Category — Public Policy

This past week, a Boston Globe article revealed the development of an alarming educational trend within the State of Massachusetts. Hidden beneath the surface was yet another subtle demonstration as to why the No Child Left Behind Act may actually be acting as a deterrent to improved educational outcomes.

The issue? It seems that many Massachusetts high school graduates are unprepared for college. In fact, literally thousands of college students are forced to take remedial classes when they begin their college studies.

What makes the issue so worrisome for experts is that students who do take remedial classes are far more likely to drop out of college.

Statewide Study
A statewide study tracked more than 19,000 public high school graduates who attended a college within the state in 2005. According to the study, 37 percent of graduates enrolled in at least one remedial course during their first semester of college.

The issue was far worse for urban school graduates. Roughly 70 percent of students from at least three high schools in Boston and two in Worcester had to take remedial classes upon entering college.

One surprising aspect of the study conducted jointly by the state Departments of Elementary and Secondary Education and Higher Education was that the problem was independent of socioeconomic status. In an unusual development for education, many suburban school districts had similar numbers to those of less affluent schools.

When it came to the community college network, roughly two-thirds of the 8,500 students enrolling took a remedial course. According to college administrators, that factor is one of the reasons that the drop out rate at the state’s two-year schools is so high.

The data from Bunker Hill Community College was particularly striking. Roughly 90 percent of Bunker Hill students took a remedial math class and 63 percent took a remedial English class. According to sources reporting to the Globe, “Some graduates are writing at such a poor level that they must take the most introductory remedial class and only 20 percent of students complete their remedial work within two years, she said.

The MCAS Requirement
Because the State has instituted a high school completion exam, the MCAS, one would think that the number of students who needed remedial work would be decreasing. But that is not the case. Given the number of students forced to take remedial courses in Massachusetts, passing the MCAS, a requirement for graduation, obviously does not mean the student is ready for college level work.

In discussing that development with the Boston Globe, Robert Gaudet, an education researcher at the University of Massachusetts’ Donahue Institute, offered the following assessment. “The dirty little secret is that MCAS doesn’t test 10th grade skills, much less college skills. Passing is not that hard, it’s getting to proficient that’s tougher.”

It is at this point we come to the law known as NCLB and the subsequent definition of the term proficiency. Many would like to see proficiency under NCLB defined as college readiness - in fact the law appears to suggest just such a level.

If that were in fact the case, then theoretically the next step would be to raise the test standards so that passing the MCAS meant a student was in fact ready for college level work. But taking such a step would bring one of the major absurdities of the law into play, the demand for 100% proficiency.

Raising test standards would guarantee that every Massachusetts High School would fail to make the federal guidelines for Adequate Yearly Progress under the law. Because of that potential development, it is our guess that the test standards will not be raised to such a level.

In essence, NCLB, with its extreme punitive structure and absurd goals, will act as a deterrent to taking steps to raise educational standards.

Proficiency Versus Basic Skills
Raising the exam standards for proficiency to match that of college readiness would necessitate a rewrite of NCLB. As we noted in our article “No Child Act is Fundamentally Flawed”, researchers have indicated that proficiency for all is an oxymoron. No set of standards “can be both challenging and achievable by all students across the achievement distribution.”

Instead, those researchers suggest that two options exist - standards can either be minimal, thereby presenting little in the way of challenge to typical students or they can be rigorous and challenging, and ultimately unattainable by below average students.

Given that backdrop, it is easy to see the confusion developing. It is precisely the situation the Massachusetts study revealed. The MCAS is a basic skills test, not a college readiness exam, and therefore meaningless in regards to the Massachusetts issue. In fact, that is precisely what one would expect given NCLB’s insidious punitive nature and unrealistic expectations.

The Real Issue
What is truly appalling in our eyes is the combination of effects currently taking place in America. Students are dropping out of school in high numbers but those remaining in school are not necessarily getting the education they need to compete in today’s world.

In Massachusetts, folks are working hard to raise standards. State education officials unanimously approved a core high school curriculum in November, a recommended program that includes four years of English, four years of math, three years of science, and three years of history.

However, it must be noted that not all of our students will be able to handle college level rigor no matter how hard educators work. In spite of that fact, we continue to assume that college-ready is possible for every single student. It is time for America to realize it is not.

As we have noted previously, one necessary step in this educational dilemma is to promote a vocational option, a hands-on, less academic approach that focuses on career options. Such a program must be available well before the end of high school, perhaps as early as ninth grade.

Unfortunately, such training is thought of as second class in the US while college is thought of as first class. But if the goal is to create students who are ready to be positive contributors to society, then they first must be able to make a good living.

Social Scientist Charles Murray would argue that finding a lawyer or physician is relatively easy but finding a plumber, carpenter or other qualified tradesman tends to be far more difficult. The author of “The Bell Curve” insists more students should examine the option of vocational education/training.

We agree. It is a step that other countries have used very successfully.

Murray also indicates that far too many people place a premium on a college degree. Yes, many careers/jobs demand such a degree as its qualification. But many more careers are available with two years of specific training.

Here in Maine we continue along the opposite path. Our education promos feature slogans such as “College for ME” and “Everyone College Ready”.

The goal is noble, trying to ensure that kids have options after high school is a great premise. But such slogans further foster that negative viewpoint of vocational education/training.

If we continue to state that going to college is the best answer then there is no option for our kids but to see vocational education/training as second class.

Back to Massachusetts
Unfortunately, in Massachusetts as the discussion turns towards raising academic expectations, those discussions always appear to occur in a vacuum. If the state makes the mistake of raising standards to match college readiness it will have an unintended impact.

Because some additional students will be unable to meet those higher standards, those students will give up on the system. In our eyes, raising educational standards will exacerbate the current drop out problem.

Only when raising standards is discussed against a back drop of creating meaningful options for students who cannot handle the academic rigor associated with college level work will we be able to increase expectations without increasing our drop out rates.

Despite proponents spin on the law, NCLB fails to address this fundamental dilemma. In fact, it likely prevents school districts from taking the steps to increase standards because increasing standards will only bring about more penalties for schools.

And because the law governs the actions of our public schools, we have situations like that of Massachusetts, where 100% proficiency goals get confused with the goal of college readiness, and students are caught in the absurdity of it all.

As we noted in our prior post, Dr. Tanya Byron, a Consultant Clinical Psychologist, recently released an important set of E-safety recommendations, “Safer Children in a Digital World,” for children in the UK. Today we turn to her summary recommendations regarding video gaming.

Here again, the most compelling aspect of her research as well as her recommendations is the fact that she refrains from oversimplifying the matter. When it comes to the issue of video games, Byron calls upon the video game industry and parents to work collaboratively to ensure that children are provided access to games that are age-appropriate.

Risk-Reward Nature of Technology
As was her methodology with Internet safety, Byron seeks a collaborative approach to children and the video game industry. In addition, she seeks to have assistance from the gaming industry to help restrict the access of games that are inappropriate for children. At the same time, she also calls on parents to do their part in the process.

In speaking about empowering children and keeping them safe, Byron turns to the following analogy. Noting that “children will be children – pushing boundaries and taking risks,” Byron offers, “at a public swimming pool we have gates, put up signs, have lifeguards and shallow ends, but we also teach children how to swim.”

Byron notes that technology offers extraordinary opportunities for children and young people as well as adults. As for video games, the researcher indicates that such games offer “a range of exciting interactive experiences for children.” At the same time, Byron specifies that some video games are in fact designed for adults.

Byron recognizes that the debate on ‘media effects’ and violent content in video games is divided. She also confirms the obvious, that Internet and gaming technology is moving so rapidly that it is not possible for research to keep up with the developments.

What is noteworthy about Byron’s work is she does head directly to the gray areas, the risks of potentially harmful or inappropriate content, that could have negative impacts on children. As we noted in our post about Drs. Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson and their research for Grand Theft Childhood, Byron is not ready to take a cause and effect position regarding video game play and antisocial behaviors in children. Byron states, “Overall, I have found that a search for direct cause and effect in this area is often too simplistic.”

At the same time the researcher does not give a free pass on the topic, stating that it does “not mean that the risks do not exist.” Byron then moves correctly to another key element, that we must use our understanding of child development to “inform an approach that is based on the ‘probability of risk’ in different circumstances.”

What is so remarkable about Byron’s review is that she recognizes the sheer complexity of this issue. “We need to take into account children’s individual strengths and vulnerabilities, because the factors that can discriminate a ‘beneficial’ from a ‘harmful’ experience online and in video games will often be individual factors in the child. The very same content can be useful to a child at a certain point in their life and development and may be equally damaging to another child.”

In addition, Byron notes, “Very few people are genuinely addicted to video games but lots of time spent playing can result in missed opportunities for other forms of development and socialization.” In other words, concerns must develop when these gaming technologies negatively impact children at the expense of other activities and family interaction.

Byron does list some of the prevailing concerns regarding video game play. She notes, “There is some evidence of short term aggression from playing violent video games but no studies of whether this leads to long term effects.” She also states, “There is a correlation between playing violent games and aggressive behavior, but this is not evidence that one causes the other.”

Her entire approach centers upon age appropriate gaming and reveals yet another critical element. “Games are more likely to affect perceptions and expectations of the real world amongst younger children because of their less developed ability to distinguish between fact and fiction (due to the immaturity of the frontal cortex).”

As for the interactive nature of games, Byron states the interactive nature may “also have a more profound effect than some other media, again especially amongst younger children (e.g. up to around 12 years old) who tend to use narratives to develop their values and ideas and who learn through ‘doing’.”

At the same time, Byron is not ready to castigate video games or refer to them as the source of all that is not well during adolescence. States Bryon, “These games offer new opportunities for social interaction between children and there are a number of potential benefits for children and young people from playing video games, including cognitive and educational gains and simply having fun. Interestingly the evidence to prove these benefits can be as contested as the evidence of negative effects.”

Ensuring Age Appropriate Gaming Opportunities
Byron calls for targeted efforts from the gaming industry to increase parental understanding of age-ratings and the available controls on gaming consoles. Byron recommends a new, hybrid classification system for games. She seeks to have the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) and the Pan European Game Information, under the auspices of the UK Council for Child Internet safety, “work together to develop a joint approach to rating online games and driving up safety standards for children and young people.” She proposes that the new combined BBFC and PEGI logo be prominently placed on the front of all games (R18, 18,15,12,PG and U) with industry equivalent logos across all age ranges placed on the back of all boxes (ratings regarding violence, language, sexual activity, drugs activity, etc.).

Byron also seeks to have greater efforts to enforce age ratings at points of sale to ensure that children have access only to age appropriate materials. Byron suggests that games with ‘12′ ratings and up carry legal requirements that such games cannot be sold to someone under the required age. At the same time, Byron calls on both the video game and advertising industries to comply with age-appropriate message targeting that matches the video game age classifications.

In addition, Byron wants to see “console manufacturers work together to raise standards in parental controls on consoles, delivering clear and easy to use prompts and better information for parents on where console controls meet agreed upon standards.”

Parents Must Also Parent
The researcher notes that even concerned parents sometimes still buy adult games for their children. The rationale? “Either for a ‘peaceful life’ or because it is ‘only a game’.”

Byron notes that parents must be aware of the fact that some games are suitable only for adults. She writes of how many children she came across that had been allowed to play age 18+ video games despite the fact that some children were forbidden from watching films with that rating.

She further notes that parents must be educated about the parental controls available on game consoles. If the gaming industry is expected to produce consoles that provide specific controls regarding time of play, game ratings, et al, then parents must learn to engage the technology and enforce the use of that technology.

Lastly, there is no substitute for parental responsibility especially with respect to decision-making. We noted earlier Byron’s prophetic words, the “need to take into account children’s individual strengths and vulnerabilities. The very same content can be useful to a child at a certain point in their life and development and may be equally damaging to another child.”

Recognizing the differences in children is difficult. But ultimately that recognition will have to be the responsibility of parents, not the gaming industry.

Across the pond, Dr. Tanya Byron, a Consultant Clinical Psychologist, recently released an important set of E-safety recommendations for children. Her report, “Safer Children in a Digital World,” was commissioned by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2007 in response to growing concerns about the dangers of the Internet.

Ms. Byron’s recommendations appear, dare we say it, “spot on.” She calls on all parties; the tech industry, government agencies (education, legal), and most importantly, parents and families, to work collaboratively on the issue of E-safety.

Perhaps the most compelling aspect of her research as well as her recommendations is her sophisticated and global approach to the issue. Noting the inherent risk/reward nature of both the Internet and video gaming, Byron properly refrains from oversimplifying the matter.

Today we begin with a review of her research and the recommendations she makes regarding Internet safety. In a follow-up post, we will take a look at her research regarding video games.

Calls Parents To Task
In her report, Byron certainly is not afraid of upsetting parents, calling to attention the fact that many parents simply are not doing due diligence in regards to E-safety. “Many parents seem to believe that when their child is online it is similar to them watching television,” states Byron. “In fact it is more like opening the front door and letting your child go outside to play unsupervised.”

At the same time, the clinical psychologist recognizes the need for children to take risks, that it is an important aspect of their development as young people. One key aspect “of today’s risk-averse culture” notes Byron is that parents are “more inclined to keep children ‘indoors’ despite their developmental needs to socialize and take risks.”

But with a clear understanding of the typical behavior of youngsters the researcher states, “Children will be children – pushing boundaries and taking risks. As we increasingly keep our children at home because of fears for their safety outside” our children will tend to “play out their developmental drives to socialize” with the Internet and “take risks in the digital world.”

As with the recent Grand Theft Childhood study, Byron notes the complexities parents face with both the Internet and the current gaming culture. “Findings from the evidence show that the potential risks online are closely correlated with potential benefits.” Therefore, Byron strongly suggests a collaborative effort to minimize risks without removing the potential benefits of online access.

What Can Be Done to Increase E-Safety
According to Byron, “Everyone has a role to play in empowering children to stay safe while they enjoy these new technologies, just as it is everyone’s responsibility to keep children safe in the non-digital world. This new culture of responsibility spans parents, children and young people supported by Government, industry and the public.”

In regards to the Internet, Byron proposes a three prong approach to improve child safety when online. The three specific areas seek first to reduce the availability of improper materials, second, restrict access to such materials, and third, increase the resilience of children to harmful and inappropriate online material.

The first area could prove more controversial as it in essence creates possible regulations though Byron seeks to have these regulations come in the form of voluntary codes of practice for the industry. In this arena, Byron seeks a reduction in availability of harmful and inappropriate material “in the most popular part of the internet.” Byron recommends that search providers such as Google and Yahoo incorporate a ’safe search’ button that is prominently displayed on the search engine page. In addition, users should have the option of a “lock button” to ensure safe search options. Along with the button, Byron recommends that every search engine offer clear links “to child safety information and safe search settings on the front page of their website.”

In addition to seeking assistance from the search engine giants, Byron recommends that all home computers sold in the UK be equipped with standard parental control software specifically designed with clear prompts and explanations to help engage the parental control options. At the same time, Byron adds that all Internet Service Providers should prominently offer parental control options during the set up of any Internet connection.

From there, Byron turns to the appropriate education of parents and all adults who work with children. The notion is one of education as her recommended focus is on raising the “knowledge, skills and understanding around e-safety of children, parents and other responsible adults.” Essentially, Byron properly notes that parents also have a key role to play in managing a child’s proper Internet usage.

In her research, the consultant often found that higher Internet skill levels in children gave these youngsters greater confidence regarding Internet use. Yet, many of those same youngsters did not have either the maturity or have sufficient awareness to ensure they are actually safe online. Byron throws this issue into the lap of parents stating, “Parents either underestimate or do not realize how often children and young people come across potentially harmful and inappropriate material on the internet and are often unsure about what they would do about it.” For Byron, it is time parents became fully aware of the risks, learn what steps they should take to ensure greater E-safety, and then subsequently implement those steps.

Next Byron turns to schools and other child service providers to play a key role in helping children and their parents stay safe online. The consultant indicates that schools should deliver e-safety through the standard school curriculum. Byron indicates it is essential that children learn how to protect themselves (distributing private information, giving out contact details online, etc.). Here she seeks to build children’s resilience to any material to which they may be exposed. Youngsters need to have both the confidence and the skills to ensure their own online safety.

In regards to these extensive education programs, Byron refers to an “authoritative ‘one stop shop’ for child internet safety” based on extensive research regarding what different groups of users want.

Conclusion
In regards to E-safety on the Internet, Byron provides a compelling case for a collaborative approach to protecting children. The writer properly notes that “restricting children’s access to harmful and inappropriate material is not just a question of what industry can do to protect children.”

Such E-safety is the responsibility of parents, teachers, government officials and the technology industry collectively. Only when these groups seek to work in concert will we be able to truly protect our most vulnerable assets, our children.

Internet safety photo by Bionic teaching.

According to Drs. Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson, the authors of Grand Theft Childhood, those people examining violent video game play may in fact be asking the wrong questions and making incorrect assumptions. As but one example, the authors note that “instead of looking for a simple, direct relationship between video game violence and violent behavior in all children, we should be asking how we might identify those children who are at greatest risk for being influenced by these games.”

In addition, Kutner and Olson stipulate that parents and educators should examine the entire gaming spectrum when thinking about video game play. As the authors note, “Some of the most popular games, even among teenage boys, are not violent.” That leads the Harvard professors to note, “We should ask whether children who spend a lot of time playing video games are failing to learn important interpersonal and social skills.”

When it comes to video game play and those video games deemed violent, the authors recommend a balanced approach that follows the basics of good parenting. Instead of trying to banish the games and create a “forbidden fruit” concept, a step most parents find simply does not work, these researchers offer a more manageable set of expectations around game play.

Appropriate Game Play
According to Kutner and Olson, parents should not think of the issue as a boxing match. “It’s aikido,” note the authors. In other words, successful parents don’t try to meet force with force by banning nor do they throw their hands up in the air and abdicate control. The key is “to work with and redirect your child’s skills and interests.”

The first suggestion is one that forms the basis for good parenting every step of the way. Stay involved. And according to the authors, one of the best ways to do so is to learn the games and the terminology, then spend some time playing the games with your child.

The author suggests learning such terms as “first-person shooter” (Doom or Halo) versus “third-person shooter” games such as Grand Theft Auto or Tomb Raider? Find out what a MMORPG (A Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game like World of Warcraft) is. Learn what is meant by a cheat code.

In learning these terms, Kutner and Olson suggest having your children teach you these game terms. As you begin discussing the terms you can move to the various game genres to see why your son or daughter likes some types of games but not others? The basic key is to get the discussion going.

Finally, learn the game console and begin playing the game. Here again, having your son or daughter by your side teaching you is a great way to keep the conversation going and help you navigate the game. Parents may initially find the skills and dexterity very challenging but abandonment is not the answer. Here the Harvard professors cite Michael Jellinek, M.D., professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and the chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, who says that a parent’s awkwardness “can be used to your advantage when it comes to strengthening relationships with your children.”

In fact Jellinek has “prescribed” video games that parents and kids can play together in his work. According to Olson and Kutner, Jellinek has prescribed “golf, football or car racing games” as therapy. “It changes the dynamic of the parent constantly teaching the child, to the child teaching the parent.”

Two researchers who have conducted studies in the Netherlands have “found that parents who played video games themselves had a different perspective on the risks and benefits of those games on their children.” Drs. Peter Nikken and Jeroen Jansz note that parents knowledgeable of such games were not only more likely to play such games with their children, they “were more optimistic about the positive effects and less worried about the negative effects” of game play.

Keep a Proper Perspective
With greater involvement with your children regarding such game play, appropriate discussions can follow. Here, it is interesting to note how Kutner and Olson reframe the issue.

The authors note several negatives that are often sighted as correlates with anti-social or risk taking behavior and teens who play M-rated video games. The authors reveal that “violent video game play can be a marker of increased risk for certain behaviors.

For example, girls who played any M-rated game ‘a lot’ were three times as likely to say that they’d damaged property just for fun during the previous year, compared to girls who played E or T games. M-gamer boys were more than twice as likely as non-M-gamer boys to do so.”

Given that data, the researchers note that “the actual number of kids who do these things is pretty low.” For example, though one might be concerned with the fact that “15 percent of the M-gamer girls said that they’d damaged property for fun” it must be noted that “85 percent of the M-gamer girls said that they had not.” According to Kutner and Olson, this was carried through their research, that “for almost all of the problem behaviors we measured, the majority—and often the vast majority—of M-gamer kids didn’t do those things.”

In addition, the authors rightfully note that a correlation is not the same as a causation. Simply stated, it is not possible to determine if playing M-rated games inspires some kids to act in a certain way or if those who act that way are more drawn to play M-rated games. Or perhaps, it may well be that something else entirely is going on.

Lastly, the authors note that playing such games demands active parenting. In other words, violent video game play is in fact a marker of increased risk for anti-social behavior. By paying close attention to the potential behavior issues that are often associated with the teen years, parents can help guide teens towards appropriate behaviors. Such management and involvement is critical. The authors note that it is a far healthier approach than attempting to ban all such game play.

In their research, Kutner and Olson note that Richard Falzone, M.D., indicates a growing number of children act as if they’re addicted to video games. Falzone tells the tale of a 15-year-old boy that would spend 10-12 hours a day playing the World of Warcraft. At times the teen did not make it to school because he would sleep through the day after playing video games all night. Eventually, as the game took over his life, the teen became hospitalized for depression and for cutting himself.

Such situations are extremely rare but give rise to the notion that video games could in fact be addicting. Kutner and Olson do note that “playing video games that involve a lot of action has been associated with increased levels of two neurotransmitters in the brain, dopamine and norepinephrine, that help brain cells send messages to each other. These neurotransmitters are involved in both learning and in addiction.”

Kutner and Olson go on to explain the symptoms associated with addiction. They list three: a compulsive, physiological craving for a substance, an increased tolerance (needing a higher dose to get the same effect) following early use, and well-defined and uncomfortable physiological symptoms during withdrawal.

But as for being an addiction, the authors state that these “supposedly addicted game players may be behaving normally—but not in the ways that the adults around them believe to be normal.” Kutner and Olson note that “many young children and pre-adolescents have difficulty making the transition from one activity to another, especially when the initial activity is pleasurable.” The researchers indicate that the desire to continue to play a game children enjoy is not an addiction, it’s normal.

They also note that when a “child plays basketball or plays the piano for four hours per day, we may describe him or her as a dedicated athlete or musician. A teenager who knows all the game statistics and trivia about a local professional football team, and who spends a lot of money buying jerseys and other memorabilia, is considered a true fan. It’s a socially acceptable hobby; in fact, it’s encouraged. But if that child takes the same approach to playing video games, spending hours each day at the computer and reveling in the details and strategies of play, we may worry about an addiction.”

According to Kutner and Olson, parents and clinicians tend to focus on easily measured behaviors like the amount of time a child spends playing video games. More useful indicators would be the answers to questions such as: “Is your child finishing his schoolwork? Is he establishing balanced and reciprocal friendships with peers?”

Once again, if game play occasionally involves the parent it will be far easier to control and balance this time factor.

Many Other Practical Recommendations

Kutner and Olson offer many more valuable tips in their book and on their web site. They discuss concerns about sexual implications of such games and note what types of media tend to really scare teens. There are separate sections regarding game play and children with learning disabilities as well as the implications for teen girls. There are even sections that discuss racial aspects relative to these games.

Parents and educators seeking a pronouncement that all violent video games are bad and must be avoided will not find reinforcement from Kutner and Olson. Instead, parents and educators will see a balanced approach to a complex topic, an approach that matches up with the various teachings of other experts as to what constitutes effective parenting.

Perhaps most notably, the work of Kutner and Olson explains why most well-adjusted teens and adults never display any anti-social behavior despite their enjoyment of video game play. It is an explanation that has caused this writer to reconsider his views on this complex topic.

An interview with Dr. Cheryl Olson,
author of Grand Theft Childhood

In my previous post, I acknowledged a long-standing personal concern regarding the potential detrimental effects of playing violent video games, especially the impact such play might have on teens. That stated, in our prior piece we referenced the latest research from two Harvard professors, research that quite frankly contradicts some of the long-standing thoughts of this writer.

In this post we talk with Dr. Cheryl Olson, one of the researchers of a ground-breaking study and a co-author of the book, Grand Theft Childhood. Her research and subsequent text call in to question many of the beliefs held as universal truths regarding this issue.

Dr. Olson takes a head-on approach to challenging the core beliefs of educators like myself. Acknowledging the complexity of the issue, I was very impressed by the fact that Dr. Olson’s work does not attempt to either simplify the question or the answer.

We present our interview here and then follow it with some of the statements often held as universal truths regarding this issue but that are instead deemed as myths by Olson and her co-author, Dr. Lawrence Kutner.

Our Interview

On your web site, a summary sentence states, “What they found surprised, encouraged, and sometimes disturbed them.” During your research, what was the biggest surprise for you and why was this so surprising?

A number of our findings went against common wisdom. One surprise was how many preteen girls played M-rated video games. About a fifth of girls rarely or never played video games. But another fifth had played Grand Theft Auto “a lot in the past six months.” Based on some of their comments, we suspect that girls play these games differently and for different reasons than boys. Since we bought into the myth that girls don’t like violent games, we didn’t recruit them for focus groups in this set of studies. We hope to talk with GTA-playing girls in future studies.

What did you find most encouraging and why did this leave you encouraged?

One very encouraging finding was how sophisticated middle-school boys were in their understanding of violent games. They could enjoy playing bad guys without wanting to be them. As one boy told us, “When I play violent games like (Grand Theft Auto) Vice City, I know it’s a videogame. And I have fun playing it. But I know not to do stuff like that, because I know the consequences that will happen to me if I do that stuff.” We were especially struck by how protective these boys were of younger kids; in fact, their concerns about video game influence were almost identical to those expressed by parents. But their biggest concern was not violence; it was “swears.” Another boy said, “I don’t like my little brother or sisters to watch me play Vice City because they might swear at other people, ‘cause of how they do in Vice City. They always give people attitude and take swears at other people. That could make my family look bad, like my mom isn’t raising us regular.”

And what was the most disturbing finding and why was it so disturbing to you?

One disturbing finding was the correlation between playing M-rated games and bullying. Boys who had more M-rated titles on their most-played lists were more likely to report bullying other kids. But even so, most boys who play M-rated games are not bullies. And this was only a correlation; it’s impossible to show cause and effect from a one-time survey.

Would any of these reactions be different if you spoke first as a parent instead of as a researcher?

As a parent, this did not lead me to restrict my own son’s M-rated game play, because I know what kind of kid he is. As a researcher, I’d like to study this further - and I’m concerned that people will jump to the unsupported conclusion that playing M-rated games promotes bullying.

In your article “Children and Video Games: How Much Do We Know?” for the Psychiatric Times you state: “We found that 68% of boys and 29% of girls aged 12 to 14 years included at least one M-rated (for those aged 17 years and older, often because of violent or sexual content) game on this list of frequently played games.” I was surprised to learn that such a high percentage of young adolescents had access to games rated mature. Are parents unaware of this or have they given implicit agreement to allow these early teens to experience these games? And how important are these ratings for parental decision-making processes?

Among parents we surveyed, ratings had the most influence on their decision to buy or rent a game for their child. As one focus-group parent said, “I see the ‘E,’ I know it’s for everyone. When I see the Teen, I know the 10 year old, he can’t have it. Then I see Mature: that’s when I say, ‘Okay, I’m going to read to see exactly what’s going on here.’” Parents were less clear on the details of the rating system.

Several things probably drive the high rate of M-game play:

· Young teens play the games when parents aren’t around – at a friend’s house, or in their bedroom.

· Not all violence is equal in parents’ eyes; for example, they are less concerned about shooting “trolls” or aliens than realistic-looking humans.

· Many (but not all!) parents see game violence as a bigger risk for other people’s kids. One mom said, “I know that there are a lot of kids out there that do act out - I’ve read anyway - from movies or games. I don’t have any fears of my son going out and doing things that’s in the game. I talked to him about it in the past, and he’s like, ‘I’m not that stupid.’” And she is probably right.

In that same article, you state: “a child plays basketball or plays the piano for 4 hours a day, we may describe him as a dedicated athlete or musician. But if that child takes the same approach to playing video games, spending hours each day at the computer, and reveling in the details and strategies of play, we may worry about an addiction.” Can you categorize or summarize for parents what might be a healthy versus an unhealthy (an addiction) approach when it comes to video game play? Is this a function of time, of the type of game played, or something else?

To put it simply: If your child is doing well in school, has friends, does his chores without too much fuss…he probably needs few restrictions on his game play. If he stops spending time on other activities, has a drop in grades, is increasingly isolated, plays games instead of sleeping…this needs looking into. The video game play may be the cause of problems, a symptom of problems (such as depression), or a bit of both. Talk to a pediatrician or mental health professional.

Ultimately, in your research did you find any pluses from video game play, specifically those violent or shoot-em-up games that concern parents? If so what were those pluses and did they help adolescent’s in some ways in dealing with the difficulty of teen years?

There are a number of potential pluses. Here are just a few:

· Some violent game play seems to improve visual-spatial skills – but it’s the fast, unpredictable action, not the violence, that does it.

· Video game skill can give kids social status; this is especially valuable to kids who have disabilities or ADHD.

· Games help some kids cope with negative feelings. As one said, “If I have a bad day at school, I’ll play a violent video game and then, it just relieves all my stress. If you ever got a bad test grade or had a fight with a friend or something, my advice would be, play a violent videogame.”

Lastly, why do you think so many adults (politicians included) are convinced that these games have to be detrimental to the mental health of teens? Is it an aversion or fear of the specific content? Is it a lack of understanding as to why kids like the games? Is it just a simplistic response to try to explain away other societal issues?

All of those play a role. It’s upsetting to see a group of boys laughing as they watch one game character literally rip the guts out of another. But when you know more about the context, motivations and other factors involved, you may see this differently. Also, for politicians it’s an issue that they can campaign easily on, even if the scientific data don’t support their claims.

Exposed Myths
In addition to our interview, we offer here excerpts from the web site of Grand Theft Childhood. One of the most interesting aspects of their site is the author’s findings relative to several statements held by most people as factual. Kutner and Olson insist many of these statements are in fact “myths.”

One such statement or myth is that the growth in violent video game sales is linked to a growth in youth violence across the country. According to Kutner and Olson, the fact is that “Video game popularity and real-world youth violence have been moving in opposite directions. Violent juvenile crime in the United States reached a peak in 1993 and has been declining ever since. School violence has also gone down. Between1994 and 2001, arrests for murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assaults fell 44 percent, resulting in the lowest juvenile arrest rate for violent crimes since 1983.”

A second such myth is that Girls do not play violent video games like Grand Theft Auto. According to Kutner and Olson, the fact is that “Our survey of more than 1200 middle school students found that 29 percent of girls who played video games listed at least one M-rated game among the games they’d ‘played a lot’ during the previous six months. One in five specifically listed a Grand Theft Auto game. In fact, among these 12- to 14-year-old girls, the Grand Theft Auto series was second only to The Sims in popularity.”

Yet another purported myth involves the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech that sought to link Seung-Hui Cho’s violent behavior to video game play. Note Kutner and Olson, “Media darling and pop psychologist Phil McGraw, appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live, stated, Common sense tells you that if these kids are playing video games, where they’re on a mass killing spree in a video game, it’s glamorized on the big screen, it’s become part of the fiber of our society….The mass murders [sic] of tomorrow are the children of today that are being programmed with this massive violence overdose.” According to Kutner and Olson, “The official report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel specifically dismissed the purported links between Cho’s use of video games and his extremely violent behavior. In the chapter on Cho’s mental health history, video games are mentioned on only three pages. When he was nine years old, he was enrolled in a Tae Kwon Do program for awhile, watched TV, and played video games like Sonic the Hedgehog.”

And yet another myth debunked is that school shooters fit a profile that includes a fascination with violent media, especially violent video games. According to Kutner and Olson, “The U. S. Secret Service intensely studied each of the 37 non-gang and non-drug-related school shootings and stabbings that were considered ‘targeted attacks’ that took place nationally from 1974 through 2000. (Note how few premeditated school shootings there actually were during that 27-year time period, compared with the public perception of those shootings as relatively common events!). The incidents studied included the most notorious school shootings, such as Columbine, Santee and Paducah, in which the young perpetrators had been linked in the press to violent video games. The Secret Service found that that there was no accurate profile. Only 1 in 8 school shooters showed any interest in violent video games; only 1 in 4 liked violent movies.”

Next up, given the findings of Kutner and Olson, what advice do these experts provide parents and educators regarding teens playing violent video games.

If you are a parent of a teen today you are no doubt concerned about what you hear regarding violent video games. Generally speaking, there appears to be a wide-spread consensus that such games are the bane of society and the source of growing anti-social and risk-taking behavior in teens.

At the same time, if you have discussed the issue at length with other parents you are also likely confused about violent video game play. Because, quite frankly, many teens are playing such games without the slightest indication of any negative impact on their psyche or their mental health never mind a propensity to act in a violent way towards others.

Now comes the work of Drs. Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson, the authors of the breakthrough book, “Grand Theft Childhood.” In their text the authors indicate that the politicians and even some health professionals may in fact have it all wrong.

One Who Has Previously Raised Concerns About Such Games
As a parent of two grown daughters, my early exposure to computer video games consisted of two very distinct categories. First, there were the earliest creations. PacMan, Donkey Kong, and the bubbly Mario all graced our computer and television screens. My children enjoyed these games, fervently trying to improve upon past accomplishments as they sought to find a way to reach the “next level”. These games, played individually or by two people together, were available to our children as a reward when other tasks were completed.

Later came the Sony’s PlayStation interactive games. The games that I became most familiar with were those that combined graphic caricatures of real professional athletes with very authentic strategies. Madden football or basketball were games that enticed teenagers and grown-ups alike. Though I never played them I was also familiar with the other popular game options based on skateboarding, skiing stunts, and the obnoxious world of professional wrestling.

I must admit, when I first became aware of shoot-em up games I had in mind games where a player might shoot spaceships out of the sky. Somehow I missed the initial release of the Grand Theft Auto series, becoming aware of the game only as Grand Theft Auto3 was to be released.

I was absolutely astonished to learn of the details within this game series. Using a joystick, the gamer controls a virtual thug. Basically, if it involves criminal-like behavior, the action is available to you as the game player through the virtual character you control.

The gamer can have his thug hijack cars, even police vehicles if he desires to. The gamer’s thug can rob a bank or opt to run a crime-laden vigilante organization.

As for random acts of violence, the gamer can bash into the rear end of a car plodding along too slowly or provide his/her thug a baseball bat as he roams the streets of a virtual city. On impulse, the game player can have the thug take the bat and strike any of the pedestrians he encounters, be they unsuspecting elderly people minding their own business or street-walking prostitutes soliciting customers.

A Failure to Understand the Lure of Such Games
Upon examination of the game I was at least relieved to see it carried with it a mature rating. The game certainly was not for young children. But upon further examination I personally couldn’t help ask who this type of game might be for?

At the time that Grand Theft Auto3 was the rage, Joanna Weiss of the Boston Globe published an article that featured interviews with some admitted game aficionados. What gave me the greatest concern were the words of the game players themselves.

Each indicated Grand Theft Auto contained graphics and interactive options that were so realistic that gamers felt immersed in the world the game simulates. According to Ms. Weiss, a 23 year-old computer programmer from York, England acknowledged the enjoyment the game gave him, especially after a grueling day of work. He stated, “Some people play squash after work. I just squash pedestrians.”

Weiss also noted an Emerson college freshmen reportedly calling GTA3 more exciting than other shoot-em ups. It’s a “different kind of violence,” she said, “because there’s no real good intent to any of it”.

Upon reading that article, I went on to write an op ed article for my local papers noting my concerns about these games. As a parent and educator, I noted the tremendous difficulty I had understanding the comments of the adults that Weiss spoke with. I also wrote how I could not comprehend what playing such games could do for the emotional psyche.

And lastly, for this writer, the concept of an interactive game that involves violence against people was even more troubling than the movies of Hollywood. My rationale was that the decision to make this rogue character act violently was based upon a conscious choice by the game player.

Simply stated, I found the unconscionable acts available to the player in the Grand Theft Auto series extremely troubling. At the time I was horrified by the thought that there might be many parents who thought of the bubbly Mario when thinking about video games. I expressed great concerns that many parents might be completely unaware of the content of this game, or even that such games exist.

Recent Developments - Contradictory Viewpoints
Soon, studies began to emerge that gave further rise to other concerns about such games. A University of Minnesota Professor and researcher released a number of articles noting some troubling findings. In one such study, Professor Sonya Brady, Phd, indicated that “violent video games create more permissive attitudes toward risky behaviors — such as using drugs — in youths who play those games.”

Over the past couple of years we have heard a number of politicians and children’s mental health experts rail against these games. In addition, many more reports had been released that indicated correlations between violent acts in school and a desire to play violent video games. Essentially, all of the material making its way before the public appeared to reinforce my personal view points regarding these games.

It was then that I stumbled across the work of Kutner and Olson, two researchers who happened to question this conventional wisdom. Back in 2004, they gathered together several researchers for a two year, $1.5-million multifaceted study of violent video games and children.

Their study involved researchers from a variety of fields: child and adolescent psychiatry, adult psychiatry, public health, clinical psychology, developmental psychology, educational psychology, and public policy. The goal was to examine the issue of violent video games from a broad set of perspectives.

It should be noted that unlike the prior work of Dr. Brady, they conducted a study instead of setting up an artificial experiment. For their data, they sought to “study real families in real situations.”

The researchers noted that much of what they uncovered surprised them. They noted, “The data were both encouraging and, at times, disturbing.” But they also noted, “It’s clear that the “big fears” bandied about in the press—that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that they will engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games—are not supported by the current research, at least in such a simplistic form.”

Acknowledging straight up that the findings surprised them proved to be the one hook to get this writer to read further. A second aspect, that Kutner and Olson note that “violent juvenile crime in the United States reached a peak in 1993 and has been declining ever since” created further questioning of my current assumptions.

As I delved further, I found a realistic treatment of an exceptionally complex topic and a study/book worthy of a thorough examination. Next up, we share with our readers an interview with Dr. Olson and a look at the various myths dispelled by her and Dr. Kutner’s research.

A 2006 article from RethinkingSchools.org should become mandatory reading for anyone in early childhood education, particularly those teaching in public schools. The post is titled “Why We Banned Legos” and carries the most interesting of subtitles, “Exploring power, ownership, and equity in an early childhood classroom.”

Banning Legos
The article by Ann Pelo and Kendra Pelojoaquin notes the draw of Legos themselves with children and begins with a story about an after-school program. The children had worked on and built a village, one that had “houses, grocery stores, fish-and-chips stands, fire stations, and coffee shops.” The authors noted that many children were “particularly keen to find and use ‘cool pieces,’ the translucent bricks and specialty pieces that complement the standard-issue red, yellow, blue, and green Lego bricks.”

Though the teachers protect the village from errant balls and other forms of potential destruction, some key issues begin to crop up. When one youngster decides to build an airport another in the group immediately denounces the action as the new construction will certainly take too many ‘cool pieces,’ leaving too few for the others. Ultimately, as the city growsand ‘raw materials became more precious’ the teachers note that the builders begin excluding other children.

After a couple of months of witnessing some troubling interactions Legotown fell victim to some accidental damage. All at once, the teachers spotted an opportunity to begin anew. They began by taking the extraordinary action of banning the Legos entirely.

Teacher Soul Searching
The removal caused some interesting reflection among the teachers. Most importantly began a consideration about their roles as educators in regards to raising political issues with children so young.
Notes, the authors, “We recognized that children are political beings, actively shaping their social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity — whether we interceded or not. We agreed that we wanted to take part in shaping the children’s understandings from a perspective of social justice.”

In discussing their decision with the children, they noted directly. “We’re concerned about what was happening in Legotown, with some kids feeling left out and other kids feeling in charge. We don’t want to rebuild Legotown and go back to how things were. Instead, we want to figure out with you a way to build a Legotown that’s fair to all the kids.”

Thus began an opportunity to look at the implications of privilege, wealth, and power, doing so within the world of Legotown. Other issues that slipped into the process were those related to fairness and equity, as well as ownership.

As a first step to exploration beyond the meaning of such terms, the teachers introduced a Lego trading game that had built-in inequities. The game had a designed point system for the Legos but was constructed so as to make it very difficult to accumulate points. Then, the person who accumulated the most points would have the opportunity to set the remaining rules for the game.

The story of what happens with their simple game is quite powerful. But it is what happens next, after the winner is declared, that surprises the teachers the most. The news rules specified by the winning children do not further their positive position but instead actually seek to create steps to increase the game’s fairness for all. Yet their peers do not see the actions in the same way at all. One student offers an interesting response to the whole ordeal.

“I don’t like that winners make new rules. People make rules that are only in their advantage. They could have written it simpler that said, ‘Only I win.’”

The teachers also noted one grim reality. When children come face-to-face with being on the outside of power and privilege, they react differently. Some feel frustration, others anger, and still others, hopeless. They noted that some of the children could even articulate their own feelings and their respective response based on those feelings.

Thus began an incredible teaching opportunity. Even when playing by the rules, some children won big while most simply fell further and further behind. That led to another discussion, what was the real issue? Was it the game and the rules that were at fault, or was it that the children played unfairly.

Thus began another focus, an exploration of the questions about how rules are made and enforced. In addition, the teachers even talked about when rules ought to be followed and when it might be appropriate to break unfair rules (exploring the situations involving Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez).

Following their investigation into power the teachers followed up with a look at the concept of ownership. Finally, in late spring, after nearly five months of discussions into the concepts of power, ownership, and authority, the teachers returned the Legos.

Lessons for Educators
What follows is another amazing journey, one that the reader will likely want to read in detail. But suffice it to say that the children clearly absorbed “political, social, and economic worldviews” even at this very early age. As the authors note, “Those worldviews show up in their play, which is the terrain that young children use to make meaning about their world and to test and solidify their understandings.”

The authors also note that “educators have a responsibility to pay close attention to the themes, theories, and values that children use to anchor their play. Then we can interact with those worldviews, using play to instill the values of equality and democracy.”

With their Legotown story, these teachers share a simple truth, that educators have enormous opportunity to shape both the intellectual and moral development of children. What was most striking to us is how the lessons were taught, within the concept of games and play, and the age at which such powerful discussions could occur.

We cannot help but wonder if such sophisticated and thoughtful lessons could be applied ongoing, year after year, with all children beginning at a very young age, what might be the overall accumulative effect for a world in need of greater social justice.

Photos courtesy of huladancer, SeanDreilinger, and Grdloizaga.

The Internet has been abuzz since the release of “What Makes Finnish Kids So Smart?” by Ellen Gamerman of the Wall Street Journal. In essence, Finland teens are able to deliver the goods on international tests and now American educators have begun researching the Finnish system to see what tidbits they can glean.

According to Gamerman, the differences between Finland and American education are enormous. High-school students rarely get more than a half-hour of homework a night in Finland. Furthermore, children don’t start school until they reach seven. There are no classes for the gifted students and no recognition organizations for those who achieve. There is also little in the way of standardized testing.

In other words, Finland educates its children with a model that is virtually the anti-thesis of what we do in America. Yet out of the 57 countries tested, Finland’s 15-year-old students earned some of the highest scores in the world.

Different Schools and Different Kids
However, though school is different, it should be noted that Finnish youth appear to be very similar to their American counterparts in their teenage behaviors. According to Gamerman, they also “waste hours online, love sarcasm and listen to rap and heavy metal.” The difference is that these students are way ahead of their American counterparts in math, science and reading.

At the same time, it must be noted that Finland as a country is nothing like America. It has its own language yet teachers encounter very few students who do not speak the language. In contrast, in America, one of every twelve American students is learning English.

The people are far more homogeneous in terms of both income and education. Perhaps more importantly, there are no poor and no wealthy schools, each school educates children at the same per pupil rate. Perhaps that is one reason why the gap between Finland’s highest performing and lowest performing schools was amongst the lowest of all 57 countries tested.

After examining the Finnish school system, there are at least three items that could be easily applied to American schools despite the cultural and economic differences. Each of these three also address the differing socioeconomic status in our country, providing a helping hand for those with a desire to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Quality Pre-School for All
Kati Tuurala, Microsoft’s education manager in Finland, believes that a great deal of Finland’s educational success can be attributed to major reforms implemented in the 1970s. Those reforms included an emphasis on primary education for every single child in the country.

“That’s the reason for our present-day success,” Tuurala states.

In all three Scandinavian countries students begin formal schooling only at age seven, two years after most American children begin school. However, prior to entering school, all children have participated in a high-quality government funded preschool program. As opposed to a focus on getting a jump academically, these early-childhood programs focus on self-reflection and social behavior. It is interesting to note that one of the most notable attributes of Finnish children is their level of personal responsibility. The early focus on self-reflection is seen as a key component for developing that level of responsibility towards learning.

This approach also seems more in line with the original theory of kindergarten set forth in 1837 by German Educator Friedrich Froebel. His kindergarten, literally meaning a “children’s garden,” was envisioned as a place and time where children could learn through play opportunities. The writings of Froebel reveal these thoughts: “We notice that if children are not given the care which takes their stage of human development into consideration, they will lack the foundation for the task ahead in school and for their later lives in general.” He further wrote “that the present and future living conditions of men and women of all social classes rest on the careful consideration and rounded mental and physical care of early childhood.”

We noted in our recent post America’s Misplaced Priorities, the High/Scope Perry Pre-School study that indicates the lifelong implications of children exposed to quality preschooling. Given the broad socioeconomic status of our residents and the various views of education by parents within that group, one of the best ways to homogenize American youngsters and help create a new generation that values education is through such universal preschool programming.

We also noted in a prior post the anthropological viewpoint of Martin Haberman and a recent study of 207 school-based programs designed to foster children’s social and emotional skills that directly supports Haberman’s views. The four year study sponsored by the Chicago-based group CASEL, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, reveals that if the teacher takes the time to teach students to better manage their emotions through the practice of empathy, caring, and cooperation, there will not only be an improved social climate in the classroom, student academic achievement levels also improve in the process.

Finland appears to focus on this process during the preschool years, a factor that leads to exceptionally positive results later on. It is also the first step in eliminating socioeconomic differences within the school setting.

Delineated High School
While there is little grading and in essence no tracking in Finland, ninth grade does become a divider for Finnish students. Students are separated for the last three years of high school based on grades. Under the current structure, 53% will go to academic high school and the rest enter vocational school.

Using that format, Finland has an overall high-school dropout rate of about 4%. Even at the vocational schools the rate of 10% pummels America’s 25% high school drop out rate.

There is no silly “college for all” mantra and there certainly isn’t a push to have all students sit through a trigonometry class if that is not relevant to the student. More importantly, there is also no negative connotation to the concept of vocational school.

We noted previously the writings of Charles Murray in an earlier post, Too Many Americans Are Going to College, that far too many people see such training as second class while college is thought of as first class. Julie Walker, executive director of the American Association of School Librarians, notes the obvious student responsibility results at this juncture.

While “the U.S. holds teachers accountable for teaching” in Finland “they hold the students accountable for learning.”

Perhaps more importantly, there is a realization of the realistic academic potential of the entire student population. As Murray notes in another article, “Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them.”

Most educators cringe upon hearing such a statement given an inherent belief that they can make a difference in the life of a child. But Murray does not contest that thought. Instead he focuses on the fact that there are limitations to innate intelligence.

Murray’s opinion, and we concur, is that more American students should examine the option of vocational education/training. Notes Murray, finding a lawyer or physician is relatively easy but finding a plumber, carpenter or other qualified tradesman in America actually tends to be far more difficult.

Such a push would again begin the process of leveling the socioeconomic playing field by giving every young adult a meaningful trade or vocational opportunity at a minimum.

Free Higher Education
All that said, perhaps the most positive aspect may have nothing to do with what takes place at the traditional school age level at all. Instead, it may well have everything to do with Finland’s approach to higher education.

In Finland, there are 20 universities which are owned and largely funded by the Finnish government. University studies are available to all students though students are selected based on the results of entrance exams. Most importantly, theses schools are free to students.

In addition, in Finland, another set of higher education institutions called polytechnics is available, again for free. These schools offer a very close link to working life with a focus on developing expert skills for various different vocational sectors. The entrance requirement for entering a polytechnic is that a student must have passed the traditional academic high school matriculation exam or have completed their initial vocational qualification.

Whereas higher education in Finland levels the socioeconomic playing field, higher education in America currently exacerbates existing social disparities and inequalities. In America, a parent’s income becomes a key component of the higher education process. Therefore, a parents’ social class is a significant predictor of participation in higher education. While it is possible for some very bright children to escape their social and economic situations, higher education in America today tends to perpetuate the socioeconomic stratification that currently exists.

Three Possibilities
Each of the aforementioned areas would seem to be a potential catalyst for significant change in American education. Unfortunately, none of these is consistent with any of the recent governmental education changes implemented here.

In fact, our most recent attempt at creating a similar catalyst towards improving education, our legislation known as the No Child Left Behind Act, stands as a truly oppressive act when compared to the steps taken by Finland. Whereas both countries indicate a desire to have a highly educated workforce, the government of Finland has created a true system of opportunity whereby its citizens can in fact join that workforce.

Photo of Finnish student by Ekurvine.

For the first time in American history, one out of every 100 American adults is in jail or prison according to a report released by the Pew Center on the States. With roughly 1.5 million in state and federal prisons and 700,000+ in local jails, the United States now has 2.3 million adults incarcerated. As but one comparison, China, with 1.3 billion people (four times as many) has 1.3 million behind bars (roughly half as many).

Perhaps the most frightening of numbers are those related to men between the ages of 20 and 34. Nationally, one in 30 men within that age rage are behind bars. Take the focus down one more step, to black males in that age group, and the ratio is a staggering one in nine.

The financial costs are monumental - all told across our 50 states America spent roughly $49 billion on corrections. Compare that to the expenses of 20 years ago, a total of $11 billion.

Though our rates of lock up are the highest in the world, the report indicates that when it comes to public safety, the very reason for locking up such offenders, there has been little return on the exorbitant expense levels. In fact, the report noted that such prison growth rates came not as a result of an increase in crime or simply an increase in population but as a result of new three-strike laws and tougher sentencing measures.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul
The Report notes the results of our decisions. In a subsection entitled “Crowding Out Other Priorities,” the pure dollar figures means that each state spends about 7% of all tax dollars on incarceration. Some states have rates pushing 10% (Oregon) while others stand at about 3% (Minnesota).

As but another fact to consider, as numerous states struggle with budget issues, the rate of increase in prison expenditures for 2006 was 9.2%. That increase, trailing only the increased costs of transportation, is causing many states to cut spend for education and other social services.

While states did collectively increase funding for higher education an inflation-adjusted 21% between 1987 and 2007, states spending on prisons rose an inflation-adjusted 127%. In our neck of the woods, the Northeast, the 20 year period has seen an inflation-adjusted increase in prison spending of 61% and a decrease in higher education spending of 5.5%.

While most of the focus seems to be on changing sentencing patterns, at least some states have begun to realize that investing in prevention is actually the better way to go. One such aspect, the opportunity for a child to attend a high-quality pre-kindergarten program has a definitive correlation with both school success and in later life. The report notes the High/Scope Perry Pre-School study study that calculates the total benefit-cost ratio of 16:1, that for every one dollar spent on such a program a state gets $16 in return through reduced prison rates as well as other social costs.

Fortunately, according to report, new state pre-K funding exceeded $525 million in FY 2008, an increase of more that 12% over FY 2007. This has helped push our current expenditures on early education to about $4.8 billion.

Two Prong Solution Needed
Clearly one potential solution is to address the mandatory sentencing guidelines, especially those related to non-violent crimes. If the mandatory sentencing guidelines are not leading to a decrease in overall crime then those guidelines must be revamped.

In addition, we think it is time to review our approach to the so-called war on drugs, one of the most expensive failures in our country’s history. The time and money spent fighting an arbitrarily defined illegal drug trade must be rethought, especially in light of the fact that we currently sanction a legal drug trade of two of the worst drugs known to man, tobacco and alcohol. The inconsistency in this arena certainly deserves consideration.

But most importantly, we need to think prevention and the best way is to invest in our children. We noted earlier the return on our money, as high as 16:1, for equal access to quality preschool and educational opportunities. A child with a future becomes an adult with hope.

Last year we spent $49 billion on the punishment side and but $4.8 billion on the investment end. That represents a 10:1 ratio in the wrong direction.

It is time we as a country began rethinking our priorities. The $49 billion figure must be addressed immediately - since we are not deterring crime with our approach, we are essentially wasting precious tax dollars. At the same time, for every dollar that prison figure is reduced, those dollars and a matching amount should be added to the investment end.

This is one place where our politicians must find some common ground for the good of America. The appalling one in one hundred ratio is a number that everyone can relate to and should be an unequivocal call to action.

Photos by StillBurning and Ntang.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist has enjoyed immense popularity thus far but as the state struggles with an enormous budget shortfall, the Governor appears to have unknowingly unearthed a flawed legislative proposal that was actually defeated by the Florida Legislature two years back. As one segment of a three prong attack to address the budget problems, Gov. Crist has proposed a reconsideration of a measure dubbed “The 65 Percent Solution.”

The number reflects the specific percentage of expenditures devoted to the classroom, in other words, under the “The 65 Percent Solution,” 65% of a school districts’ operational funds must be spent in the classroom. Crist in fact seeks to make it the “The 70 Percent Solution” by the year 2010.

Crist is basing the push, he says, on an effort to protect teachers and students from the deep budget cuts facing education this year. Instead of teachers and classroom related cuts, Crist wants to focus the knife on administrators and overhead costs.

Once a National Movement
The so-called “65 Percent Mandate” or “65 Percent Solution” was the brainchild of a gentleman by the name of Patrick M. Byrne, the president and chair of Overstock.com, Inc. He was the first to coin the phrase the “65 Percent Solution” as part of an organizational initiative called First Class Education.

His premise was that schools were spending far too much on administrative and bureaucratic expenses. At the time, Byrne set a goal of adoption of the law in all 50 states by the end of 2008.

Back in 2006, many states fell into the jargon and were considering such legislation. One of the key rationales was that Byrne insisted that a 65 percent mandate for instructional expenses would inject another $14 billion into education nationally without raising taxes.

At that time, national statistics compiled by the National Center for Educational Services indicated that 61.5 percent of education operating budgets were spent on direct classroom instruction. Adding fuel to the fire was the fact that only four states spent 65 percent or more in classrooms.

Of course, one key hang up with the measure was trying to define classroom instruction. One state’s proposal (Colorado) excluded such things as transportation, food service, security personnel, analysis of testing data, and teacher education. Other states considering adopting the legislation insisted that the analysis of testing data and teacher education were definitively part of the classroom instruction role. Still other states that considered the measure struggled as to where to place the services such as counselors and social workers.

The problem was, ironically, that no matter how classroom instruction was defined, the “65 Percent Mandate” appeared to be independent of school quality as well as a perceived over-abundance of administrative positions. Interestingly, at the time, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty backed the legislation calling it “a common-sense idea that would help ensure better accountability in our schools.”

His statements were immediately assailed as educators pointed out that the districts of Edina, Stillwater, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie, Minnesota’s most successful school districts, in fact spent less than 65 percent on the classroom. Other states soon realized that the number was arbitrary and had nor real correlation with high performing schools.

In addition, as far as high administrative costs, the State of Maine was pushing school consolidation based on an over-duplication of administrative services. Proving that a failure to examine real data is not strictly a Republican issue, Maine’s Democratic Governor John Baldacci continues to insist Maine is top heavy administratively despite the fact that Maine was one of the four states (Utah, Tennessee, and New York) to actually meet the 65% measure at the time.

Given that the “65 Percent Solution” was not a clear indicator of school quality nor even a measure of a school district’s administrative overhead, the idea fell apart fairly quickly. Only four states would eventually adopt some form of the law.

Rejected Once Already in Florida
Florida lawmakers rejected the idea in 2006. At the time, concerns mounted over how to define classroom spending.

Already, the expectation is that the measure will get hung up over the the definition of what constitutes classroom spending. The National Center for Education Statistics defines classroom spending to include teacher salaries, classroom materials and salaries for athletic programs. In turn, administrators, guidance counselors, cafeteria and maintenance workers, and bus drivers are not included in the national definition.

Currently, using the federal definition, the average in Florida is 59 percent. Of course, trying to classify some school personnel as less important than others has never been met with great favor. In Minnesota, folks insisted such an approach was both “arbitrary and wrong.”

We at first did not want to chide Crist too much as his idea resurfaced just as Florida faces once of its worst budget years in decades. The state will need to cut in the vicinity of $260 million from the money allocated for schools.
Unfortunately, Crist immediately claimed not to have known of the prior attempted movement, stating in the local papers, “I did not realize that we were mimicking something else,” Crist said. “I just think it’s important to spend as much as possible in the classroom, on children instead of administration.” Such a statement reminds everyone how often our politicians fail to put in the appropriate time and research into proposals. Crist has since responded that he would favor a broader interpretation of “classroom spending,” one that would include more services to students.

Clearly, the “The 65% Percent Solution” was another of those measures from someone outside education that sounded good on the surface but soon fell apart due to the fact that the caps on certain aspects of school spending were arbitrary. The concept soon fell by the wayside as it should have, dying what most thought was a natural death.

Except now in Florida where the Governor has resurrected the arbitrary formula as a key component of solving a looming budget crises. Unfortunately, the very popular Crist has seemingly demonstrated that same lack of judgment that appears to be plaguing politicians everywhere these days.

Pawlenty photo by Wigwam.