Punishing Racists

Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers professional basketball team, made racist comments to his “girlfriend.”  He has been fined $2.5 million dollars and banished from basketball.  I do not know when or where he made the comments, I just know that the comments were taped and the tape got out.  Listening to the tape it sounds more like a private argument rather than an official statement.  And yes, the comments denigrate African Americans.  And yes, I abhor racism and the mental attitude that lumps groups of folks together by race or ethnicity or religion or gender or sexual preference or religious beliefs or even political perspective.  To judge a large group of people identifiable by some external characteristic is to prejudge, it is prejudicial, it is an example of prejudice.  I oppose such prejudice.  Such an attitude is inhumane; it denies the sacredness of each individual human being.  It is a group judgment, by definition a form of discrimination.

So, is it OK to discriminate against racists?  Is it OK to punish any person who articulates a racist view of the world?  Shall we banish them from their own business and fine them?  Or, is such action the height of blind hypocrisy? 

I believe our most sacred right, our most important human liberty, is the right to think for ourselves, to reach our own conclusions about the world, to determine our own belief systems.  I believe any infringement on our right to individual thought and belief is the ultimate authoritarian intrusion on humanity.  I oppose discrimination based on characteristics determined at birth.  I oppose discrimination based on characteristics that emerge later and are chosen by the person.  I also oppose any effort to discriminate against a group because of their beliefs.  I deeply believe that everyone has the right to think and feel and believe whatever they choose to think, feel or believe.  I may totally disagree with them, but I also totally agree with their right to be wrong, at least in my opinion.  Otherwise, we adopt “right think” and the powers at be are allowed to persecute those who do not subscribe to such thoughts.

The right to believe whatever we choose to believe is an absolute right; it should have no limits or exceptions.  If you believe the world is flat, that is ok.  If you believe Zeus rules the universe that is ok.  If you believe a spaceship is coming to take us away, that is ok.  If you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, that is ok.  On and on it goes.  What is not an absolute right is to act on beliefs in ways that hurt the rights of others, or in ways that simply hurt others.  You can believe in Zeus, but you do not have the right to attack non-believers.  You can believe some races are inferior to others, but you may not act in ways that discriminate based on race.  Your right to believe is sacred, in my opinion.  Your right to act on those beliefs is limited.

I personally believe that when we encounter beliefs that demonstrate ignorance, demonstrate prejudicial thinking we should confront those beliefs.  We should engage folks who think in those ways in an effort to enlighten them.  I do not believe we should punish them for their beliefs.  If we can do that to anyone based on some belief, what is to keep us from doing that to all who share a certain belief?  It scares me.

To my knowledge, Donald Sterling holds prejudicial, racist-like beliefs.  To my knowledge he has not acted on those beliefs.  There is no evidence that in his ownership of the Clippers he has discriminated against African Americans because of their race.  In fact, the evidence is he has promoted African Americans in his business practice.  Show me an example of his behavior that discriminates and I am all for sanctions against such behavior.  Show me an example of his expression of his discriminatory belief system and I am reluctant to issue sanctions just because, to my belief system, he is wrong minded.  Expression of my beliefs is also a right. 

As Americans I believe we have the right to be stupid, the right to be bigoted, the right to be Muslim or atheist, the right to hold minority political views, etc., etc.  I do not believe we should punish folks for expression of those beliefs.  I do believe we can punish those for acting on those beliefs if such actions harm others.  I do not believe we should punish racists because they think like racists.  I do believe we can limit their actions based on those beliefs; we can issue sanctions against such actions.

Donald Sterling is not my hero, not my model.  I disagree with him totally on his racial perspective.  However, I absolutely will defend his right to hold such a perspective, to think such thoughts as long as he does not implement those beliefs or practice those beliefs.  To punish racists is not much different from punishing non-Christians, punishing Democrats, or punishing anyone who holds a belief contrary to the current majority.  It is un-American to be a racist.  It is also un-American to punish folks for simply thinking that way.  I will pray for them, but I would not fine them or banish them.

Common Core Disconnect with the Exemplary Corps

I am perhaps too angry to write this piece today.  My goal of addressing these important issues is best achieved by a rational, professional approach to a discussion of teaching and learning.  A rant may not be appropriate.  But damn it, I am sick and tired of non-educators prescribing ways to fix public education when in fact those folks do not have a clue.  They have pieced together a rational that on the surface sounds logical and coherent but in fact is poppycock and balderdash.  They drink the same spiked Kool-Aid and declare themselves sober.  They are not.  They are not professional educators and seem to take pride in that fact.  I would argue that they are clearly a de facto private sector interest group bent on convincing the American public that public schools are failing kids, that educators do not know how to fix it, and that it will take the insight and expertise of non-educators and billionaires to fix us.  B.S.

The person who set me off is Kathleen Porter-Magee of the Fordham Institute and an opinion piece she wrote for CNN entitled, “Common Core is a Game Changer.”  I think she is correct, but in no way is she correct in the ways she believes she is. You may want to read her piece:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/25/opinion/porter-magee-common-core/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

The smoke, mirrors and double-talk embedded in this piece are equivalent to the Emperor’s New Clothes and Plato’s analogy of the cave.  Ms. Porter-Magee does not begin to understand teaching, learning, curriculum development, school culture, professional preparation and experience.  She is the product of a K-12 private school education and degree from College of the Holy Cross.  She is not a certified teacher.  She has never taught.  She has never principaled or superintended.  She is a fellow at an institute that helps drive school reform from the likes of Bill Gates, the Broad Foundation and other private sector interests disconnected from public education.  On the board of the Fordham Institute is only one educator, and that is Rod Paige, former Houston Independent School District Superintendent and former Secretary of Education.  A clear opportunist, Rod Paige like Arne Duncan are no longer qualified to call themselves professional educators in my humble opinion as they have totally sold out to private sector interests.

Ms. Porter-Magee simply claims that the Common Core curriculum represents an increase in national expectations for student success and that as long as we keep testing to verify that it is working such standards represent a game changer in public education.  No.  I am serious.  That is what she is saying.  I would be very hard pressed to find another example of circular reasoning or circular logic that is clearer than this and by definition is inherently false.  If a curriculum is written and standardized tests are developed to assess student mastery of the curriculum then all we know as scores improve is that students are performing better using this measure with this curriculum.  If we use the test based on the curriculum we have proved nothing.  We surely have not proved the curriculum is any good.  We surely have not proved the test is any good.  We have simply demonstrated that if anyone, say Pearson or the College Board, makes a test based on a certain prescribed body of specific knowledge, and scores go up then we have demonstrated that teachers can elevate the measures of student success any time we tell teachers what those measures are.  In other words, all we have done is demonstrate the power of teachers, not the curriculum and not the test! 

That is like saying a teacher of Spanish is handed a written curriculum of French and is told the students must pass the French exam to get credit in Spanish.  The Spanish teacher teaches French, the kids pass the test, and the teacher is lauded for implementing a “game changer” in the instruction of Spanish and we have the evidence to prove it!  Again I say poppycock and balderdash.  There are so many false assumptions inherent in this kind of double talk that it is difficult to wade through them.  Only a teacher looking at the Common Core and the tests that purport to measure the Common Core can see the fallacy of the argument.

For now I shall let pass her consistent use of the words “expectations” and “standards” as synonyms.  They are not.  In the classroom those two words are very different.  Any fool can raise standards.  Only teachers demonstrate consistently high expectations.

My concern is not only with the inherent fallacy in the argument; it is that the Common Core was not written by teachers.  A list of the Work Group for the common core in English Language tests include: 

·         Sara Clough, Director, Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.

·         David Coleman, Founder, Student Achievement Partners

·         Sally Hampton, Senior Fellow for Literacy, America's Choice

·         Joel Harris, Director, English Language Arts Curriculum and Standards, Research and Development, The College Board

·         Beth Hart, Senior Assessment Specialist, Research and Development, The College Board

·         John Kraman, Associate Director, Research, Achieve

·         Laura McGiffert Slover, Vice President, Content and Policy Research, Achieve

·         Nina Metzner, Senior Test Development Associate—Language Arts, Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.

·         Sherri Miller, Assistant Vice President, Educational Planning and Assessment System (EPAS) Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.

·         Sandy Murphy, Professor Emeritus, University of California – Davis

·         Jim Patterson, Senior Program Development Associate—Language Arts, Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.

·         Sue Pimentel, Co-Founder, StandardsWork; English Language Arts Consultant, Achieve

·         Natasha Vasavada, Senior Director, Standards and Curriculum Alignment Services, Research and Development, The College Board

·         Martha Vockley, Principal and Founder, VockleyLang, LLC

How many English and Language Arts teachers do you see on this list?  How many professors of English Language Arts instruction do you see on this list?  How many public school curriculum specialists in English Language Arts do you see on this list?  None!  How many on this list represent either a test developer (SAT or ACT or College Board) or a private sector entity as in Achieve, whose full organizational title is Achieving the Common Core.  Student Achievement Partners was founded by two of the writers above to help folks achieve the Common Core.  Can you spell vested interest?  Can you spell circular logic?  I write a curriculum then form a private company to help schools pass the tests developed by test developers on this same curriculum?  My blood boils.

Math is the same:

• Sara Clough, Director, Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.
• Phil Daro, Senior Fellow, America's Choice
• Susan K. Eddins, Educational Consultant, Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (Retired)
• Kaye Forgione, Senior Associate and Team Leader for Mathematics, Achieve
• John Kraman, Associate Director, Research, Achieve
• Marci Ladd, Mathematics Consultant, The College Board & Senior Manager and Mathematics Content Lead, Academic Benchmarks
• William McCallum, University Distinguished Professor and Head, Department of Mathematics, The University of Arizona &Mathematics Consultant, Achieve
• Sherri Miller, Assistant Vice President, Educational Planning and Assessment System (EPAS) Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.
• Ken Mullen, Senior Program Development Associate—Mathematics, Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.
• Robin O'Callaghan, Senior Director, Mathematics, Research and Development, The College Board
• Andrew Schwartz, Assessment Manager, Research and Development, The College Board
• Laura McGiffert Slover, Vice President, Content and Policy Research, Achieve
• Douglas Sovde, Senior Associate, Mathematics, Achieve
• Natasha Vasavada, Senior Director, Standards and Curriculum Alignment Services, Research and Development, The College Board
• Jason Zimba, Faculty Member, Physics, Mathematics, and the Center for the Advancement of Public Action, Bennington College and Cofounder, Student Achievement Partners

Duh. 

This ostentatious group oversees the writing of the Common Core.  They thereby influence the test developed to measure the Common Core.  To ensure everyone’s wealth they must convince us this is in the best interest of kids.  They attempt to do so by saying “the curriculum I wrote and the test I wrote to measure the curriculum I wrote continue to show improvement in student performance on the curriculum.”  Well, of course it does.

What the Common Core does not do is involve our exemplary teacher corps.  Where are they in the dialog?  Nor is our exceptional teacher corps engaged in the test development and verification necessary to make the claims of the Common Core folks.  The entire loop, Common Core to testing the Common Core, is void of the teacher corps and therefore, I would argue, is void of validity.

There may be some good stuff in the Common Core.  But if we are to believe Ms. Porter-Magee such an implementation improves outcomes for kids.  Her argument is based on false and self-serving logic.  If we are to believe her, we cannot be too well educated.  The clear assumption is that those of us who are professional educators are not appropriate folks to write curriculum or develop assessment instruments.  That must be done by others, and then teachers must be leveraged into teaching that curriculum by threatening them with the test outcomes via a high stakes test.  The entire process is anti-professional educator and pro-private sector wealth generation.  I am sick of it.

She asks if it is reasonable to have a clearly defined curriculum across the state or nation.  I think so.  I disagree with her about who should define such a curriculum.  She would not be chosen by me.  She asks if we should collect data to determine the success students demonstrate in mastering that curriculum.  I think so.  I disagree about who should develop such tests and whether they should be high stakes tests or not.  She builds the trap well.  If you agree with her logic and her questions we must accept the common core and the high stakes tests.  Say it with me:  poppycock and balderdash.

Her article begins in this way:

“As the drumbeat to roll back the Common Core State Standards gets louder, some people are starting to question the value and purpose of academic standards in the first place. Do states really need to set expectations for what all students should learn? Are state standardized tests necessary?”

Wonder why the drumbeat grows louder.  We need our exemplary corps of teachers to influence the common core curriculum and to develop and monitor the tests based on that curriculum. 

We must connect the common core with the teacher corps by some means other than perceived threat and leverage.  A professional approach would be nice.

Thanks.  I feel better.

College Athletes’ Union?

The National Labor Relations Board has given the go-ahead to college football players at Northwestern University in Chicago, a private school, to form a union.  The athletes are scheduled to vote today, April 25.  I find this fascinating in oh so many ways.  The basis of the ruling was that college athletes are not students at the university as much as they are employees of the university.  The NLRB said there was enough evidence that athletes are employees based on scholarships received, hours of practice, and money generated for the university.  The logic loop of this ruling is both scary and enlightening.

The first inkling I had that this might be coming was a Time Magazine cover in September and the title article, “It’s Time to Pay College Athletes,” by Sean Gregory.  At the time I thought it was simply an off the wall suggestion, but it clearly is gaining momentum.  Now that at least the athletes at one university have been granted the right to form a union, it will not be long I suspect before all college athletes do the same. 

Those athletes have what appears on the surface to be a reasonable list of topics they wish to bargain.  If approved, the next step, of course, will be to collectively bargain for pay.  Are you ready for Saturday football games to be canceled because the players are on strike?  What variables might end up on the negotiating table?  Can union players be fired?  How about working conditions?  How about hours?  How about locker rooms?  How about the length of half-time?  How about who calls the offense and defense?  How about the uniforms?  How about dress code?  How about mandatory study halls?  How about curfews?  How about the cheerleaders?  (Interesting that professional football team cheerleaders are engaged in a suit against the NFL for paying them less than minimum wage.  NFL Commissioner earns $44 million per year.  Why would the cheerleaders complain?)  If a college athletic union is formed, will college athletes get agents to negotiate their best deal across an array of universities?  Which set of rules will carry the day, the NCAA or the collective bargaining agreement?  Is “show me the money” a future phrase in collegiate sports?

As an aside, how about other sports that drain rather than contribute funds to the university, i.e., can the bicycle team members join at the 15 universities that have such a varsity team?  Women’s volleyball, basketball, swimming, etc.?  The issues available for possible bargaining topics are almost limitless.

(I find it sad that the name “Teamsters Union” already exists as this would be a great name for such an athletic players’ organization.  They appear to have adopted the moniker College Athletic Players Association, or CAPA.  Perhaps they could call themselves Huddle, or Jocks Strapped, or CPU (college players union), or Spikes and Strikes, etc., etc.  Whatever such a union will be called it will have very little to do with the love of the game or the fact that it is a game.)

What is really going on here?  My theory goes like this:  Professional football has become such a money maker that players receive millions of dollars and multi-year contracts to play, not to mention the coaches, the front offices, etc.  The main revenue source for professional teams is not ticket sales.  It is television rights followed by the sale of memorabilia.  Television networks pay big bucks to broadcast sports because they can charge vendors a lot of money for advertising.  Vendors are willing to pay because the audience is large.  All that money has changed professional sports from players who love the game and have a feeling of loyalty for the hometown team, to a roster of “professionals” who move based on their marketability.  Whether pro sports remain a sport or have become a private sector competition such as Ford vs. Chevy would be a topic worth thinking about, but not here and not now.  The bottom line is that professional sports is an incredibly big business thanks mostly to television.

Universities that feed the pros have experienced the trickle-down effect.  Major universities are generating tons of money via television contracts as well.  This has led to college coaches earning millions of dollars.  The best a college player can do is to get a scholarship that pays for his education while he plays for a multi-million dollar coach in multi-million dollar facilities on national TV because he is an amateur.  The pros have a players association.  Why not college athletes?  College coaches are true dictators deciding on offense, defense, practice, starting roster, scholarships, etc., etc.  As long as they are winning they are pretty much left alone.  Such a concentration of power and wealth has historically led to the organization of unions to create a more democratic decision making model, to provide a check on management run amuck, and to share in the wealth they help generate.  If history serves to inform us, the players will vote to form a union as they will gain a heady sense of power and decision making in an area where they feel more like indentured servants than college kids.  I am sure the coaches and the NCAA oppose such a formation as their power will become limited and the funds that currently are spent on other things, like coaches’ salaries, will shift to student athletes.  I further suspect university presidents everywhere are secretly grinning as they watch the demise of the coaching dictatorships and a diminishment of the fiefdom of college athletics.  Bottom line:  the problem with pro sports and collegiate sports is, in my opinion, too much revenue which has led to excesses beyond imagination.  This is especially true at the collegiate level where the institution supposedly exists for academic reasons.

If college athletes begin to form unions and begin to receive pay for playing, there will be a huge impact on high school athletics.  Just as colleges experience the trickle down effects from the pros, high schools feel the trickle-down effects from colleges.  If college sports, especially football, become an employment opportunity with pay, high school parents, players, coaches and administrators will change the way they think about high school football.  That is of deep concern to me.

Currently the only revenue source high school sports tend to reap is from ticket sales.  Some may generate money from advertisements on scoreboards and in printed programs and from booster club donations, but for the most part it is ticket sales.  In my district of 1600 kids with 200 student athletes the total athletic revenue hovers around $50,000 per year, all sources combined.  We spend upwards of $500,000 per year on athletics.  High school sports are not the money generator that college and the pros are because no one pays to advertise on a televised high school game so they are not televised.  Rather, the local taxpayers shift resources from other areas to fund athletics.  I know there is a myth out there that says high school sports pays for itself, but it is a myth.  What we generate in revenue does not even cover the salary of the athletic director, much less all the other coaches, equipment, fees, etc.  School districts are not rolling in dough like some colleges and the pros.  So whatever additional impacts of college football player unions are on high school athletics will likely be very expensive and very political.

Expensive because those parents who have always dreamed that their son will merit a football scholarship to a university will now become more rabid in their insistence that high schools do a better job of preparing him.  A better job typically means more coaches, more equipment, better aesthetics in the locker room and on the field, better buses, and even bigger football stadiums.  We see this trend already in wealthier districts.  Will it trickle down to smaller systems?

I fear so.  I fear that it is already here.  The parental and community yearning for victorious football teams is beyond reasoning.  Much as some people doubt evolution when the evidence is overwhelming, or as some people doubt global warming when the evidence is overwhelming, some people believe that a student playing high school football in a 3A or smaller school system has a chance at a football scholarship and the life of a pro athlete.  The odds of having a child identified as gifted are about 3 in 100.  The odds of having a super gifted child, one whose IQ is above 180, is less than 1%.  The odds of a high school senior getting a college scholarship is about 0.5 %.  The odds of playing pro ball are astronomically smaller.  One is much more likely to be struck by lightning than to become a scholarship college player or a professional athlete.  And yet, despite the facts, the dreams and the yearning continue.

If college players unionize what shall we do about high school athletics?  Athletics is currently not a state required program.  No district in Texas is required to compete in athletics, or if they do, compete in every sport.  That is a local decision.  Athletics is an elective, an expensive elective, but an elective.  Further, there is no required training or certification to be a high school coach.  High school coaches are hired to teach a subject for which they are certified, and are paid extra for coaching at the end of the school day.  One cannot become a certified football, volleyball or basketball coach.  There is no prerequisite that any of these paying positions are staffed by people who in fact have ever played the game or manned the position.  The state could move from the gluttonous ranks of coaches currently on the payroll to a real coach shortage if coaches were required to have expertise in the area they coach.

If college athletes earn pay and merit benefits should we shift athletics from a free-standing elective program designed for those kids who are psycho-motor gifted to a vocational program where we are teaching skills to earn a living?    What happens if we begin to think of athletics as a pre-employment program?  We might be tempted because if we do we could begin to funnel state and federal vocational dollars into athletics.  Will we hold coaches accountable for the number of students who are actually placed and retained in this new job market?  High school coaches would fight that tooth and nail as they do not want accountability for the futures of their players.  No one realizes more than coaches that ½ of the teams lose in every game played and the low percentage of athletes that are capable of moving on to perform at college.  No, the high school coach is more of a PR job where he or she seeks to nurture affection, adoration and unquestioning support from each community.  They are more like preachers seeking to increase their congregations and establishing themselves as benevolent dictators who should never be challenged.  Few have ever developed an offense or defense that is new, or a route that will guarantee success, etc.  They all pretty much run the same stuff, though the trends vary.  No, the truly successful coach is charismatic, not inclined to either work for the long term success of the student athletes, but inclined to win this game, this week.  Hold them accountable and they will scream.  And unlike the vocational areas where learning how to weld must be taught by someone who is a competent welder, coaches are never expected to be able to do the skills or drills that they teach the players.  For most, to attempt to do so would be a life-threatening event.

I believe the thinking man’s high school athletic supporter (is that an oxymoron?) will oppose the unionization of college football players.  The real problem, from my point of view, is the vast amount of money television contracts have generated for pro sports and collegiate sports.  There are much better ways to reduce the money in collegiate sports, limit the power of the collegiate football coach, and improve the conditions for college football players than player unionization.  Ways that in fact could benefit not only the players, but the academic program as well.  (I find it really interesting that many of those who strongly advocate the application of private sector strategies to public schools simultaneously oppose a cost/benefit analysis of the athletic program.  I assume they also believe there is no global warming and the sun rotates around the earth.)

If the players unionize, high school football will forever change.  It will no longer just be a game that young men play for fun while learning some life skills along the way.  It will become the free internship program for the big business of sports. 

Or, am I the one who is dreaming?  Are we at that point already?

The real question is not whether to have athletics or not.  In my opinion we should definitely have an athletic program.  The real question may be, “What is the purpose of sports at the high school, collegiate and professional level?”  Is this a game or something else?  Are we fulfilling those purposes?  If so, what are the inherent opportunity costs to other areas in doing so?

Ouch.