on the low end, as far as this show is concerned. You know, if they’re worried about higher compliance costs and lower profits, they might want to think about if one hour of TV on one local affiliate really requires six of basically the same ad.

Hot for (a good) teacher

While I’m not going to name names *cough* Ms. Coleman *cough* crazy bitch *cough*, I’ve endured my share of teachers who never deserved tenure. These were teachers who a) could never get enough control over their classes to make them shut up and work, b) were too busy spewing hearts and rainbows to know what “work” was or c) just didn’t care. And our parents paid for those idiots. So I’m not upset to see certain states changing their tunes and valuing performance over seniority, as if we can only have one.

39 states still have automatic tenure for teachers who perform satisfactorily after a certain number of years, but the tide is slowly turning. Since 2009, eight states have made student performance central to decisions about layoffs. Opponents of these changes complain that they disproportionately affect older teachers and are too contingent on standardized test scores. Proponents point out that a good teacher is more valuable to students than one who just shows up.

I’ll agree with the opponents about the test scores. A student’s preparedness for the next level of their education encompasses a lot more on their ability to memorize facts; while some of them, such as critical thinking, are much more difficult to quantify, it is not beyond the bounds of modern psychology to figure out a way to factor them in. Parent input, as has been introduced in Idaho, is one way to get the ball rolling on a more holistic approach to preparedness.

As for the part about older teachers: Yes. That’s the point. Young and talented education graduates shouldn’t be up against ineffective older teachers who can’t be fired for the usual reasons. Anyone who values seniority over performance in this way is suffering from a form of ageism that posits that older workers are inherently more valuable to an organization’s success than younger ones. That’s the kind of mentality that leads to excuses to stop trying.

Some fear that removing tenure will cause teachers to be fired for all manner of reasons. While it wouldn’t be fail-safe, the same criteria for wrongful dismissal in other industries should apply equally to teaching. In addition, one year of poor teacher evaluations should not be the deciding factor; I would give it three. Finally, there are problems with the educational system that have nothing to do with teachers, and school boards should be mindful of those and take the lead on resolving them, with plenty of input from other stakeholders.

On questions of K-12 education, I always think of how proposed changes would affect my mother, an elementary school music teacher. I’m not biased when I say she’s one of the top teachers at her school. I don’t want her given equal treatment to a co-worker who sucks at their job. She deserves better.

Insert obvious “edumacation” joke here

Yes, many people will look at this story and make a crack about Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and her lack of edumacation. A sizable percentage of these people will be the young Canadian social democrats I like to annoy on Facebook. “Of course she wants to abolish the Department of Education!” they’ll chortle. “It’s not like she’s edumacated!” Please, restrain yourselves.

Bachmann was at a forum hosted by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), the emperor of Tea Party-style conservatism. Among other things, she listed the federal Department of Education as something she would axe as president on constitutional grounds. After all, the word “education” or any permutation thereof does not appear in there. (Neither does “health,” but that department, surprisingly, went unmentioned.)

Bachmann may be the most passionate defender of the Constitution among the pack of Republican presidential candidates on paper, but don’t take it too seriously. Her support of constructionism does not extend to other social issues that merit far more private decision-making than education. Until she admits that enforcement of a ban on abortion and anything LGBT-related would most likely entail an unreasonable search, I will not accept her status as the Constitution’s publicist. Having studied PR myself, I know consistency is a virtue.

On this one, she can make a case beyond the Constitution. No Child Left Behind has proven beyond a doubt that the federal government has no place making decisions about curricula. Local geographies, histories and civics, plus existing governments, make that logistically impossible. The very first Office of Education was established in 1867 to collect statistics on the largest educational institutions. Mandate? Exceeded.

If the federal government is going to be in the business of education at all, there are a few things it can do: collect stats on the most productive lessons and programs, which would enable them to determine appropriations better, and occasional regulations that already do match up with their mandate (civil rights, etc.). Once that’s done, we can do the same for Health and Human Services. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare was a sensible enough idea back when it existed.

Now, if Bachmann can keep her constitutional opinions straight and come up with an alternative to the Department of Education, she may be able to stifle a few of those edumacation jokes.

Tragical history tour

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by the current state of history and civics education in American schools. The National Association of Educational Progress published its latest “report card” on the subject a month ago; it was brought up recently by people who think former Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-AK) mix-up about Paul Revere’s midnight ride was quite natural in today’s America, based on the numbers. The report included a couple of very sobering facts: civics and history are American students’ worst subjects.

I cannot claim to have received much formal education in either subject myself, not even the Canadian version. Most of what I know about politics is the result of independent study. It was at least lacking in my high school as much as any other. But considering the richness of American history and the uniqueness of its political systems, I can’t imagine why it’s been getting this much of the short shrift. Math and science are certainly vital to the country’s economic future; I still don’t know what English lit is good for. But what about its political future?

I have often listed a number of subjects lacking from secondary education, all of which would better prepare all students for adult life – not just those with aptitudes for the innovation sectors of any given time. Home economics and, to a lesser extent, industrial arts are two of them. Civics and history are two others. The first has a fairly obvious benefit: It would help students see why engagement and regular voting are considered virtues.

History is somewhat different. A few years ago, I heard some conservative commentator complain that American schools lacked lessons in “patriotism.” Of course, it’s not good enough to tell our kids that America is exceptional, with a few “we have the greatest/best/largests” thrown in. The point should be to give them the facts that would equip them to see for themselves why America is exceptional. Its formative years have some of the best lessons on this topic.

I would like to see all states set a goal for every student to be able to pass a citizenship test by graduation, and fill out an essay on the subject like we do for our English exams. It would be better for them than 500 words about “inspiration.” (No, really.)

Good thing she didn’t steal a pen, too

I live in a neighborhood called Garden City. I went to a high school in a neighborhood called Grant Park, eight miles away, in another school division. I got in because of the “open boundary” system: Any student can be enrolled as long as their placement wouldn’t crowd out someone who lives in the division. I don’t know about our city’s policy on false addresses, but I don’t imagine many families ever have to contend with those.

That’s what Tanya McDowell, a homeless woman from Bridgeport, CT, had to use to enroll her son in a school 14 miles away in Norwalk. Unbelievably, for this reason, she’s been charged with first-degree larceny and sentenced to 20 years in prison and a $15,000 fine. Convicted murderers around here have gotten it easier. McDowell’s crime was deceiving the school district so her son could get a better education.

Perhaps I’m young and idealistic, but I always had the idea that a sentence should be proportional to its benefit to the community. Who wins when a mother, who already has it as rough as possible, is punished to such an extent for wanting the best for her kid? Ask Jack Chiaramonte, president of the school board: “There has to be a penalty for stealing our services.” He is legally correct that McDowell was stealing, but the fact that he considers this theft on principle is more than a little dismaying.

When such stories come up, many are tempted to call for more independently run charter schools in underperforming districts. Others say the best-performing schools should get expansionary funding on the basis of increased enrollment, and if that means the worst schools shut down, so be it. The example used in this article from Education Week is New Orleans, in which students choose from a mixture of government-run schools and charter schools. They refer to this as a centrist “mixed model.”

It seems reasonable enough to me. The mixed model allows the district to maintain the standards of accountability that have been lost in other cities with charter schools, and it levels the playing field for public ones. Most importantly, it shields districts from having their services “stolen.” I weep for you, Mr. Chiaramonte.

If the right people are teaching and administrating in them, charter schools could be the best way to go, especially when tailored to meet the needs of students who show great promise in specific areas. If I’d attended a school that emphasized politics and debate, I’d have been less bored.

We do need no education

The now-bipartisan drive to cut as much from the federal budget as possible means many sacrifices will have to be made for those who have depended on it thus far. Non-essential defense spending? Fine. Farm subsidies? Whatever. Cowboy poetry festivals? We’ll get over it, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Public education? OK, now we have a problem.

President Obama says education should be shielded from budget-cutting efforts on the part of congressional Republicans, on the grounds that it’s an investment in jobs. (Dur.) These same Republicans had proposed $61 billion in cuts to the budget, including “grants to local schools” and aid for college students. Their Democratic counterparts are offering $6 billion in cuts, shaving 0.36% off the deficit as opposed to 3.7%.

Now you could easily look at these amounts and accuse Obama and the Democrats of being soft on the deficit, which Republicans have done. That’s especially considering Obama wants to spend an extra $390 million on competitive grants for innovative schooling. But that’s far better for the deficit than blank checks. Besides, schools are in pitiable condition, and the states haven’t been able to step it up.

I have stated many times that spending hawks must decide if they’d rather have investment in job creation or a smaller budget, since they tend to blame the government (when the president is a member of the rival party) when job stats don’t look promising. This is the compromise. We can all agree that an effective education is a better indicator of future professional success than how many Pell Grants you get.

Obama likes it when people come to him with better ideas than he and his people could have come up with; that’s been a consistent strength of his character as a president. If Republicans have a way to improve the quality of education without taking too much of a hit on the deficit or tying everything to scores on standardized tests, by all means, let’s hear it. Their only coherent education agenda seems to be that the feds shouldn’t get involved. I agree with that as far as curricula, but funding is another matter. No Child Left Behind needs a proper burial.

As for plans for the deficit, I have previously written about a “traffic-light system” that would grade all proposals for cuts on the basis of necessity and viability. This is a damn fine example of how such a system would come in handy. I would place public education on the lowest end of the yellow light, at the very least.

Voucher? I didn’t even know her

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Gov.-elect Rick Scott (R-FL) and his “bold” education plan. Actually, it’s anything but bold; it’s the coward’s way out. On average, the state of Florida spends $5,500 per student on public education. Scott wants those amounts to go into “education savings accounts” for each child, allowing parents to spend it as they wish when selecting schools for their children. That seems fine at the outset. My parents were never forced to send me or my brother to any school in particular and it worked out well for us both. School choice is a fantastic concept.

School vouchers, however, are not. Ostensibly, the goal is to force public schools to improve in various facets and compete for students with private and charter schools. But doing it in this way is akin to withholding your kid’s allowance as punishment for not renovating his or her own room. It runs the risk of draining money from Florida’s public schools entirely and rendering them even less competitive. Never meant that Scott has already promised to slash property taxes.

I’m the first to say that public schools have major problems: outdated equipment and textbooks, no enforcement against bad teachers, poorly maintained facilities, largely useless curricula. Scott’s proposal does nothing to address those underlying issues. If he wants some use for his $5,500 per child, he might consider making the full payment conditional upon how the districts spend it, charging them a certain percentage if no change in student performance is evident.

Every now and then, you’ll find a Canadian university activist baying about how education is in the public interest. On their level, that’s not always true; nobody can convince me that a philosophy degree is worth as much to society as an economics degree. But it’s certainly true up until high-school graduation, and it would be even more so if public schools were provided with more guidance.

However, given the limits of the Florida government’s influence over education, it may become necessary for the guidance to come down from the district, municipal or county level. Yes, they might actually have to get some serious work done at those PTA meetings. Scott certainly isn’t willing to do it.

New computers for naming rights? It’s a good deal

About two weeks ago, I published a column on why a community college diploma can be just as valuable, if not more so, than a university degree, depending on your career plans. I only briefly mentioned the influence of corporate sponsorship over community college operations. Today we will discuss that issue more in depth, since it was brought into U.S. news following a pre-announcement announcement of President Obama’s newest education initiative, designed to encourage more private investment into community colleges, along with more enrollment.

My take? I’m all in favor of it. My college charges a relatively low amount for tuition and doesn’t get as much government funding as our universities. Yet we have state-of-the-art computers all over the campus; fully functioning TV, radio, photography and illustration studios; enough camera gear to supply a class of 25 people at any given time, and enough editing suites for all of us to use later; and network and server labs for student use. In exchange, a few rooms have names of corporate funders on the doorways, and the library is named after a top businessman and his wife. Do we care? No.

You might wonder why I’m saying this as if it’s going to lead into someone’s ridiculous opposing viewpoint. Yes, one exists. Gregory Furmaniuk, a first-year student at the University of Winnipeg, was quoted in the campus newspaper saying this: ”The idea of corporate sponsorship sends the message to the government that they don’t need to keep funding post-secondary education because the private sector can handle it. Because of that, sponsorship moves away from the idea that school is for everyone.”

Huh? Maybe my experience with corporate sponsorship in a school is different from others, but here at RRC, it goes to improve the total educational experience. As professionals, we will be dealing with the latest equipment and software, and college is the best time for us to learn how to use it. Everyone accepted into the program does so.

I will not deny that there are some examples of corporate sponsors taking these opportunities to inject their own propaganda into lesson plans. A particularly disgusting example is a study guide published by American Coal Foundation, claiming increased carbon dioxide was good for the environment. That is absolutely worth speaking out against.

But to assume all corporate sponsors would do this sort of thing is a gross generalization. It certainly doesn’t help when, in the case of Furmaniuk, you attend a university with computers that still run on a Windows 2000 platform. Increased carbon dioxide isn’t good for the planet, but increased sponsorship is good for the students, if done appropriately.