Category — General

Are you one of those folks who struggle with commitments? Someone who struggles with a lack of will-power or suffers from the propensity to procrastinate?

Then it just may be time to turn to stickK.com, a web site that uses the age-old method of public shaming to help people stay on track when it comes to personal goals and commitments.

A Yale Creation

Since New England was home to Hester Prynne and the “The Scarlet Letter,” it likely comes as no surprise that a couple of New Englanders were the source of a web site that puts the power of public shaming to work. Dean Karlan, a Yale professor of Economics, cofounded the site with Ian Ayres, a Yale Law School professor.

According to the story, Karlan created the concept while a graduate student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He and a friend wagered $10,000 on a personal weight loss plan.

The website is designed so as anyone seeking a specific personal goal can post their name and their goal for everyone to see. Like Karlan’s wager with his MIT colleague, the site also allows those posting to put up a wager.

The cash goes up front with the money pledged to a charity. If the person is able to meet their respective goal, the money is returned to them.

As added incentive, it is suggested that you select a charity you do not support. That way, the loss of money is even more painful.

Site Getting Activity

As of February, the site reported more than 23,000 users with the highest percentage focused on weight loss goals (42 percent). Other popular choices, to no one’s surprise are to get more exercise or quit smoking.

Originating from two elements, the web site name is based on one aspect that most could pick out. The first five letters, stick of course represent the enforcement that comes from a “carrot and stick” approach. However, the final letter, the capital K, represents the legal shorthand for “contract.”

Apparently for those people who are relatively weak, the accountability the site provides may well be just what the doctor ordered. The public nature of stickK.com seems to serve as the blunt instrument needed to ensure follow through.

Self-reporting is one general method utilized in the process though the site encourages contractors to solicit a “referee.” Whether it be a friend or relative, this third party observer then provides oversight and reports any infractions on the site. As part of the contract, stickK.com suggests you also identify a group of supporters.

The Effect of Money on the Line

Not too surprisingly, stickK.com reports that those who put money down and assign a referee are far more apt to follow through on their pledges than those who simply go it alone or opt not to put some cash on the line.

As the site notes choosing a “Foe” can be the perfect catalyst. “Wouldn’t it just kill you to hand over your hard-earned money to someone you can´t stand? That’s a pretty strong incentive to achieve your goal now isn´t it?”

StickK.com will take a credit card and the protocol is to charge your card weekly if you fail to meet muster. In the end, even with a referee in the mix, stickK.com will simply take your word.

Power of Reinforcement

Users can assign levels of privacy so that only those given permission are able to access key information. Still, the site reminds us of how strong reinforcement, whether it be positive or negative, is for certain individuals.

And that large numbers of people are simply not intrinsic by nature.

The data recorded by Natalia Palacios regarding immigrant children’s early learning could have major ramifications for educators seeking answers to America’s high drop out rates.

Her findings in fact have caused some to ask, “Is the process of becoming an American a developmental risk for future generations?”

Palacios Work
The recent work of Palacios is actually consistent with other studies done on immigrant adolescents. Palacios’ longitudinal study of 17,000 children from kindergarten through third grade examined the reading achievement levels of first-, second- and third-generation immigrant children.

Those unfamiliar with what has been dubbed the “Immigrant Paradox” will no doubt be startled by the researchers findings. Once she had controlled for English language proficiency, she found that first-generation children demonstrated higher performance reading levels than their second- or third-generation peers when measured at the end of kindergarten. Perhaps even more importantly, the gap grew even larger by third grade.

In addition to the reduced levels of academic success reported by Palacios, other studies have noted that the physical health and the ability to stay out of trouble also decline from first- to third-generation immigrant children. Once we control for socioeconomic status, the health of children from most immigrant groups worsens from the first to the third generations, the number of teenagers reporting substance abuse rises between generations and the levels of violent behavior increases.

What makes the data so difficult to understand is that new immigrants do extremely well in America particularly given the initial challenges they face. Despite limited language skills and little money, many first generation immigrants find success.

Of course, what makes the data interesting to educators is the fact that so many native-born American students are doing poorly in our schools. Moreover, it appears that the paradox does not exist in many other countries. In most other countries, the first generation does worse than the second and third generations – the exceptions being the US, New Zealand and Australia.

One Plausible Explanation
One simple explanation for the issue occurring here is that America is the land of immigrants. Therefore, there are potential networks in place for new immigrants to access and to help them make that initial transition. Such networks do not appear to be as well-established in other countries.

A second thought, one postulated by researchers, is that immigrants often come with a strong educational background. That background is likely more important than the socioeconomic status of those seeking entry into America.

Unfortunately, as the future generations become more acculturated and more language proficient, they seem to do worse in school. Researchers surmise that these individuals may begin to buy in to the stereotypical notion regarding minorities in the United States, the belief that even if one works hard, discrimination will prevail.

Ultimately, the result is that foreign-born students outperform their American-born counterparts. Foreign-born students test higher, have higher school attendance rates and lower rates of participation in special education programs. They also graduate from high school at higher rates than the native-born.

One Not So Positive Possibility

In a recent article for EdWeek, Scholars Mull the ‘Paradox’ of Immigrants, Mary Ann Zehr first reports on a perplexed parent from Providence. In trying to put his arms around the issue, Tony Mendez spoke of the cultural differences he currently sees.

Mendez, who came to the United States when he was 12, noted he was puzzled by the differences of family members still living in the Dominican Republic. There, youngsters “take it as a given that they will finish high school and go to college.” Yet here in America, Dominican parents “find it hard to persuade their children to stay in high school.”

In essence, Mendez offers that the lack of success in school is perhaps due to the fact that second and third generations may suffer from a diminished sense of urgency regarding trying to make a better life. It may be as simple as, dare we say it, that the acculturated students begin to do less homework.

Min Zhou, a UCLA sociology professor, has a very different perspective. In her eyes, these U.S.-born children are unlike their parents. They are not likely to simply take any job they can get.

Instead, they begin to have expectations, and when those expectations are not met, they respond negatively. In other words, these second and third generation immigrants become a victim of our stratified society of the haves and the have nots.

Critical Issue for America

The current student drop out rate in America represents one of the most significant issues facing our schools and our country. But we also fall significantly short when measured against other nations when it comes to child welfare.

Nine million children without health insurance and more than 13 million living in poverty are numbers that are as striking as the fact that every 26 seconds another American drops out of high school.

Add to that fact the deteriorating results of second- and third-generation immigrants and one has to begin to wonder about the current fabric of our society. Certainly, with such data it is easy to see why some people are asking that incredibly poignant question:

Does becoming an American represent a developmental risk?

Flickr photos courtesy of Diego, Brittney Bush and Monroe’s DragonFly.

In recent years, a new industry has emerged around the issue of brain fitness. The fundamental premise of this growing industry is based upon the notion that brain exercise is as important to maintaining mental acuity as we get older as physical exercise is to preserving muscle strength.

However, two new studies indicate that we have a great deal to learn when it comes to maintaining brain power as we age.

Brain Decline Study

According to the research of Professor Timothy Salthouse of Virginia University, the slide towards old age intellectually begins as we reach our late 20s. Salthouse found that our mental powers actually peaked at age 22 and that both speed of thought and spatial visualization skills begin declining at age 27.

Salthouse’s seven-year study involved 2,000 healthy people, ages 18-60. Published in the journal Neurobiology of Aging, the research involved tests of mental agility.

In the study, participants were asked to perform a number of mental tasks including solving puzzles, recalling words as well as story details and spotting potential patterns in letters and symbols. The tasks presented to study participants matched several currently used by doctors to spot signs of dementia.

As for the age findings, the researcher determined that in nine of the 12 tests given, the average age of those participants reaching the highest performance level was 22. As for the point of slippage, the study found that the first age for which there was any significant decline was 27 with the decline occurring in tests of brain speed, reasoning and visual puzzle-solving ability.

Enormous Implications for Brain Fitness

While the decline in mental capacity (according to Salthouse) begins well before we obtain senior citizen status, some aspects of brain function actually fared much better. First, Salthouse found that our memory skills remained intact, on average, until the age of 37.

Second, there is definitely this attribute we often call wisdom and it appears to increase until we do reach our senior years. Salthouse found that abilities based on accumulated knowledge, (think of tests of vocabulary or general information) increased until the age of 60.

The potential to address issues such as dementia and Alzheimer’s is significant. Examining how healthy brains decline could well be the first step towards solving these debilitating physical diseases.

Current Brain Fitness Receives Low Marks

While therapies designed to maintain mental acuity may need to start much earlier than previously thought, it appears that the current brain fitness market requires further scrutiny as well. The BBC recently reported the assertions of a consumer group called Which?

The group asked three experts to research some of the brain fitness sites and games sold on the premise that they not only help retain memory skills but may help prevent the onset of dementia. Those experts concluded that hard evidence (peer-reviewed research in a recognized scientific journal) to back those claims was sorely lacking.

According to the experts, brain fitness exercises do increase blood flow to the frontal cortex region of the brain. But those same experts noted that the same blood flow effects occur when we are surfing the internet or chatting with friends.

Those experts concluded that the money spent on brain trainers could be put to better use. While these sites and their respective activities may indeed help, the experts offered that the same benefits might be available from simply doing a traditional crossword puzzle.

What Are We to Do

While taken as a pair the two reports might be cause for despair, there are some clear aspects emerging. There is clear evidence that physical exercise has a positive impact on intellectual staying power.

In addition, a healthy and nutritious diet is also critical to maintaining mental acuity. Lastly, according to the experts reporting to Which?, an active social life is also key to keeping an agile mind.

When it comes to the use it or lose it adage, that too appears to have merit. But the effects of the current brain fitness products may ultimately be no better than standard computer games such as Tetris.

Taken in sum, the two offer some interesting insights as well as additional food for thought when it comes to maintaining the gray matter inside our head. Not all of it will set well with the pessimistic among us.

And now we know for sure why we baby-boomers felt a certain level of chagrin when we turned 30.

Flickr photos courtesy of Peta-de-Aztlan, Snowblink and Bob.Fornal.

One has to go back to Sir Francis Bacon in 1597 for the origins of the quote, “Knowledge is power.”

Because of its capacity to control and influence, knowledge was once hoarded by those in position of authority. Today, however, knowledge is readily available to anyone who wants it.

According to the folks at the Davinci Institute, there are:

• More than 3.5 million songs available on iTunes.
• More than 4 million books available on Amazon alone.
• More than 60 million blogs available online.
• More than 4 million entries on Wikipedia.
• More than 6 million videos on YouTube.

Yet, in a Pew research poll from last August, while 58 percent of Americans claimed they followed “international affairs,” only 28% could name the British prime minister. And while two out of every three respondents said they followed “political figures and events in Washington,” only 43 percent could name the American Secretary of State at that time.

Given that we are in the midst of an information age, the fact that so many of us are uninformed has experts scratching their heads. Is the failure one of effort or a result of the pace of our society? Is it a lack of intellectual prowess that prevents the assimilation of all the available information or an overall malaise that overcomes even the most well-intentioned of efforts?

Information Overload

While access is now less limited, the sheer volume of material available has many contending that the issue is simply one of information overload. A Washington Post editorial by Dusty Horwitt, “If Everyone’s Talking, Who Will Listen?” recently made such a claim.

Horwitt asserted that TMI (too much information) was the root cause of many societal issues today. Readers will find that he even went so far as to assert that the volume of information available had the potential to undermine our democracy.

While it is a frequent assertion, it is interesting to note that Tim Stahmer at Assorted Stuff isn’t buying the notion of Horwitt’s suggestions as to how to better handle information moving forward. Stahmer is suspect of such a message, one that contends the volume of information available “is burying us in extraneous data” and preventing “important facts and knowledge from reaching a broad audience,” especially since it is coming from someone who works in the now-failing, traditional media market.

Writes Stahmer:

“Maybe his concern is that fewer people are reading big media publications like the Post.”

Stahmer then adds the words of Ben Stein to the mix, yet another of those who has at times insisted society would be far better off with a more limited flow of information. As one might expect, the blogger has a different take.

He does not favor a return to “a few traditional filters of …. information (like the Post, the Times, and Ben Stein)” being “the ones telling us what’s important.” Instead, Stahmer insists, “I’d rather learn to sift through the flow of data myself.”

It is a strong message, one that insinuates that big media simply wants to return itself to its former position of power, i.e., the aforementioned situation where once upon a time knowledge was held by a select few.

Columbia Journalism Review

Bree Nordenson offers some additional insight into the matter in “Overload! Journalism’s Battle for Relevance in an Age of Too Much Information.” Given that the piece is on the Columbia Journalism Review site and the recent revelations that the school is in fact rethinking its journalism program, we probably should attach the same healthy skepticism to Nordenson’s piece as Stahmer attaches to the Post writer.

But still, buried within the article, is some very helpful information. First, there is a great synopsis of the change in available information.

“The information age is defined by output: we produce far more information than we can possibly manage, let alone absorb. Before the digital era, information was limited by our means to contain it.

“Publishing was restricted by paper and delivery costs; broadcasting was circumscribed by available frequencies and airtime. The Internet, on the other hand, has unlimited capacity at near-zero cost.”

While Clay Shirky would take exception to the notion that the new information is defined by output only (we tend to agree that the new age is more defined by interaction), there is truly more information available today than any of us can completely manage. And the increase in production is obtained without the prior costs associated with distributing and storing information online.

As to why more people are not better informed about world affairs, despite the increased output, Nordenson notes that there can be a “tendency to become passive in the face of too much information.”

While that is definitely true, it is likely far more attributable to the vast array of choices now available to internet users, choices that also offer greater control and personalization. She quotes Delli Carpini and Markus Prior who offer simple explanations as to why more people are not up on key public-affairs issues.

“As choice goes up, people who are motivated to be politically informed take advantage of these choices, but people who are not move away from politics,” states Carpini. Prior adds, “Political information in the current media environment comes mostly to those who want it.”

Unlike Horwitt, Nordenson sees the new trends as having potential benefit for our democracy. She writes, “Our access to digital information, as well as our ability to instantly publish, share, and improve upon it at negligible cost, hold extraordinary promise for realizing the democratic ideals of journalism.”

But she does note, “As information proliferates, … people inevitably become more specialized both in their careers and their interests. Personalized home pages, newsfeeds, and e-mail alerts, as well as special-interest publications lead us to create what sociologist Todd Gitlin disparagingly referred to as ‘my news, my world.’ ”

Explanatory Journalism

To produce more savvy readers, there is a move away from the traditional news format to one Nordenson calls explanatory journalism. Such journalism goes beyond reporting a specific news event and the facts related to it.

Explanatory journalism attempts to supply depth and context to what is being reported and even adds a touch of information filter. While many news outlets are struggling to retain readers, she notes that the publication “The Week,” has actually seen a circulation growth.

The magazine seeks to determine the top news stories and then synthesize them for readers. The editor of “The Week” notes the fundamental purpose of the magazine is “not to tell people the news but to make sense of the news for people.” Therefore, almost like the teachers of yesteryear, “The Week” seeks to be the sage on the stage, a news outlet that does the sifting and the filtering that busy Americans do not have time for.

The model has also taken shape at the BBC News web site. A major news story on the BBC page has several links prominently displayed in a sidebar that offer numerous additional articles that explain and add context to the feature story.

Ironically, the concept that appears to work best is one that does move from the gatekeeper mentality, the knowledge is power model, to one that guides readers towards additional information that then allows them to gain the necessary insight to wrap their arms completely around an issue.

At the same time, what is most telling is that explanatory journalism does not necessarily involve reducing the amount of information available to readers.

Technology Is the Issue

Ironically, nearly 20 years ago, Neil Postman delivered a rather extraordinary and prophetic speech at a meeting of the German Informatics Society (Gesellschaft fuer Informatik) in Stuttgart. “Informing Ourselves To Death” offered many pearls including the notion that school teachers as we know them will disappear in the technological age.

“School teachers, for example, will, in the long run, probably be made obsolete by television,” offered Postman, “as blacksmiths were made obsolete by the automobile, as balladeers were made obsolete by the printing press.”

In regards to the information issue, Postman insisted that the public was not so uninformed as it was unable to place ideas in context. He spoke of a little research he had done, albeit not so rigorous or traditional in its ability to control variables, but extremely telling nonetheless.

Postman would select an unsuspecting victim, a colleague who appeared not to be in possession of the morning newspaper. He would begin

“Did you read The Times this morning?”

If the colleague were to answer yes, he would end his experiment for that person that day. But if the person said no, he would begin to make up some far-fetched story.

“You ought to look at Page 23,” he would state. “There’s a fascinating article about a study done at _______ University.” When an inviting reply came, one that matched the traditional response of a colleague, something like “Really? What’s it about?” Postman would let loose with something outlandish.

An example he used in his speech was one he often tried on peers he knew to be health-conscious:

“I think you’ll want to know about this,” he would go on. “The neuro-physiologists at the University of Stuttgart have uncovered a connection between jogging and reduced intelligence. They tested more than 1200 people over a period of five years, and found that as the number of hours people jogged increased, there was a corresponding decrease in their intelligence. They don’t know exactly why but there it is.”

Postman summarized the results of his informal study thus: “Unless this is the second or third time I’ve tried this on the same person, most people will believe or at least not disbelieve what I have told them. Sometimes they say: ‘Really? Is that possible?’ Sometimes they do a double-take, and reply, ‘Where’d you say that study was done?’ And sometimes they say, ‘You know, I’ve heard something like that.’”

Still, Postman railed of too much information before others began to make the assertion. In fact, twenty years ago, Postman noted that information came “indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness.”

He went on to add, “we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don’t know what to do with it.”

But for Postman, the fact that we do not know what to do with or how to handle this information came from a whole different perspective. He adds a touch of the spiritual in his first reason:

“First, we no longer have a coherent conception of ourselves, and our universe, and our relation to one another and our world. We no longer know, as the Middle Ages did, where we come from, and where we are going, or why. That is, we don’t know what information is relevant, and what information is irrelevant to our lives.”

He then headed off to construct the place where others believe we are today:

“Second, we have directed all of our energies and intelligence to inventing machinery that does nothing but increase the supply of information. As a consequence, our defenses against information glut have broken down; our information immune system is inoperable. We don’t know how to filter it out; we don’t know how to reduce it; we don’t know to use it.”

Postman also managed to express one of the possible reasons as to why in the face of a great deal of information so many people feel overwhelmed. The simple fact of the matter is that the information “cannot answer any of the fundamental questions we need to address to make our lives more meaningful and humane.”

Our technology cannot “provide an organizing moral framework” and “it cannot tell us what questions are worth asking” offered Postman. Instead, “The computer is, in a sense, a magnificent toy that distracts us from facing what we most needed to confront — spiritual emptiness, knowledge of ourselves, usable conceptions of the past and future.”

And so, in simplest terms, for Postman, it was the unmet promises of technology that formed the ultimate issue.

“Through the computer, the heralds say, we will make education better,” stated Postman, “religion better, politics better, our minds better — best of all, ourselves better. This is, of course, nonsense.”

A Golden Age

If knowledge is truly power, then we should be entering a golden age, one where everyone has unlimited access to the authority once held only by the elite in society.

The fact that we seem to be far from such a place does beg several questions.

And the biggest one befalls education – many have written that the next phase of schooling must move towards a focus that places the information age at its core for the next generation of learners. In fact, it would seem that the words of Postman are most prescient – twenty years ago he noted the volume of information that was being produced and the issues that it would present.

But education changed little over those 20 years. So we now have a large group of citizens unable to emotionally and intellectually handle the breadth of information available to them.

The answer is certainly not to limit information. The answer is in creating an educational system that helps individuals understand how to best make use of the knowledge.

The power that today’s information-rich society has available is truly unprecedented. As always, education is the great equalizer, but now we must turn our attention towards helping our young people learn how to filter, reduce and use the knowledge that is accessible to them.

Flickr photos courtesy of World Economic Forum, Michael Marlatt, Will Lion, Will Lion, just.Luc and Will Lion.

There are of course many folks who think President Barack Obama is trying to do too much too soon. Republicans, looking for every chance to assert their differences, have hammered on the president in recent days for not focusing his attention solely on the economy.

However, having run a campaign featuring the word hope and the call for a better future, the president has always insisted he would look to rebuild our country if given the chance to lead. Provided with that chance, on Tuesday Obama took a much-needed step toward a more prosperous country by addressing America’s maligned educational system.

And this time, he took a play out of the recent Republican playbook with calls for greater accountability and his endorsement of a GOP mainstay, the idea of school choice. But he did so on his terms and his steadfast focus on a long-term approach to rebuilding the country.

Pay for Teacher Performance

In direct opposition to the current position of the teachers unions, Obama called for measures to link teachers’ pay to student performance. Insisting that “the United States must drastically improve student achievement to regain lost international standing,” the president laid the groundwork for merit pay for teachers.

The concept is in direct opposition to the union position and the current trend to pay teachers according to their credentials and years of experience. While those elements could still form some basis of the pay scale in the future, Obama seeks to base raises on teacher effectiveness as measured by the performance levels of that teacher’s students.

In unveiling his push, President Obama acknowledged that he was in direct conflict with the union position. And since those unions make up a large segment of the Democratic Party, his position was also in conflict with a large segment of his own base of supporters.

But the change is remarkably consistent with his prior day’s speech regarding science and stem cell research. Instead of basing his decision on past practice or the view points of certain supporters, the president was acknowledging that all research points to higher student achievement levels in those classrooms where teachers excelled at their craft.

While some wanted to parse the president’s words regarding student performance, the tie to student achievement was not one of those areas he was willing to give in on. In clear, distinct support that student performance would be a factor in the merit pay concept, Education Secretary Arne Duncan told The Associated Press:

“What you want to do is really identify the best and brightest by a range of metrics, including student achievement.”

Expansion of Charter Schools

Obama also called for the expansion of innovative charter schools, another initiative that has long been opposed by the members of teachers unions. Charter schools are publicly funded but are operating independently of many of the constraints that current public schools face. They also are a key component of the move towards giving parents a choice as to where to send their children.

Critics insist that charter schools are being held to a different standard even as they drain precious resources from the established public schools. Those same critics believe the resource drainage come in two forms. First, there are the funds to pay for the schools. Second, there is the belief that charter schools are siphoning off the stronger, more motivated students, leaving public schools to work with the less-capable and the disinterested.

In direct opposition to those who want to see limits on the number of charter schools, Obama was unrelenting. Stating that many of the innovations in education today are taking place in charter schools, Obama insisted that placing limits on the number of such schools is not “good for our children, our economy or our country.”

Tackling Another Longstanding Issue

As if that were not enough, Obama also moved to one of the other growing criticisms of schools – the time kids spend in the classroom. In addition to the controversial proposals of merit pay and increased numbers of charter schools, the president insisted it was time for a longer school day and school years.

Ironically, while many of his positions were counter to that of the unions, the initial response of union leaders was remarkably positive. That view appeared to come primarily from Obama’s pledge to include educators in the process, a step that his predecessor is generally charged with avoiding virtually every step of the way.

In addition, the president did continue his support for at least one position not supported by the GOP, more money for early childhood education. That no doubt helped win him some additional support from educators.

While the economic stimulus bill is set to automatically provide additional funds for education over the next two years, some of those dollars are already supposed to be tied to teacher quality and on states developing better systems for tracking overall student progress.

Talking about Improving Education

While against union positions, Democrats have to be happy that Obama is putting education front and center. More importantly, Republicans and Democrats alike have to be happy that the president is willing to examine ideas from both sides of the aisle to ensure improvement in our schools.

While the economy is critical, school improvement is also one of America’s most pressing problems moving forward, especially when we consider our country’s long term viability in a global marketplace.

Flickr photos courtesy of BarackObamadotcom, Obama-Biden Transition Project and esagor.

The ongoing data is becoming exceedingly clear. If you want to see normal social, emotional and cognitive development in your children, then you must allow them the opportunity for free and imaginative play.

In her article published in the Scientific American, The Serious Need for Play, Melinda Wenner sums up the data this way: “imaginative play is crucial for normal social, emotional and cognitive development” and such play as a youngster “makes us better adjusted, smarter and less stressed.”

When it comes to play, the emphasis is on the word free. Wenner stresses the latter word stating, “Imaginative and rambunctious free play, as opposed to games or structured activities, is the most essential type.”

And while the impact of free play is most critical to social and emotional development, the overall impact on cognition is considered very significant as well, particularly when children involve the world of make believe.

The Research
Wenner notes the research of several people. She begins with psychiatrist Stuart Brown of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston who spent some time working with Charles Whitman, the man who climbed to the top of a University of Texas Tower in 1966 and shot 46 people.

Later in a small pilot study, Brown also took a look at another 25 convicted murderers. The professor found that the majority of the killers, including Whitman, “shared two things in common: they were from abusive families, and they never played as kids.”

In the 42 years since that initial study, Brown has gone on to interview some 6,000 additional people. His findings suggest “that a lack of opportunities for unstructured, imaginative play can keep children from growing into happy, well-adjusted adults.”

According to Wenner, “a handful of studies support Brown’s conviction that a play-deprived childhood disrupts normal social, emotional and cognitive development in humans.”

One of the more interesting developments Wenner refers to is a 1997 study of children living in poverty and at high risk of school failure, published by the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation in Ypsilanti, Mich.

The data reveals that those kids that were enrolled in a play-oriented preschool were more socially adjusted later in life than the kids who attended a play-free preschool. Therefore, pre-schools that focus entirely on instruction by teachers are missing a golden opportunity to help children become more socially well-adjusted.

In the area of stress relief, it is believed that free play helps kids work through anxiety and stress. Wenner discusses a study from Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry where three- and four-year-old children on their first day of preschool were split into two groups after being assessed for anxiety.

Those labeled anxious were further divided into two groups while those labeled not anxious were similarly divided. One group of anxious and one group of non-anxious students were combined and given the opportunity to play alone or with their peers for a period of 15 minutes. The remaining students were paired and assigned to sit at a small table and listen to a teacher for the same period of time.

Those allowed to play but deemed anxious at the outset had a twofold decrease in anxiousness as compared to those who had to listen to the story. However, one rather interesting development was the fact that those who played alone were calmer than those who played with peers.

Current Trends
Today there is growing data that free play is no longer something most children engage in. A paper published in 2005 in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine indicates free-play time for children fell 25% between 1981 and 1997.

The belief is that the parents of today are forgoing free playtime and replacing it with more structured activities. These structured games with rules can be great sources of fun and they do provide learning opportunities for children. They no doubt offer some assistance towards improving social skills of youngsters.

But free play results in games without rules, so kids actively use their imagination to try out new activities and game variations while moving in and out of different roles. The lack of rules allows children to be more creative, a step that challenges their developing brain more than following a set of predetermined rules.

Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects is that the free-play activity “should not have an obvious function in the context in which it is observed—meaning that it has, essentially, no clear goal.”

One of the critical skills children learn relates to social interaction. They very quickly learn that they will have no one else to play with if they are not fair with others or let their peers take a turn at a specific role. Simply stated, free play helps children learn negotiating skills.

The Effect on Cognition
While the impact on social and emotional development seems quite intuitive, the research also points towards play actually helping make kids smarter. Wenner quotes one study that clearly suggests play fosters creative thinking in youngsters.

Even play fighting, a staple of young boys, appears to have a positive intellectual impact. In yet another study, Wenner notes that “the more elementary school boys engaged in rough-housing, the better they scored on a test of social problem solving.”

In addition, free play with peers fosters communication skills in a youngster. That communication translates to help with language development, a critical component for academic success in the classroom.

Wenner concludes by pointing to Tufts University child development expert David Elkind. Play is “a way in which children learn,” Elkind says, “and in the absence of play, children miss learning experiences. Curiosity, imagination and creativity are like muscles: if you don’t use them, you lose them.”

Conclusion
The bottom line is actually quite simple:

“Parents should let children be children,” asserts Wenner, referring to Elkind as she writes. “Not just because it should be fun to be a child but because denying youth’s unfettered joys keeps kids from developing into inquisitive, creative creatures.”

Flickr photos courtesy of Radioflyer007, Billie/PartsnPieces, whatnot and Phineas H.

The impact that college athletics can have on admission rates is sometimes referred to as the Flutie Effect. The phrase is named after former Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie.

In 1984, Flutie threw a Hail Mary pass in the closing seconds to lift his team to an exciting win over one of the premier football powerhouses at the time, the University of Miami.

The two years following the highly publicized game applications to Boston College surged about 30 percent.

A recent study found that winning the NCAA football or men’s basketball title gave schools an application increase of about 8 percent. Even success in non-title, high-profile games were found to produce small increases.

Flap Over UConn Coach’s Salary

The insidious importance placed on college athletics came to a head this past week when a political activist asked UConn basketball coach Jim Calhoun about his status as Connecticut’s highest-paid state employee at $1.6 million. The activist wondered aloud if he the coach would consider giving some of his pay back given the severe budget crisis facing the state.

Calhoun, well known for his temper, responded before the person was even finished posing his question with “Not a dime.” In the taped interchange, the coach first told the questioner he was stupid and then told him to shut up.

At one point Calhoun indicated he earned even more than the number suggested. He also finished with a tirade that essentially suggested he should be above being questioned about his salary since his basketball team generates $12 million a year in revenues for the school.

Calhoun in his press conference:

Response Panned Across the State

Connecticut governor Jodi Rell weighed in on the Calhoun salary controversy – she said that she found Calhoun’s response “embarrassing.”

Rell went on to suggest that if “Coach Calhoun had the opportunity right now, he would welcome a do-over and not have that embarrassing display.”

In addition to the strong response from Rell, the leaders of the Connecticut General Assembly’s higher education committee insisted that Calhoun should be reprimanded for his tirade. State Senator Mary Ann Handley and Representative Roberta Willis went on to say that “Calhoun’s outburst did not reflect well on him or the state’s flagship university.”

In an editorial in the Boston Globe, the staff penned a piece called “Basketball: An etiquette coach he’s not.” Essentially likening him to a porcupine, the Globe staff wrote:

“It was an arrogant, off-putting performance, one that demonstrates that, for all his knowledge about basketball, Coach Calhoun still has a lot to learn about manners.”

Still others went on to check Calhoun’s assertion that the men’s basketball program brings in $12 million annually. Turns out the figure is about $7 million, a far cry from the coach’s number, but a figure that demonstrates the incredible emphasis being placed on campus sports teams.

The Sad State of College Athletics

While the response of Calhoun was truly troubling, the episode was a clear indication of an out of control culture, one that does in fact breed arrogance. College athletics has become big money and few schools are responding according to their true mission, one that places the greatest emphasis on academics.

Currently 39 private institutions pay their men’s basketball coach, football coach, or athletic director more than any other employee. More than they pay their best professors. More even than they pay their president.

While it is difficult to imagine an annual salary of $1.5 million for coaching college basketball, that salary does not stand out in today’s coaching circles. Pete Carroll, the University of Southern California football coach, reportedly earns $4.4 million in total compensation, while Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski earns $2.2 million.

These findings represent the combined research of the Chronicle of Higher Education research and that of the Boston Globe. The newspaper went on to point out that a number of coaches at public universities (a la Calhoun) receive similarly high salaries. However, those figures can be difficult to obtain because state institutions are not required to report the information to the IRS.

Athletic Arms Race

In addition to the so-called Flutie effect, one that affects general admission results, another term has been coined. Sociologist Harry Edwards at the University of California at Berkeley uses the term “athletic arms race” to describe what is taking place in many colleges.

Colleges currently spend exorbitant amounts in a quest for supremacy in recruiting and competition. But the expenditures come in forms other than just dollars and sense.

A recent article in the Duke Chronicle reveals some of the hypocrisy that emerges when athletics gains such status.

At Duke, for the Class of 2007, the 768 male non-athletes admitted to the school posted an average SAT score of 1,438. The 42 recruited athletes at the school posted an average of 1,172. The 266-point gap for males was astonishing yet there also was a 145-point gap for females.

But in the major sports, the money makers for schools, the data is even more troubling. The 22 football players posted average scores of 1,063 while the five men’s basketball players averaged 997.

Yes, Duke, long considered one of the finest education institutions in the country is selling its academic soul in the rush that is big money college athletics.

Our Culture

However, it is the American culture today. High-profile sports teams are a vital source of pride for the state and community. They also form a large portion of a school’s identity – just ask Boston College or Doug Flutie.

The result is an arrogance that is most troubling. And though Rell, whose salary is $150,000, called out Calhoun’s response, she stopped short of answering whether the coach should in fact take a pay cut.

Meanwhile, the sorry culture continues. While it is probably too much to ask that pro athletes be role models for young adults, one would think that it was a requirement for college coaches.

But once they begin earning seven figure salaries it appears that some strange things can happen. In certain cases, those coaches begin to believe, like many pro athletes, that they are actually worth what they are being paid.

Flickr photos courtesy of libdespot, robjtak and rshannonsmith.

David Brooks, the well-known op-ed columnist for the New York Times, recently gave us pause with a piece called “What Life Asks of Us.” Brooks begins by citing a Harvard faculty committee report from a few years back that offered the following purpose of education:

“The aim of a liberal education is to unsettle presumptions, to defamiliarize the familiar, to reveal what is going on beneath and behind appearances, to disorient young people and to help them to find ways to reorient themselves.”

Brooks goes on to summarize the report’s implications:

“The report implied an entire way of living,” noted Brooks. “Individuals should learn to think for themselves. They should be skeptical of pre-existing arrangements. They should break free from the way they were raised, examine life from the outside and discover their own values.”

Brooks offers that this approach is “deeply consistent with the individualism of modern culture, with its emphasis on personal inquiry, personal self-discovery and personal happiness.”

Institutional Thinking

Brooks contrasts this current notion with “another, older way of living” that was discussed in a book by the political scientist Hugh Heclo called “On Thinking Institutionally.” In citing such a focus, Brooks almost hearkens back to Kennedy’s call in the early sixties.

“We are not defined by what we ask of life,” writes Brooks. “We are defined by what life asks of us. As we go through life, we travel through institutions — first family and school, then the institutions of a profession or a craft.”

And those institutions are crucial to Brooks. They provide “certain rules and obligations that tell us how to do what we’re supposed to do.

“New generations don’t invent institutional practices. These practices are passed down and evolve. So the institutionalist has a deep reverence for those who came before and built up the rules that he has temporarily taken delivery of.”

Brooks then goes to Heclo directly to offer:

“In taking delivery,” Heclo writes, “institutionalists see themselves as debtors who owe something, not creditors to whom something is owed.”

Reverence for Institutionalists

Brooks is no fan of our modern culture, the one described in that Harvard faculty report.

“The rules of a profession or an institution are not like traffic regulations,” writes Brooks. “There will be many long periods when you put more into your institutions than you get out.”

And this notion is so important to the writer:

“I try to keep a list of the people in public life I admire most,” Brooks adds. “Invariably, the people who make that list have subjugated themselves to their profession, social function or institution.”

He closes with the following support for institutional thinking:

“Institutions do all the things that are supposed to be bad. They impede personal exploration. They enforce conformity.

“But they often save us from our weaknesses and give meaning to life.”

Different View

Over at Brian Barrington’s Blog, little reverence is expressed for Brooks’ thoughts. Barrington sees Brooks as offering nothing more than the traditional conservative line.

He goes on to note some of our prior institutional practices that were rightly questioned: slavery, the right of women to vote, and a time when child labor was an effective way to reduce factory costs.

Institutionalists would be “telling us that women should get back in their kitchens where they can be happy,” writes Barrington, “or else it will be the end of civilization as we know it. They would have been telling us that the women they most admire are the ones who stay in their kitchens where they do the work that gives meaning to their lives.”

Barrington makes some great points. Clearly, many of our most positive societal changes have come from times when individuals have in fact examined life from the outside and subsequently called into question some existing institutional behaviors, if not those institutions themselves.

Personal vs Societal

And yet we are reminded of the fundamental notion of institutions: “structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals …. identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules governing cooperative human behavior.”

That definition, along with the premises that Brooks set forth, is precisely why his op-ed piece gave us such pause. It reminds us of Bill Bradley’s notion that the biggest challenge we face is that neither of our political parties offers a philosophy that fits our current world.

We cannot so easily dismiss what Brooks notes. It is important to ask, do we see ourselves “as debtors who owe something” or as “creditors to whom something is owed.”

There is also great merit in our young people learning that “there will be many long periods when you put more into your institutions than you get out.”

At the same time, we have great concern that the emphasis on personal inquiry, personal self-discovery and personal happiness is in fact undermining our fundamental need for cooperative human behavior.

Somehow, we must find a proper balance between the two notions.

Which leads back to the fundamental question, what should be the aim of education, liberal or otherwise?

Flickr photo courtesy of DoubleSpeakShow.

Last week, Kathy Kristof, writing for Forbes Magazine, offered one of the more honest looks at the cost of college today and the subsequent impact of those costs on our young people. In The Great College Hoax, Kristof notes that “higher education can be a financial disaster” for students “especially with the return on degrees down and student loan sharks on the prowl.”

As but one sampling of the current situation:

“The proportion of students who graduate with more than $40,000 in debt jumped sixfold during that period, to 7.7% of the 1 million grads in 2004, or 77,500 people. Most will struggle for more than a decade to work it off, assuming relatively low 6.8% interest rates, the Project on Student Debt says.”

In such an environment, it is critical that those seeking the dream of higher education have their eyes open. Unfortunately, the current lending practices and predatory marketing have benefited from students who lack the basic financial literacy skills to understand that the system is essentially taking them for a ride.

Under such prevailing market conditions, we call our readers attention to our sister site, GoCollege.com, where college students have access to a wealth of information related to the entire college finance process. GoCollege, helping students succeed in college since 1997, recently created a free primer, The Student’s Guide to Personal Finance, designed to provide students some of the financial literacy basics.

As our sister site notes, everywhere one turns these days we are exposed to yet another appalling story of college student debt. Because of those tales, it is imperative that our young people, already facing an uphill battle to establish their working future, not saddle themselves with debt-levels that essentially mortgage their entire future away.

And for a specific lesson as to how students can in fact manage their debt level while in school, The Digital Student Blog at GoCollege offers a Q & A with Kai Davis, a University of Oregon senior about to graduate this spring with zero debt.

Kirstoff notes that “Higher education can be a financial disaster” for students. But it need not be. Educated with the proper information, our young people can avoid mortgaging their entire financial future as they pursue their dream of a college education.

Being a former coach, I have written many times about athletics and the many lessons that children can take from sports. That ongoing interest was tweaked once again this past week with the release of a very troubling story from the world of amateur athletics.

Running Up the Score

It featured the firing of a Texas high school basketball coach after his team defeated another by the robust score of 100-0.

That is correct, Micah Grimes’ Covenant girls basketball team hit triple digits, a rarity for high school ball, while his opponent, Dallas Academy, was held scoreless, an almost unheard of result given it was a basketball game.

Reportedly the coach was fired the same day he had published a letter on the web site FlightBasketball.com indicating he would not apologize for the startling margin of victory.

Kyle Queal, the headmaster for the Covenant School, a private Christian school, reportedly would not publicly state why he had fired the coach. However, the top school administrator had already gone on record as calling the final result “shameful.”

Queal and the board chair for the school, Todd Doshier, had published a strong rebuke of the overall result on the school’s web site.

“It is shameful and an embarrassment that this happened. This clearly does not reflect a Christlike and honorable approach to competition.”

Ultimately, Grimes was likely terminated for his failure to acknowledge that he might have done something wrong in running up the score. In writing his online letter to express his public disagreement with the school’s position, Grimes clearly drew a line in the sand.

The coach offered this rebuttal:

“In response to the statement posted on The Covenant School Website, I respectfully disagree with the apology, especially the notion that the Covenant School girls basketball team should feel ‘embarrassed’ or ‘ashamed.’
We played the game as it was meant to be played and would not intentionally run up the score on any opponent. Although a wide-margin victory is never evidence of compassion, my girls played with honor and integrity and showed respect to Dallas Academy.”

He also insisted he had done a number of things to keep the score down including “sub in bench players, play zone defense, and run the clock for the rest of the game.”

What Score Might Have Been Acceptable?
In discussing the incident, Edd Burleson, the director of the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools acknowledged there was no mercy rule in the game of basketball. That means there are no rules that allow the game to be shortened or to even let the time run continuously.

But Burleson insisted there is “a golden rule” that the coach of Covenant should have applied.

But while it is easy to blame the coach, a comment we read from RedDwarf0510 likely best hits the nail on the head:

“This game should not have been played. Who ever organized it is clearly to blame.”

RedDwarf0510 went on to conclude:

“Competition isn’t nice. It’s not supposed to be.”

When an employee goes to the press to publicly offer his disagreement with the position held by his boss, he does stand a good chance of getting fired. No surprise there.

And we agree with the Headmaster, a score of 100-0 probably does not reflect a Christlike and honorable approach to competition.

But given the clear mismatch in skill and athletic prowess, we have to agree with the notion that whoever scheduled the game put a number of people in some very awkward positions, especially the girls playing for each team.

Leaving us to wonder, in a game of such disparity, what would have been deemed an acceptable score?

Flickr photos courtesy of mvongrue and tabrandt.