We wrote a few weeks back about the passing of one of public education’s greatest supporters, Gerald Bracey. One of Bracey’s key attributes was to point out the statistical discrepancies that could occur when data is broken out by various subgroups.

Many times Bracey demonstrated how one had to look behind as well as beyond the numbers, that whole group progress might contrast with individual sub-group performances and vice-versa. In simplest terms, statistical analysis is very challenging and determining valid conclusions more difficult still.

With that in mind, we turn to some recent research that examines sub-group scores on the national and state achievement tests. While proponents of NCLB continue to insist that law has helped close the achievement gap, that is to say, to reduce the difference in scoring on standardized tests between whites and various subgroups, the law has not done so for one of the most important subgroups, the highest achieving students.

Researchers Jonathan A. Plucker, Ph.D., Nathan Burroughs, Ph.D. and Ruiting Song recently released a new report called Mind the (Other) Gap! The Growing Excellence Gap in K-12 Education (pdf). The writers note:

“One of the major objectives of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is to narrow the achievement gap among demographic subgroups of K-12 students. In NCLB’s implementation, the principal focus has been on minimum competency—of bringing a larger proportion of students to a basic level of educational achievement and closing achievement gaps.”

While there has been progress on that specific front, the researchers also noted:

“…. some observers believe the focus on minimum competency has come at a price. Although there has been a general improvement in academic performance, are achievement gaps also shrinking at the highest levels of student achievement?”

The answer, the researchers found, was no. In fact, they emphasize a new phrase called excellence gaps which is used to describe the differences between subgroups of students performing at the highest levels of achievement. The researchers concluded:

“The existence of such gaps raises doubts about the success of federal and state governments in providing greater and more equitable educational opportunities, particularly as the proportion of minority and low-income students continues to rise. The goal of guaranteeing that all children will have the opportunity to reach their academic potential is called into question if educational policies only assist some students while others are left behind. Furthermore, the comparatively small percentage of students scoring at the highest level on achievement tests suggests that children with advanced academic potential are being under-served, with potentially serious consequences for the long-term economic competitiveness of the U.S.”

Key Findings

The researchers concluded that the achievement gaps between students of different genders as well as different racial, economic, and linguistic profiles were extensive for the nation’s top-performing students. This of course is in direct contrast to what is happening for K-12 students as a whole.

Analyzing more than ten years worth of 4th and 8th grade state and national reading and math assessment tests, the researchers cast a spotlight on the data for the highest performing students. When looking at that one subgroup, they found that the achievement gaps between girls and boys, whites and minority students, disadvantaged and affluent students and their better-off peers, and those with English as their first language versus English-language learners either remained the same, or if the gaps were reduced, they declined only by the tiniest of fractions.

Two examples:

In 4th grade math, from 1996 to 2007 , the percentage of white students scoring at the advanced level on NAEP rose from 2.9 percent to 7.6 percent. In contrast, the percentages of black and Hispanic students rose from near zero to just about 1 percent.

For those 4th graders qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches, advanced-level math scorers raised their totals from 3.1 to 8.7 percent. In Grade 8 mathematics, the percentage of students scoring at the advanced level not eligible for the National School Lunch Program increased by 5.7 percentage points: for the students eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch the increase was .8 percentage points.

Citing a number of other such comparisons, the researchers concluded that excellence gaps on most NAEP tests were growing at both Grade 4 and Grade 8.

NCLB Impacts

While NCLB may not be totally to blame for this development (the achievement gap amongst the highest performing students was growing prior to enactment of the legislation), many predicted such results shortly after the law was enacted. The basic premise was that a focus on bringing all children to fundamental standards would lead to the brightest students, already under-served in most schools, to be shortchanged even further.

In addition, the punishment structures associated with NCLB led many states to set some very low proficiency standards. With NCLB focusing on getting all subgroups to pass that respective basic proficiency level, there is no incentive for schools to see to it that the best students climb further up the performance ladder.

And again, in a clear indication that data must be thoroughly scrubbed, there was one area where there seemed to be some positive developments. If one looked at the 90th percentile as a cutoff, there was some statistical progress in closing gaps for this high-performing subset.

Sadly though, in many cases the closing of the gap was due to one of two results: declining or stagnating scores for white students or modest improvements for disadvantaged groups. The incremental closing of the gap led the researchers to create a rate-based formula with the following predictions:

“it would take 38 years for free-lunch-eligible children to match more affluent children in math at grade 4 and 92 years for English-language learners to equal non-ELL students.”

Concern for our Highest Performers

In simplest terms, a state that narrowed gaps at the “proficient” level did not necessarily reduce those gaps at the “advanced” level. The researchers further note that this excellence gap is seldom discussed by any policy experts when school reform measures are reviewed.

For that very reason, one can attack NCLB and attack it hard. One could never contend that the law is ensuring that No Child is Left Behind, not when the achievement gap among the best and brightest is increasing with each passing year.

Has the time come for parents to pull the plug on mobile media?

A recent study completed by the Kaiser Family Foundation brought little in the way of surprises for those who work with children. But just to set the record straight, the foundation found that daily media use among children and teens is up dramatically even when compared to just five years ago.

With mobile devices providing nonstop internet availability, it is easy to see that entertainment media has never been more accessible than it is right now. The results of the Kaiser survey reveals that children, particularly minority youth, are taking advantage of that access.

But for parents and educators, the key question should not be simply how much time is actually spent with media. Instead, the issue should center upon what effect such consumption has on the mental, emotional and academic development of our youngsters.

The Findings
According to the Kaiser Foundation, “8-18 year-olds devote an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes (7:38) to using entertainment media across a typical day (more than 53 hours a week).” Again not too surprisingly, a good portion of that time is spent using more than one medium at a time.

The Kaiser folks estimate that if we were to add in the time spent “multi-tasking” as separate exposure time, the daily average increases to 10 hours and 45 minutes (10:45) of media exposure for 7½ hour usage time frame.

Back in 2004, the data indicated that 8-18 year-olds averaged 6 hours and 21 minutes of consumption time and 8 hours and 33 minutes of exposure time (again when multi-tasking was taken in to account). The 1 hour and 17 minute increase in consumption equates to a 20% increase over the five-year period and the 2 hours and 12 minutes of exposure time represents a 26% increase over the same time frame.

Most of the increase is due to the availability of mobile devices. According to the Kaiser study, increase in cell phone ownership among 8- to 18-year-olds has gone from 39% to 66% over the five-year period. For ownership of iPods and other MP3 players, the increase is even more substantial: from 18% in 2004 to 76% in 2009.

What will not come as a surprise to parents of teens or teachers, the study revealed that young people now spend more time listening to music, playing games, and watching TV on their cell phones than they spend talking on them (49 to 33 minutes daily).

The impact even affects the one time major concern, time spent in front of the television. For the first time, Kaiser found that the amount of time spent watching regularly scheduled TV actually declined, by 25 minutes a day.

But those mobile devices are, of course, providing new ways to watch television. The result was an overall increase in total TV consumption of 38 minutes a day, from 3 hours and 51 minutes to 4 hours and 29 minutes (2:39 consisting of live TV on a TV set and 1:50 on DVDs, online, or on a mobile device).

For those wondering, the Kaiser study did not count texting as media use. If they had done so, 7th-12th graders would have spent an average of another 1:35 a day consuming media.

And the study focused only on recreational use of media. Any time spent using the computer or using mobile devices for school purposes was not included in the Kaiser media use calculations.

Household Expectations

The amount of time spent on entertainment media is clearly a function of the expectations and the example set by the parents. First, only about three in ten young people reported having rules regarding how much time they can spend watching TV, playing video games, or using the computer. But in those households where rules were set, children spent significantly less time with media: 2 hours and 52 minutes less.

Almost two-thirds of young people indicated that their TV was usually on during meals. Nearly one half (45%) stated that the TV was left on “most of the time” in their home, even if no one was watching.
Perhaps most disappointingly, more than 70% of the children reported having a TV in their own bedroom. A full 50% indicated they had a console video game player in their room as well.

Children in those homes where the TV was on during meals or when no one was watching reported spending 1 hour and 30 minutes more per day on the television. For those with a television in their room, the average reported television consumption increased by an hour.

Ramifications for Parents

Ultimately, the important item for parents is the impact of media consumption that now amounts to 13 hours more than the typical work week for adults.

According to the Kaiser study, the heaviest media users, those who consume more than 16 hours of media a day, reported getting lower grades. About one-half of heavy media users said they usually get fair or poor grades, defined as mostly Cs or lower. Only one-fourth of light users, those who consume less than 3 hours of media a day, reported getting such grades.

While cause and effect is not made clear by such revelations, other experts have noted significant ramifications of a child’s hypermediated environment. Tufts professor and researcher Maryanne Wolf believes that parents need to limit the time their children spend on electronic devices.

The director of the Tufts University Center for Reading and Language Research has spent time researching the impact of digital media on the brain. While technology has some pluses, Wolf expresses strong concerns about the instant gratification that today’s media provides. She also believes that technology is slowly eroding our ability to think deeply.

Of today’s media immersion, Wolf offers:

“A child is learning to be distracted,” she explains. “They aren’t learning in too many places to concentrate and think deeply for themselves. The volume of information, the immediacy of information . . . these are characteristics that can be good, but they can also lead to a less active, [less superficial] learning style.”

The antidote to all the media exposure is simple and yet oh so challenging. Wolf insists that we must take that all important step, to limit usage by turning the “darn things off.”

Wolf is not a parent of a current teen – but if she were, she clearly indicates what she would do:

“If I were a parent today, I would limit the time that my children were online or hooked up to something. What you really want is to help each child learn to use their time well.”

As an example from her own busy life, Wolf states that she expressly
begins and ends each day with an hour that is completely free of anything that is professionally demanding, whether it be e-mail or Internet or anything. Instead, she focuses on hitting the proverbial pause button, books or activities that require her to slow down.

Parents Need to Be Aware

There is no hiding one fact – media use by our youngsters is exploding. In light of that development, parents need to be aware that concerns are growing regarding the time our “wired” youngsters are spending with that media.

Given what we are learning about brain development, such exposure is no doubt having an effect on the intellectual capacities of those youngsters. With cognitive development still forming throughout that 8-18 year-old time frame, it would seem to be a no-brainer that parents would want to insist on a little more balance in their children’s lives.

One of the most firmly entrenched academic practices centers upon the use of textbooks as the fundamental drivers of curricula. Ultra-expensive, these items represent one of the largest costs for public school systems as well as those attending college.

As the digital age continues to work its way into the stuffy world of academics, there are clear indications that textbooks are gradually being phased out in many areas of the country. The sheer volume of resources available on the net is leading many school districts to create and share their own materials.

Macmillan, considered one of the largest players in that old, conservative world, apparently has now also seen the “handwriting on the wall.” The company recently announced it will offer academics an entirely new format: DynamicBooks.

The Wikipedia of Textbooks

The new, digital textbook format introduced by Macmillan has been dubbed by the New York Times as a kind of “Wikipedia of textbooks.” New software will allow college-level instructors to edit digital versions of e-textbooks, enabling these professors to customize the texts for their individual courses.

In addition to having the ability to reorganize and/or delete entire chapters or sections of the text, professors will be able to upload their course syllabus as well as any other supporting materials that have been created for the class: notes, videos, pictures and graphs. Offering significant potential cost savings (half the price of physical textbooks according to the Times), this format will allow all course materials be placed in a single digital location, a feature that should prove to be a godsend for students.

But it is yet another step that Macmillan is taking that is drawing the greatest attention. The phrase “Wikipedia of textbooks” speaks directly to that concept, the ability of professors to rewrite paragraphs and add their own equations, drawings, and illustrations.

While this step will allow most professors to do what they already do in a more efficient manner, the idea is not sitting well with the traditionalists who see the intellectual property within such books as proprietary. The further blurring of copyright laws as professors create their own content and intermingle that work with the published textbook authors is an enormous issue for those who have made a living in the textbook field.

The Opposition

Most of the concerns center on a format that is ripe for plagiarism. But the editorial staff at Tufts Daily is calling the concept risky for other reasons.

TD expressed extreme concern that professors would have direct editorial control over the content of the textbook yet would not be required to cite sources for the changes made nor need approval from either the publisher or the authors of the textbook. In addition, TD is concerned with another of the focal points of textbook traditionalists.

Apparently a significant number of the textbooks that will be available are those currently utilized in “large survey courses in the sciences.” While all professors no doubt altered the material to some extent in their individual courses, the traditional textbook had served as a standard reference for students.

According to TD, not only were students able to reference the textbook to discern greater clarity of the specific material that has been presented, the books provided students the essential content deemed relevant to the topic. But now, TD fears those books could well be devoid of relevant topics or critical background material.

In addition, TD notes “that professors may change the text with biased or even false information,” could “accidentally miswrite a definition or make an error in a formula or equation.” Any such errors would no doubt be detrimental to the students taking the course.

TD further insists students should not be the ones to face consequences for these errors or biases, that professors “should not be allowed to edit textbook content without review by the publisher or the textbook author.” And while TD offers support for the field of digital textbooks due to their ease of use and accessibility even as they reduce textbook costs, the editors insisted that allowing such edits did “not outweigh the potential problems that it could cause.”

Instead, professors should not be provided unchecked editorial control over the textbook as it ultimately “jeopardizes the reliability of course material for students.”

Macmillan Moving Forward

Despite these concerns, Macmillan plans to start selling about 100 titles through DynamicBooks. Some of the reported texts that will be available come August include: Chemical Principles: The Quest for Insight, by Peter Atkins and Loretta Jones; Discovering the Universe, by Neil F. Comins and William J. Kaufmann; and Psychology, by Daniel L. Schacter, Daniel T. Gilbert and Daniel M. Wegner.

The books will be available at college bookstores, the DynamicBooks web site and through CourseSmart. Accessing the DynamicBooks editions will be possible either directly online or by downloading the text to a laptop or iPhone.

And of the cost savings, the Times noted one concrete example. The aforementioned Psychology has a list price of $134.29 when sold in its traditional format. The version that may be altered by a professor will sell for $48.76 when accessed through the DynamicBooks concept.

The altered versions will also be available in print on-demand version from Macmillan. However, when students opt for that format, the cost will revert nearly to the original list price.

100% Support for New Concept

Given the costs associated with textbooks, any step taken to reduce the outlay by students or schools is a welcome one in this corner. The fact of the matter is the current knowledge explosion renders most books out-of-date within a matter of months after publication.

In addition, no text is ever a perfect match for a course and the students taking that course. Every teacher makes modifications on at least a weekly or monthly basis, supplementing and deleting whenever such a step makes sense for the students they are entrusted with.

Kudos go out to Macmillan for taking a step other publishers have held back on: the level of customization that comes with being able to edit and supplement at the sentence and paragraph level. The option also allows for those delivering course content to collaborate and share material that is known to work best with students and include that in the basic course materials.

That inherent question, should professors have the right to edit and alter materials, is essentially a non-starter anyway. The bottom line is every good instructor does just that, altering and supplementing as he or she deems appropriate.

But now colleges, and hopefully one day K-12 school districts will be able to save hundreds of dollars even as they continue that long-standing practice of offering students an anchor text.

Professor Robert Milardo arrived at the University of Maine in Orono in the summer of 1982 after teaching for a couple of years at the University of Southern California. Calling northern Maine a great place to live and his role the perfect job, one with a fair balance of teaching and research responsibilities, Professor Milardo has remained at the flagship campus ever since.

A professor of Family Relations, Milardo is currently editor of the Journal of Family Theory and Review owned by the National Council on Family Relations. He has published extensively in the field of family studies in leading journals and is the author of The Forgotten Kin: Aunts and Uncles (2009), The Decade in Review: Understanding Families into the Next Millennium (2001), and Family as Relationships (2000).

Professor Milardo’s interviews and commentaries on family issues have appeared in Psychology Today, the Guardian, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the USA Today.

Professor Milardo earned his Ph.D. in Human Development & Family Studies from Pennsylvania State University and his M.A. in Social Psychology from Connecticut College. Given his depth of study in the developing science of personal relationships and the ongoing importance of family to raising successful children, we were extremely interested in Professor Milardo’s work, particularly as it relates to aunts, uncles and kinship, and his theory of families as multiple households.

We recently spent some time with the Professor discussing his most recent work, The Forgotten Kin.

What ultimately was the impetus for you looking into the extended family and specifically to then examine the roles of aunts and uncles in families?

I started with an interest in interviewing men in caregiving roles other than parents. Were there men who were acting responsibly and having a positive influence on children? In my own life, uncling has been very important to me. I really enjoyed being around my nieces and nephew as children and now as adults.

And in my own childhood, uncles were important to me and fun to be around. On the other hand, the field of family studies is largely silent about uncles (and aunts) so a research project seemed like it would be interesting and maybe important.

Can you explain a little bit about the people that formed the basis of your research – how did you go about selecting and gathering interview and research candidates to examine the family roles associated with aunts and uncles?

Getting men to participate in research on family issues is not always such an easy task. I began the study in Wellington, New Zealand at Victoria University and spent much of my time calling acquaintances and arranging interviews.

Fortunately, the idea of the study was of interest to several journalists and articles appeared in local papers in NZ and then in Maine where I continued the work. Eventually I completed 104 personal interviews with uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews and accumulated over 80 hours of recorded conversations.

My intention was to get a variety of participants – some with very close relationships and some with modest or distant relationships. And to a certain extent the book represents a diversity of family forms and relationships. This is important because it helps us to understand how relationships with aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews vary in closeness, how they vary over time, and the features of individuals and families that influence closeness.

Reviewers indicate you offer information as to how aunts and uncles contribute to the daily lives of parents as well as to their children. Could you give a brief overview as to some of the basic ways that aunts and uncles contribute to the lives of parents?

This was one of the initial questions I had when I began the project. Are aunts and uncles important to parents? Well the simple answer is yes of course they are, sometimes.

Aunt Denise cared for her nieces especially when they were infants. As she said: “somebody would have to get some sleep in that house. So I would go over for a few hours. It was kind of a changing of the guard.”

But of course there is more to the story. Uncles and aunts were often parents themselves so they could draw on their own experience in counseling their siblings. At other times, aunts and uncles simply provided a listening ear and acted like good friends. On other occasions, parents would enlist an aunt or uncle to directly intervene with a child. And at times, nieces and nephews were more willing to listen to the counsel of an aunt or uncle.

Of course not all aunts and uncles are close to their siblings but when they are close their relationships can merge elements of family obligations and traditions with the strong bonds characteristic of best friendships. They can be some of the longest relationships we have. Brothers and sisters, when they are close, share their entire biographies.

My mother spoke with her sister Lena every day of her life and they both lived long lives, both married, had children and became grandparents. Intimacy is really about knowing things about another person that no one else would even care to know and doing so over a long period of time. For close siblings, intimacy is packaged over lifetimes of shared biography. That’s hard to match.

And to their children?

Not all aunts and uncles have significant relationships with their nieces and nephews, but many do. Aunts and uncles mentor children as well as older nieces and nephews. They provide advice concerning school, work and careers. They counsel their nieces and nephews about relationships with other family members and especially siblings and parents.

Raymond, age 26, described a unique relationship with his uncle. Raymond’s parents divorced when he was 2, and he speaks of his current relationship with his dad “as like two adults sitting in a bar talking about the weather.” Throughout Raymond’s life, his uncle has been an important source of support and companionship. Raymond consults his uncle about his career, his friendships, and nearly all of what he does. He describes frequent occasions of support and advice. They visited often during his adolescence when Uncle Les was the only important male figure in his life. In his words, his uncle “provided direction.” A highlight of their relationship is their mutual interest in music and playing guitars together. The contributions of his uncle are likely lifelong. At one point in the interview Raymond spoke of this influence:

One of the things we do is sort of a philosophy. We call it the Lost Chord…. In [learning a new] song you’re missing a chord and trying to find it, but then once you find that missing chord it puts the whole song in harmony and we realized we could apply that to life. So one of biggest things he taught me about life is always searching for that something to put in my life to make it a little bit smoother sounding. Eventually when you get 80 or 90 years old you can look back and find that you’ve had a lot of good music.

Throughout my interviews I was continually struck by the depth of relationships. I can’t emphasize enough that not all nieces and nephews are close with uncles and aunts, but for some, their relationships are truly extraordinary—they fuse elements of parent-like obligations with friendship.

Likewise, you suggest that aunts and uncles serve as mentors to their nieces and nephews, yet the adults themselves are also mentored by the children for whom they are responsible. Can you give a couple of concrete examples about this back and forth mentoring process?

This mentoring of aunts and uncles by nieces and nephews was a complete surprise. It occurred often among aunts and nieces as well as uncles and nephews.

In an ordinary but significant way, Aunt Rebecca recounted how her niece worked at a large department store and on occasion would purchase clothes for her because as Rebecca recounts “she thinks I need little skirts and stuff.” Although when her niece suggested a tattoo, Rebecca declined. It’s good to know one’s limits, I guess. These instances of reverse mentoring, however superficial at the outset, can serve as ways for nieces to express their affection and concern for their aunts. They are very much instances of care giving functioning to confirm, enrich and sometimes deepen their relationships.

Prior to your research, you must have had some specific items, a few informal postulates at least, as to what you thought you might find. After conducting the research, where there any major contradictions to some of those initial speculations?

I went into this project with an interest in documenting the relationships of a small array of family members. I assumed some aunts and uncles had active relationships, but I really didn’t expect the sheer number and depth of close relationships. In the big picture, we are not “bowling alone.”

Among the very best of friendships are relationships between family members, between siblings or between siblings and nieces and nephews. Towards the end of my interviews and after I had spoken with a passel of aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews, I began asking aunts and uncles how they thought about the future of their relationships. When I asked Aunt Michelle if she expects her relationship with her 7-year –old niece to develop into a friendship in the future, she replied: “I really have a hard time picturing it any other way.”

When conducting the research, were there some real surprises for you, things that you did not expect to find?

Another unanticipated finding was the importance of aunts and uncles in mediating adjustments to divorce. Aunts and uncles often spoke of helping nieces and nephews in adjusting to the divorce of parents. This is a source of support that has not really been acknowledged but proves to be important.

While the book is no doubt extremely valuable to other experts in the field, are there some specific things that a family can take away from the book that could help them extend their current family relationships? Or specific suggestions as to how parents can utilize aunts and uncles to help them with the challenging process of raising a child in today’s complex world?

I hope everyone will read this book. I hope it changes the way we talk about families and how we come to understand what makes them successful.

Over the years if there is one clear lesson I’ve encountered it is that families successfully arrange themselves in many ways. It would be a serious error to assume a single prescription for resilient well functioning families. There are many successful configurations, but at their best families are ensembles built across households. They include a variety of forms—some with children in the home, some single-parenting, and some with close ties to siblings. When adult siblings have reasonably close relationships, without question everyone can benefit.

Getting educated on the national debt – no room for politics.

Like most Americans, I am worried about our country. One of my worries, given my penchant for frugality, is the idea of proposing a federal budget with a deficit of nearly $1.5 trillion one year and $1.3 trillion the next. Such numbers truly scare the be-jesus out of me.

That comes even as I acknowledge another penchant, of listening to Princeton economist and New York Times blogger Paul Krugman. To hear Krugman tell it, government deficits are precisely the right thing to do at this moment.

He goes on to insist that the Republican fear-mongering over the current steps taken by the Obama administration is akin to the same group-think that led to the War in Iraq.

According to Krugman:

….the current sense of panic is that deficit fear-mongering has become a key part of Republican political strategy, doing double duty: it damages President Obama’s image even as it cripples his policy agenda. And if the hypocrisy is breathtaking — politicians who voted for budget-busting tax cuts posing as apostles of fiscal rectitude, politicians demonizing attempts to rein in Medicare costs one day (death panels!), then denouncing excessive government spending the next — well, what else is new?

The trouble, however, is that it’s apparently hard for many people to tell the difference between cynical posturing and serious economic argument. And that is having tragic consequences.

An American Issue

Yet, while it is easy to point fingers right now, to cast Republicans as naysayers and the Democrats as liberal spenders, the truth is the problem transcends party lines. And finally, a growing number of folks are pointing out some simple facts, that we could get the budget back on track with some very basic steps if the two political parties were to seek some middle ground and simply work towards solutions

One of the best tutorials was laid out recently by analyst Fareed Zakaria over at CNN. First, Zakaria notes that the issue really does not belong at the feet of Obama. Like Krugman, he believes that what has been done in recent months has been entirely necessary including the rescue of the financial system and the stimulus package to jump-start the American economy.

Her calls these short term decisions “understandable choices” that America has to make but “we have probably five years to try to bring our budget into some kind of manageable situation.”

And, instead of casting President Obama as an out-of-control free-spending liberal, Zakaria goes on to lay the issue at the feet of our past president and three fateful decisions made during that time:

The first was to have massive tax cuts, which was a decision made in the wake of the Clinton surpluses.

And the third, of course, was to have two wars that were going to be funded without any tax increases, the first time in modern American history that that decision was made. … A partial exception was Vietnam, which produced an economic catastrophe in the 1970s.

Political Posturing

Of course, such statements immediately start one on the basic path that is so popular in Washington today, the blame game. Referencing these give rise to the start of the he-said, she-said phenomena.

Of course, the answer is to take a different approach. We could attempt to get beyond the blame, get our so-called leaders to look at the current situation as it is and begin to search for collective solutions.

But instead, we have a toxic environment, one described by Zakaria thus:

if one side proposes any solution to these problems, the other side does not ask itself: How can we have a compromise that solves this problem?

Instead they think: How can we demagogue this issue to fundraise, to win votes, to scare people, to polarize the political climate and gain advantage from it? It’s almost that the entire strategy now is how can we take any proposal that anyone makes and turn it into a fundraising opportunity for our extreme wing.

And if you do that, you’re never going to actually solve the problems of the country because every proposal can be demagogued.

But amidst these harsh, but entirely accurate criticisms, Zakaria goes on to offer some concrete solutions. They include: the importance of containing health care costs especially and concerns that the current health care proposal “is mostly about expansion and adding to the costs;” tackling sacred cows in the federal budget such as the $250 billion a year hole in the federal budget due to employer tax deductions for health care plans; and the deduction of mortgage interest.

As Zakaria notes, “the real big money is in all these middle class entitlements that are regarded as sacred cows.”

But the third part, the anti-Republican measure, is about taxes, that we cannot balance our budget solely with tax cuts. As a suggestion, he offers a modest value added tax that would raise about $150-$250 billion a year while discouraging excessive consumption and encouraging savings.

Add to that some modest trimming of social security benefits and we could begin again to have a fiscally solvent government.

The Real Issue

I began by announcing my concern for our future and these massive budget deficits. But it is interesting to see what Zakaria sees as the real issue.

Around the world there is great unease about these negative numbers notes Zakaria, but:

the real unease is about the sense that Washington is no longer working, that you cannot count on the United States to be able to make hard decisions, to sort its own internal affairs out.

Zakaria goes on to point out:

One European CEO said to me, what worries us more than anything else is that problems you’re facing now are the same problems you were facing 10 or 15 years ago.

They don’t seem to go away. In other words, we keep kicking the can down the road.

And so in my fear, I say simply, forget these ideologue tea baggers that are drawing attention. It seems to me they are more of the same element.

What we need are centrists and individuals with a desire to move our country forward, folks who will willingly distance themselves from the left and right wings fringes. Folks who run for political office to serve rather than be served, who use their elected authority to solve problems instead of seeing it as a pathway to power.

Given the current blight that hovers over our two party system, it seems highly unlikely that we will readily see such candidates emerge from within the system.

Krugman and Zakaria are right – it is not the current deficit we should be fearful of – instead the fear is of a system that continually elects small-minded people to perform roles that demand so much more.

And as for real blame, we actually need to look beyond these small minded politicians. We, the electorate, continually allow our elected officials to demagogue important issues at our expense.

Despite the George W. Bush administration supporting abstinence-only sexual education, there previously had been little to no evidence that such programs worked. Even more significantly, notwithstanding this enormous influx of funding for such programming, recent data indicated that sexual activity, pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases were increasing among teens.

Such information lead us to proclaim on at least two prior occasions, Final Nail and Doesn’t Work, that funding abstinence-only education was a waste of taxpayer’s money. However, earlier this week proponents of abstinence-only education were finally given some reason to cheer with the release of the first ever study indicating the format may work.

According to the LA Times:

“A new study shows for the first time that a sex education class emphasizing abstinence only — ignoring moral implications of sexual activity — can reduce sexual activity by nearly a third in 12- and 13-year-olds compared with students who received no sex education.”

The results were considered extremely significant:

“This study, in our view, is game-changing science,” Bill Albert, chief program officer at the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group based in Washington, told the Times. “It provides, for the first time, evidence that abstinence-only intervention helped young teens delay sexual activity.”

But while proponents of abstinence-only education were quick to pounce, the Times also went on to write:

“Other forms of sex education also worked, however, reducing sexual activity by about 20% and reducing multiple sexual partners by about 40%, according to the study reported Monday in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.”

Moreover, an editorial accompanying the report insisted that “no public policy should be based on the results of one study, nor should policymakers selectively use scientific literature to formulate a policy that meets preconceived ideologies.”

In addition, it is important for readers to realize that the curriculum used did not match the approach of most of the previously funded, religiously-based programs. Instead, the option producing some positive results focused on the risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and skipped the moral value or sex is negative approach.

According to the Washington Post, many deemed that aspect very significant:

“….. critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.”

And before proponents get too excited, it must be noted that when it comes to effectiveness, the criteria used to measure the impact involved self-reporting by young teens of their sexual behavior over the two year period following the class. According to the Times, “diseases and pregnancies were not monitored.”

In addition, much of our prior criticism was based upon the Cochrane Collaboration study which previously indicated no enduring implications for abstinence-only approaches. We are assuming that two years cited in the recent study would not constitute a long term impact.

But the proponents of abstinence-only education have to be heartened by the response of the Obama administration. Citing the same studies we have mentioned previously, the administration has reduced funding for abstinence-only education as part of an overall approach to move away from all programs that are not scientifically proven to provide results.

Early indications had the administration adjusting their stance and considering funding this new program based upon the evidence of effectiveness.

We have read on many occasions of new higher education models. One blogger, John Robb, noted that one catalyst could be the economic downturn we have experienced.

Most certainly, a number of folks have expressed dismay that in tough economic times, one constant remains – next year’s university fees and tuition costs will be significantly more than what students had to shell out this year. While most tend to chastise higher education, this development no doubt has caught the attention of entrepreneurs who see education as a source of revenue.

A More Profitable New York Times?

However, we may not have been paying enough attention to this combination of factors. We would have never guessed the latest educational entry might come from an industry that is floundering, the newspaper business, and from one of the most venerable of news outlets, the New York Times.

But as media conglomerates search for new revenue models that could help them to return to financial stability, they are apparently leaving no stone unturned. But most people are focusing on the fact that the NY Times is once again considering charging online readers access to its web site.

It seems that Times leadership is about to reintroduce a paywall format whereby readers without a subscription will get a limited number of free peeks at the site per month. Critics insist that it will not enhance that much-needed revenue stream in the long run.

Since bloggers provide enormous referrals when citing articles, even readership at the Times is greatly enhanced by online linking. If a paywall is put in place, those bloggers would no longer be able to refer readers to a specific article with the certainty that those readers would be able to access that story when they click.

Fewer readers in the long run means fewer dollars as well.

But in an even more interesting move, in addition to charging for story access, it now appears that the Times is moving into the field of education. According to the Guardian, beginning this spring the Times “will start awarding certificates in conjunction with several universities to students who pay to take its online courses.”

The Guardian notes the step serves two critical purposes: earning the Times some extra bucks as it works to extend the company’s brand name.

Not Entirely New

It was two years ago the paper launched the New York Times Knowledge Network. Offering online courses with editors and journalists, the program initially involved the offering of non-credit courses that provided continuing education expertise for journalists.

The difference, though shades of gray must be mentioned here, is that it now appears the model is designed to produce a stream of income. The latest model involves far more than non-credit, continuing education classes; instead the Times will partner with other universities to offer courses that grant credits and can be used for certificate programs.

Felice Nudelman, director of education for the Times, recently explained the concept to Inside High Ed. “It is, for many institutions, a profit center,” she acknowledged.

Teaming up with Ball State University and Rosemont College, courses will range from $235 for a six-week video storytelling course ($199 if no credit is to be awarded) to a six-course certification in entrepreneurship at $1,950 per course. The video course is one of nine courses students must complete to obtain a joint certificate in “emerging media journalism” from the Times and Ball State.

Other options include immigration law courses taken in conjunction with the City University of New York and separate 45-week programs in paralegal studies and nurse paralegal studies from Thomas Edison State College.

The format has the Times and the specific universities sharing course revenues. The colleges will provide the professors for each course while the Times will offer access to news archives back to 1851, subject-specific content modules designed by the paper, and newsroom specialists for guest lectures.

Future of Education

As a new education model, the concept could well be the harbinger of things to come. The Times certainly offers an incredible library of material to say nothing of employing enormous reporting expertise.

One could certainly see students flocking to courses that might feature not only a competent professor, but the possibility of interacting with the likes of a Thomas Friedman, Nicholas Kristof, or Paul Krugman (provided Princeton might allow) would no doubt be incredibly marketable.

And as Nudleman told InsideHigherEducation, “If you look at the content of the pages of New York Times,” she is not stretching the truth too much when she asserts “we probably have as much depth and breadth as a good liberal arts curriculum.”

Robb was right, the current economics constitutes a chance for new models and it appears the NY Times is ready to deliver a very unique option. The question, ultimately, is will this help return an esteemed brand to financial stability.

It seems only fitting that a week after The Atlantic asked the question, What Makes a Great Teacher? we are able to offer our readers a Q & A with Gregg Breinberg, the educator behind PS22′s rise to internet stardom.

His fifth graders have sung for the president. They have wowed Tori Amos and Beyonce. They have performed everything from Survivor’s “Eye of the Tiger,” to the hip hop anthem, “Run this Town” by Jay-Z, Rihanna & Kanye West. A glance at their web site reveals a never-ending list of stars smitten by these wondrous young singers.

Observing him working with students, reporters have described Gregg as “handsome, erratic and funny” and that “he looks and acts like an overgrown fifth-grader himself.” One of his students told NBC news, “Mr. B, he’s a handful – he teaches us but we teach him – he’s not just a regular teacher – he is un-ordinary.”

Energetic and un-ordinary, indeed. Gregg has inspired countless youngsters at one of those everyday public schools filled with kids from all walks of life to reach for heights they could never have imagined or accomplished on their own. He is a young man with incredible passion and a never-ending commitment to his craft and his students. He is also proof positive of what a great teacher can accomplish.

To garner the level of success PS22 has reached, there has to be both hard work and luck. Utilizing powerful arrangements and an eclectic repertoire of musical choices, Gregg saw to it that the students took care of the first part.

They then caught the attention of the likes of Perez Hilton, Ashton Kutcher and a few others who went on to make America aware of these amazing young singers. Thanks to the kind words of these and other celebrities, PS22 chorus videos have now received more than 14 million views across the net.

Today we discuss with Gregg that fateful decision regarding becoming a teacher, the possible reasons why those in his chorus perform better on standardized tests, his mantra of never underestimating his students (be sure to check out Alicea performing Jingle Bells in a school corridor), and some of the many hats great teachers juggle every day: clown, therapist, social worker, manager and coach.

You have said that your parents were the catalyst to your choosing teaching as a profession. Can you talk a little bit about how they steered you into your life’s work?

My parents were both teachers (now retired) and they definitely had the biggest hand in getting me started on the road to my career. After graduating college (SUNY New Paltz) with a bachelor’s degree in Music Theory & Composition, I really had no clue where I was headed in terms of a career. I always questioned my own abilities as an artist, and decided I didn’t have the vocal or instrumental talent to really make it in the industry as a performer. My songwriting and arranging were my strengths. I didn’t know how those skills would come into play, but I did know that music was going to factor into my life’s work.

So for three years after school, I pretty much floundered, giving the occasional piano or guitar lesson. I made enough to support myself while living at home, but I think my dad especially was terribly afraid I would never leave — a curse that apparently afflicts many parents of creative children! So my folks basically read me the riot act, and I agreed to go back to school for a master’s degree in education. I had worked with kids at camp as a music specialist every summer since I graduated high school. It was something I enjoyed, so it seemed to be a natural transition to go into a career of music education — thankfully a decision I’ve had little opportunity to regret since!

At the beginning of that wonderful MSNBC clip on the chorus, a youngster offers a pretty candid assessment of you: “Mr. B, he’s a handful – he teaches us but we teach him – he’s not just a regular teacher – he is un-ordinary.” What a line!

Joey was a defining presence for the 2008-9 group. He’s one of those all-around great students with smarts, talent, and personality. He was one of my “chorus coaches” that help me test run arrangements and then assist me in teaching it to the rest of the group. To be a coach you have to perform exceptionally in chorus and out. So yeah, Joey is that kind of student. The thing I’ll never forget about him is his laugh — he had this hearty guffaw whenever he’d poke fun at me that was completely infectious!

In prior interviews, you indicated your approach to working with students comes in part from learning what certain music teachers did with you, a set of dos and don’ts so to speak. Can you give aspiring teachers a sense of some of the specific things you learned and now practice?

The Dos? Do understand that there is a direct correlation between achieving results from your students and your students desire to achieve those results. My means of creating that kind of environment in which a student wants to work may differ from a math teacher’s perhaps, but the foundation is generally the same. You have to be aware of and sensitive to your student’s talents and their shortcomings. My favorite subjects when I was growing up were those in which I liked the teachers who ran the classroom. I think that’s how most kids perceive their school experience.

So kindness and patience are #1 with me. I also think it’s important to be willing to try things, step outside your comfort zone, embarrass yourself, make mistakes — because you can never forget that’s basically what you’re asking from all of your students at some point or another.

As for the Don’ts? I guess most importantly, don’t ever underestimate your students. Your students should never stop amazing and inspiring you. If I ever began to lose my love for the profession, I’d know the problem was with me and it’s time to close shop and start something else. Needless to say, I don’t foresee that happening anytime soon!

I am a little unclear as to your teaching responsibilities, your schedule and how the chorus fits into your teaching assignment. Can you explain your full teaching responsibilities and how the chorus fits into that schedule?

Three days a week I teach regular 45-minute general music classes to mostly the upper grades (4 and 5). Two days a week I work with the chorus and on projects related to the chorus. The chorus meets in the afternoon, 2 days a week for an hour and half session.

In the videos, it isn’t just the singing that captures a viewer’s attention – it is the passion the students bring and the gestures that show their enthusiasm for what they are doing. One young lady named Davoya said of you: “At first, when I sang, I had no emotion. I didn’t move. But Mr. B. taught me to sing with feeling. With feeling and heart.” What steps do you take to help students be free to show genuine emotion when they sing?

It’s really about creating the environment that I talked about earlier, which is a slow process. At this point in my career, it’s a lot easier, because the kids across the grades see the fifth graders doing this now, so they kind of understand it comes with the territory by the time they reach my classroom. But encouragement is always needed, even with a seasoned group. I try to safely draw positive attention to a confident kid that is doing things correctly and can handle being made an example of. Of course it comes more naturally and easily to some than to others. But having a kid like Joey, who is very self-confident and popular among his peers, makes it okay for the kids that are perhaps a bit more inhibited. And sometimes the kids that perform the most genuinely are those that are the most reserved at the beginning of the year.

The kids are not only allowed, but encouraged to wholly express themselves. They don’t have to sit in the traditional choral setting, with shoulders arched, chest out, stomach in, etc…. NOT for me! I want the kids to convey and elicit emotion when they’re performing, and that doesn’t happen when you have them lined up like musical soldiers. What’s so great about these guys, you can watch their videos with the sound down and you still get the gist of what they’re singing about. PS22 Chorus kids are fully expressed! And when you add those harmonies into the mix that range from blazing hot (like in “Run This Town” by Jay-Z) to wistfully beautiful (such as in “Wintersong” by Sarah McLachlan) performed with startling precision, especially when considering their age, you know you’re onto something special. Sure, you expect something cute when you click on the vids, ‘cuz they’re kids and all, but really you’re getting something so much more.

Also important in achieving soulful performances I suppose is the fact that I don’t park my behind on a piano bench and stare blankly at the keys while leading. I don’t leave my students to do this on their own. We all, myself included, are responsible for putting the work together because that’s what this process demands in order to be done successfully. As I basically said before, the teacher/director had better be prepared to give what he’s asking for.

Your principal, Melissa Donath had this remarkable thing to say: “the test scores and grades of the 10- and 11-year-old warblers have soared since they’ve been together.” This development has to give you enormous satisfaction to say nothing of what it does for support for the arts. Why do you think test scores for your students have soared? Is it about the music? The passion you awaken in students?

It’s all about self-confidence. That is what the arts has to offer, especially to kids that aren’t necessarily succeeding academically. Throughout their chorus experience, my students recognize that their musical achievements are something they earn for themselves through hard work and dedication. That is a life lesson that does not restrict itself to music.

Kids that are musical and not necessarily mathematically inclined, can digest mathematical concepts musically that they might not be able to in math class. The two subjects are definitely related, and I’ve seen many a light bulb go on when teaching fractions through rhythm, from the same kids that were just not getting it otherwise.

Focus, concentration, and stamina are undeniably strengthened as well. Music and the arts are just the tool to unlock the hidden potential, and as it manifests, it carries over to all other areas of school and hopefully ultimately life.

Brooklynrail.org offered this assessment after watching you teach: “At 35, Breinberg is handsome, erratic and funny, and he looks and acts like an overgrown fifth-grader himself.” How much of your success do you attribute to your ability to understand just what makes a fifth grader tick?

If I had to break it down, I would say it’s equal parts communication, energy, respect (for each other and the music) and a sufficient degree of musical talent.

Of all the pieces on the YouTube site, one of my personal favorites is the Oscar Meyer Wiener piece complete with outtakes. Can you give me just a brief little insight into this wonderful gem?

For several years, Oscar Mayer sponsored a contest for schools across the nation to have students record and submit a video singing the Oscar Mayer theme song. They would choose one grand prizewinner and 2 schools from each state to receive a visit from the Oscar Mayer WienerMobile! So with so much at stake, instead of just having the chorus sing the jingle, I wrote an entire commercial for the kids to act out. I knew Russell was going to be the central character — he was perfect!! He had the biggest smile you’d ever seen on a little second grade face, and was completely irresistible in the role!

As you can tell from the outtakes, the kids all had a blast while filming it, despite the fact that our submission ultimately didn’t win the contest. (Not even a visit from the WienerMobile! ) The irony is that our jingle has probably been seen more than the winning entry thanks to the power of the internet. In fact, if you search for “Oscar Mayer Wiener” on YouTube, the PS22 Oscar Mayer ‘commercial’ will come up on the first page.

And my understanding is you may have once worked as a clown at summer camp before making teaching your career choice. My guess is that it likely helped you immensely in preparing for teaching? Are there specific aspects of clowning you utilize in the classroom on a regular basis?

Oh I definitely own my inner clown! But I will say that although I do think being a clown is definitely part of my persona, it’s only a facet. Laughter is a good way to start to break the ice with the kids, but the emotional range of the chorus goes far beyond levity. So yes, I’m a clown, but I’m also a therapist, a social worker, a manager, a coach, etc…. Teachers have to know how to juggle their hats.

You and the chorus have become an internet phenomena – heck the chorus is even on Wikipedia. But are there aspects of the teaching profession that at times get you frustrated or discouraged? If so what are they and how do you deal with them?

Indeed, watching experiences for the kids fall by the wayside is extremely frustrating, and could become discouraging if I allowed it to. We have indeed been offered opportunities that the Dept. Of Education did not approve (i.e. making a CD/DVD on a major label, documentaries). I will say, they have gotten a bit easier to negotiate with now that the international recognition has recently hit home within the last year. They seem to understand now that this is all positive attention being brought to a NYC public school, and has provided our students with nothing short of life-changing experiences. Hopefully next time we’re offered something along the lines of what has been turned down in the past, we’ll be in a better position to make it happen.

But as long as I can continue to provide my students with the experiences that they’ve earned for themselves, I can handle the disappointments along the way. The setbacks only make me more determined to set forward with whatever comes next.

Would you ever consider teaching at a different level, say middle or high school? Why or why not? Or consider school administration? And if you were not a teacher, what would you be doing for work?

Right now, I think I’m exactly where I’m supposed to be, and I have no plans to go anywhere. Life is about working to your potential to make some kind of difference and trying to find happiness along the way. I quite honestly don’t know if any career could bring me to life more than my work with the PS22 Chorus.

The success you and the chorus have achieved is truly mind-boggling. How do you go about keeping the kids grounded? And for that matter, how do you go about keeping your own feet firmly placed on the ground?

Tom, I don’t think my feet were EVER firmly planted on the ground — just watch the vids! But seriously, the majority of the chorus children come from humble and modest backgrounds — these aren’t spoiled bratty stage kids. We, all of us, live in real life (despite the occasional excursion inside a fairy tale, like singing at The White House for the prez!). When all is ‘sung and done’, it’s back to business and the day to day…. homework and all! So yes, we’ve all managed to stay grounded, making sure to keep the sharing of the joy of music as the central focus of the project.

However I do hope as they move on that the memories of these unbelievable experiences the PS22 Chorus kids have earned for themselves will be a continued source of inspiration that they can call upon throughout their lives. I always try to remind them that they themselves have become living proof that through hard work, anything is possible.

What’s really astonishing is that if you just type in ‘chorus’ on YouTube PS22 vids are the first thing you see. It still blows me away how these kids have really become a bonafide internet sensation!

That’s a pretty amazing accomplishment for a 10-year-old, wouldn’t you say?

There is a growing sentiment that success hinges in great part on a student’s self-confidence. Whether it is the study of sophisticated mathematics or tossing a basketball in a hoop, those who believe in their abilities are able to consistently move on to greater challenges with a sense they will be able to meet the expectations set forth.

No doubt, some folks would differ with that sentiment. At InstructorWeb, we see reference to the mainstays of ongoing academic success: the need for study, practice, and review. Certainly those elements play a key role as well.

But the site also notes that self-worth and self-confidence cannot be overlooked, that “mental attitude is more relevant to success than academic aptitude.” Even more importantly, InstructorWeb insists “children who are convinced that they can succeed will succeed” and “will do so without the anxiety and nervousness that is so common among poor achievers.”

Boosting Literacy Skills

The importance of self-confidence is a critical development embedded within the results of a recent survey by the National Literacy Trust, a charity actively promoting literacy in the United Kingdom. The online survey of 3001 students from England and Scotland, ages 8-16, revealed key relational findings between technology and patterns of reading and writing, two areas many educators often see as disparate or even mutually exclusive.

Explaining the basics of the study, Jonathan Douglas, director of the National Literacy Trust, told BBC News:

“Engagement with online technology drives” student “enthusiasm for writing” in all its various formats, “short stories, letters, song lyrics or diaries.”

But ultimately, the key finding from the survey is one that educators should pay critical attention to: Children who blog, text or use social networking websites are more confident about their writing skills than those who do not use such sites.

According to the survey, when it came to writing, 75% of all students wrote regularly and most of those who did so reported putting both pen to paper as well as fingers to a keyboard. According to NLT, 82% of those surveyed sent text messages at least once a month while 73% used instant messaging services to chat online with friends. In contrast, 77% acknowledged putting pen to paper to write either class notes or when doing homework.

Though one might not be surprised at texting or instant messaging percentage, one of the most amazing statistics involved the significant number of students blogging. According to NLT, 24% of surveyed students wrote regularly on a blog.

Moving on to the element of confidence, of the children who neither blogged nor used social network sites, less than one in two (47%) rated their writing as “good” or “very good.” Meanwhile, more than half of all those (56%) who use social media and three of every five (61%) bloggers rated their writing as good or very good.

For those who continue to insist that technology is undermining basic reading and writing literacy, that the writing styles students use in online chat environments or when texting one another is detrimental, these findings and others had Douglas insisting he would have none of it.

“The more forms of communications children use the stronger their core literary skills,” Douglas informed the BBC. “Does it damage literacy? Our research results are conclusive – the more forms of communications children use the stronger their core literary skills.”

Douglas went on to relate one other critical point, one we have noted in the past: kids need to learn to distinguish between different writing styles.

Interesting Gender/Socioeconomic Findings

The random study yielded a near 50-50 gender split but did include a larger percentage of respondents who received free school meals (20.2%) than the U.K. average for primary and secondary students.

The male-female breakouts revealed some very interesting developments. Perhaps not too surprisingly, the boys reported that they did not enjoy writing as much as girls (38% vs. 52%). They also were more apt to rate themselves as ‘not very good writers’ (48% vs. 42%). In addition, boys were more likely than girls to agree with statements that ‘writing is boring’ (57% vs. 41%) and with ‘writing is more for girls than for boys’ (60% vs. 43%).

But for those looking to hook young men academically, the study revealed that boys held a more positive attitude towards computers and they were more likely than girls to believe that computers were beneficial to writing.

Another very interesting, and at times counter-intuitive development, involved the responses of the students qualifying for free school meals (FSM). First, there was no relationship between socio-economic status and enjoyment of writing, writing behavior, linking writing to success, views of writers, computer use, or attitudes towards computers. But heading back to the confidence arena, students outside the FSM group rated themselves as better writers than pupils who receive FSMs.

Similar Doubts Everywhere

Just as we see here on this side of the pond, there remains great skepticism among educators regarding technology use, particularly any steps that might encourage students to spend time online. In fact, John Coe, general secretary of the National Association for Primary Education, specified a growing concern of educators.

While there is no doubt enormous advantage to developing the relationship between teacher and child, Coe told the BBC, “sometimes the computer is closer to the child than the teacher by the age of 13.” But Coe went on to add that NAPE was looking into ways to incorporate the passion students had for texting into teaching methods.

That said, reverting once again to the confidence arena, it is imperative that educators understand why technology can be such a positive tool overall. Surveyed students not only said they used computers regularly; they also believed that computers were beneficial to their writing.

They reported that a computer made it easier for them to correct mistakes (89%), allowed them to present ideas more clearly (76%), and that computers allowed them to be more creative, concentrate more and even encouraged them to write more often (60%). In contrast, two of the most common reasons why youngsters indicated they were not good writers involved an inability to write neatly (23%) or not being very good at spelling (21%).

Simply stated, technology gave these youngsters greater confidence. Combine that with the ever-present desire of students to use technology and we have a clear indication as to why teachers would do well to incorporate social media and blogging opportunities into their basic literacy programs.

In fact, in a day and age when there are growing concerns with the academic development of young boys, the use of technology could well be the path to enhanced engagement for this group.

There is a saying I admit to using way too often:

Don’t Confuse Me with the Facts – I Know What I Think!

I used it as a title for a recent post on students and the belief that their writing abilities were disintegrating in the midst of the digital age. Today we take the statement to another level by taking a look at one of our nation’s most significant problems, our expensive war on drugs.

In our discussion we will forgo any debate on whether or not we are winning the war, or as others suggest, the war has already been lost. What we will discuss is the notion of science, the impact of drugs on society and our inability to utilize science to inform public policy.

Basing Policy on Hard Science

First you can count me among the initial Obama supporters. Once upon a time, I had strong hopes that he was going to be the antithesis of our prior leader.

Obama’s intellect, and yes campaign promises, had me believing we might actually begin to make our most important decisions on something other than political rhetoric. I even harbored hopes that the really critical decisions would be made using information gleaned from science.

It began well – there was the initial thrust related to stem cell research. Whether or not the idea should have been or could have been the poster child for the idea that science would rule, the very idea that Obama was stepping beyond this emotionally charged issue to deal with it on a factual level was news that I welcomed.

But alas, we have quickly fallen away from any ongoing intellectual plateau. To get a sense, we turn to Merton Bernstein, Professor of Law Emeritus at Washington University, who had this to say about the former issue, stem cells, and the continued focal point of the Obama administration, the push for health care reform:

Science does not permit ideology to foreclose inquiry; it requires facing facts and following where they and logic lead. Hence many cheered when President Barack Obama announced that science is back, that predisposition will no longer be permitted to trump reality. Everyone knew he was talking about stem cell research.

Who could have guessed that the Obama administration and key congressional players would exclude single-payer/Medicare-for-all programs from consideration even though that means ignoring the cost savings of hundreds of billions of dollars in private plans’ nonbenefit costs? Further, administration health experts advertise their focus on avoiding incentives for unnecessary treatment, but pay no mind to the expensive distortions that follow from physicians’ ownership interests in high-cost equipment and services. Odd that the scientific method does not apply to medical care where science should govern.

With that in mind, let us return to the war on drugs notion.

Drugs and Science

It seems that British researchers have studied the harmfulness of twenty of the most popular drugs according to three respective criteria. The study, Development of a Rational Scale to Assess the Harms of Drugs of Potential Misuse, revealed researchers attempting “to arrive at a science-based assessment of the comparative harms of various substances, both licit and illicit.”

Using a scale of 0 to 3 for each area, the researchers assessed the 20 drugs according to physical harm, the risk of dependency, and the subsequent social costs of the drug.

Heroin stood at the top of the list, scoring a total of 8.32 out of a potential 9. Not too surprisingly, the three drugs that follow heroin in negative overall impact are cocaine (6.89), barbiturates (6.24) and street methadone (5.81). Given such data, one can easily begin to see some rationale for making these drugs illegal.

Then comes the kicker, the blow between one’s eyes that makes me refer to that statement, forget the facts, I know what I think. Item number five on the list just so happens to be alcohol. To get just a tad more perspective on the issue we find tobacco number nine on the list, directly after amphetamines.

So, we find that items five and nine on our list just so happen to be legal, while drugs six through eight (ketamine, benzodiazepines, and amphetamines continue to be illegal.

Then, to get a full perspective, we find cannabis at number 11 on the list with a rating of 4.00, LSD 14th with a total impact of 3.68 and anabolic steroids 16th, with a rating of 3.46. Just for our reader’s perspective, we note that numbers 18 through 20 happen to be ecstasy (3.27), alkyl nitrates (2.77) and khat (2.39).

Supporting Science Can Cost You Your Job

To get a sense as to how dangerous today’s political environment is, how as a globe we simply do not want to use science as a basis for decision-making, we turn to Mark Pothier’s recent discussion of the situation involving the U.K.’s top drug adviser.

Seems that folks simply “can’t handle the truth” when it comes to drug policies. Respected scientist, Dr. David Nutt, was recently terminated for his public criticism of the government’s drug laws.

Nutt had the audacity to reiterate the findings that we previously noted. Not only did he offer that alcohol was more hazardous than many substances deemed illegal, he also suggested that the United Kingdom might be “making a mistake in throwing marijuana smokers in jail.”

Pothier summarized the recent termination, noting how quickly we attach adjectives to those who postulate unpopular positions, even if they are based on science:

“The buzz over his sacking has yet to subside: Nutt has become the talk of pubs and Parliament, as well as the subject of tabloid headlines like: ‘Drug advisor on wacky baccy?’”

For his part, Pothier went on to note that Nutt “was fired for saying out loud” what science has already determined:

“Overall, alcohol is far worse than many illegal drugs. So is tobacco. Smoking pot is less harmful than drinking, and LSD is less damaging yet.”

Pothier also noted that Nutt “didn’t see himself as promoting drug use or trying to subvert the government” but was simply “pressing the point that a government policy, especially a health-related one like a drug law, should be grounded in factual information.”

The Implications for Policy

Of course, the data can be addressed in two distinctly different ways – a hue and cry to criminalize alcohol and tobacco given their destructiveness. Or the more sensible approach would be to rethink the current laws regarding other substances.

Today, collectively, our society tends to match that mindset, don’t confuse me with the facts, I know what I think. For drug laws, what we have is a policy that accepts those that are legal and categorizes those as illegal as dangerous.

Or as Pothier offers from Mark A.R. Kleiman, a professor of public policy at UCLA, thus: “the fact that a drug is against the law makes people overestimate its risks” while the legal status of alcohol and tobacco “causes them to underestimate dangers.”

Of course, our previous attempts to outlaw alcohol represented a great example of failed policy. Prohibition led to significant criminal behavior and was a period defined by enormous violence.

One might think we would have learned something from that experience, that we would take a hard look at that period and compare it with the issues being created by our current policy.

Most importantly, as we begin to realize that our resources are truly limited, science would indicate that some rethinking of our current practice just might be in order.

But just imagine what our political machines would do if someone had the audacity to suggest what Nutt recently postulated, that the U.K. policy regarding marijuana is “infantile and embarrassing.”

We certainly could do without the rhetoric Nutt himself offers – such colorful language has consistently undermined our political effort on several other key fronts: stem cell research, health care and global warming to name three.

Instead, we dare to think that one day we might be able to drop the adjectives and address the facts before us. We also dare to wonder aloud, at what point will we as a society begin to incorporate science into our social policy.

And even more to the point, we ask, will there ever come a time when our political leadership will actually move beyond that sad, ongoing statement:

Don’t confuse me with the facts – I know what I think.