LA Super-Not-Confidential

This is going to be one of those more personal update-y type posts, just because I have fallen woefully behind in my political news, and in keeping this little blog up to date in terms of my current work situation.


So here it is: I have a job.  Yay!  Without getting overly specific, I will just say that it is absolutely my dream job: I get to work with teachers, policy makers, non-profit type folk and do a lot of nerdy, wonky things all day.  Plus, I get to do all of this from an office in LA, where the sun shines in December and my family is only an hour away.  Perfect.


I also have a new apartment.  Yay again!  Haven't moved in yet, but I have a lease that's all signed and official and as of Friday, I will have keys.  Not so much on the furniture or anything, but one step at a time, right?


And last but not least, I have a new car!  Her name is Olive and I am already deeply in love with her.  I will try to update again soon with some thoughts I've been having about Obama's negative turn, my new obsession-turned-disappointment with the show Weeds and a couple other things.  But for now, this is Olive.

Get Out the Bloody Vote

I am totally in favour of mandatory voting/fines for those who do not comply, ala Australia.  I could go into the long list of reasons why - it encourages good citizenship, it provides greater incentives to better fund education, it creates investment in currently totally disaffected communities, it would force politicians to go center rather than to the extremes, etc.  But mostly, in the grand American tradition, I want to complain.  About ads like these.

That AARP ad that has lines like, "Washington may not like straight talk, but I do" and "Washington doesn't want you to know blah blah blah" (that's verbatim), encouraging seniors to speak out about changes to medicare and social security.  

My issues with this ad are two-fold:

1. Seniors need no encouragement to go vote.  AARP is spending money on these ads because seniors show up to vote regardless, and if an organization like the AARP tells them what to do while they're there, it'll get done.  These sorts of ads just won't work as well on young people because they weren't really on the fence about showing up to vote or not - they're not going to.  You know what totally would get young people to show up? Charging them money if they don't.

But also, you would think from voting patterns and the sentiments of this ad that seniors are both totally unrepresented in the debate on Medicare and Social Security and the only people affected by changes to the system.  This is so, so wrong on both counts.  Politicians don't want to touch these issues with a ten-foot pole in large part because seniors currently utilizing these services are so very, very vocal.  And young people are in some ways more affected by changes to the system than seniors - no serious policy maker is putting out a plan that would affect current beneficiaries.  All plans basically shift the cuts to later generations.  So if anything, seniors need to back off a bit and understand that it's not going to be them who are going to fall through the giant hole in the safety net - it's the rest of us.

2. This whole "Washington says x but the rest of us know y" bugs the bejeezus out of me.  This is a representative democracy.  You are Washington, and Washington is you.  And I don't just say that because I happen to live there.  If anything, I say that in spite of living in the one place in the country where we don't get representation.  The irony of that has too many layers for me to really understand.

Anyway, first of all, the crazy polarization and partisanship of Washington...it's just reflecting our own polarization.  I've written about this before, about how gerrymandering is actually just a reflection of our own desire to have nothing to do with people who aren't like us, which is depressing.  But in this other book we read for that same Alice Rivlin class, by Alan Abramovitz, he argues that it's us, not the politicians, who can no longer see the other point of view and want no part of compromise.  I don't 100% buy this.  But I also don't buy that Washington has just gone all crazy all on their own - it's our democracy and I think the first step to fixing it to take ownership of the problems.  Having worked with a couple local politicians, I can tell you that any involved voter is going to take precedent over any "special interest group".  If someone doesn't like what's happening, it is his or her right and responsibility to get in contact with the representative and fix it.  There is no great conspiracy to keep the American people out of government - more information than you could ever want or need is available online with a few clicks, and C-SPAN records every last minute of proceedings on the floor.  And PS, they apparently talk like 10th graders, so if you still feel like you can't possibly understand them, then we may have some other education problems happening.

As a side note, I will also throw something at my TV if I hear "Washington" being said with a phantom "r" one more time.  That is just incorrect.

Hope for the Future (kind of)

I am currently at home in California, hanging out with my family and thoroughly soaking up the lack of any work I have to do.  Every day, I watch obscene amounts of TV, go for walks, sit in the sun, bake and read books that have nothing to do with policy.  Ok, the last bit isn't 100% true.  I'm currently reading a biography of LBJ, or at least the first volume of one.  It's not strictly about policy, but hot damn that man made a lot of policy happen.  He was  such a bad ass.  I used to think if I could have an affair with one President it would be Woodrow Wilson (clearly a sexy man, a Democrat in a sea of Republicans and he created the Fed.  Hot.)  But as I read this biography...I just don't know.


Anyway, this is not the point of this post.  The point is that I am home and have little to nothing to do most days, except for today.  Today, I helped out at my mom's school by interviewing 8th graders at their "Portfolio Fair" - they showed me their best work and I asked them questions about it.  Well, let me clarify.  Some of them showed me their best work. Others showed me folders they had clearly put together earlier that morning.  But I absolutely loved it.  As much as I hated teaching and was not meant to do it, I do miss hanging out with middle schoolers.  They are hilarious and I adore their honesty.


Things I learned from them today:


1. My mom is "cool".  Their little faces just lit up when I told them who my mom was.  They all gushed about how great she is.  Obviously true.  This even goes for the little slackers who showed up with their half-done folders.  So I also learned from them that this is what a good teacher looks like - even the kids who are not-so-great know that she cares.
I liked all of my teachers.  But I was also a goody-goody.  Some of them, I know, were not so loved by kids who didn't get their stuff done.  That's a decent teacher.  A great  teacher is one who manages to reach even the kids who don't get their acts together.  I have rarely been so proud of my mother as I was today.


2. Math education needs a serious makeover.  To be honest, I sort of knew this before...it's sort of my dad's life's work.  But you know, this was their chance to show me their absolute best work and brag about all their most creative and interesting projects.  I kid you not, every single child showed me some flashcards and said it helped them study for tests.  I asked the first few kids if they didn't have a poster or a writing assignment or a bigger project of some kind to share.  The response: "No...this is for math class."  Right.  How dare I expect creativity.  And we wonder why kids graduate not wanting to pursue a STEM career.


3. Telling kids "Write 3 paragraphs reflecting on a character trait" is not, in fact, a good way to get kids to build character.  You're shocked, I know.  
Every kid had to have this little essay talking about their favourite "pillar of character" (part of some program that I'm sure cost the district some insane amount of money) and every single child openly told me "I don't know why we had to do this."
Me neither.  But this is something I just don't get about the whole world of education.  Both teachers and administrators seem to forget that while adults and children do learn differently in some ways...we're not different in every way.  Go to any professional development session, and you'll see a bunch of administrators leading a "learning experience" that they would flunk any teacher in that room for giving to their students.  6 hours of sitting, little to no modeling, certainly no ongoing support.  In the same way, who learns new skills or builds new capacity by writing 3 reflective paragraphs?  "Responsibility" and "kindness" are not things best learned via structured essays.


4. My shoes are "totes adorbs".  Who knew.

Debate Shift

Double post!  Making up for lost time!


This semester, in case you missed it when I wrote about it about 6,000 times, I have been in a class with Paul Begala on Politics and the Media.  And I think it worked.  


About 12 of my friends all posted this link from the NY Times.  In the past, the "B.B." era as I am now calling it (Before Begala, obviously), I think I would have sent this link on to my many, many Obama-hating family members with a message with the general sentiment of "See?!"


But now, in the A.B. era, I sent no such email.  Instead, I thought, "WTF have Republicans done to our national debate?"  Much healthier and smarter of me.


So if you hate links and didn't click, the graphs essentially show that the government share of GDP shrank dramatically in the first term of the Obama presidency, while it actually rose in both of the W terms, thanks mostly to that good ole military spending.  Thus showing that claims that Obama is some Big Government over-spender are wildly inaccurate.  I almost always support showing that anti-Obama claims are wildly inaccurate.  So why no share?


Because it makes me sad that we liberals have ceded so much ground in this debate that we are arguing for our own candidate that he is a conservative.  I'm not a socialist - I'm not looking for the government to run the economy.  But I am a liberal.  I believe that, especially during economic recessions, the government should play a larger role in the economy.  The fact that the candidate I campaigned for and voted for decreased government spending as a share of GDP is not exciting to me, nor should it be.


But this is how the Republican Noise Machine has warped our national conversation.  In the name of "balance", right wing ideals have gone unchallenged, because god forbid anyone in the media appear to have a liberal bias, and now we debate how little the government can possibly be involved in the economy, rather than addressing the full spectrum of solutions.


In other news, I am still watching Parenthood.  It's so terrible I have had to watch 10 episodes in 2 days.

Long Overdue

As I've been wrapping up the last month or so of school, I have fallen woefully behind on blog updating responsibilities.


BUT I am now in the final-editing-final-citation-writing phase of paper-writing, and so suddenly I have tons o' time.  And so my day today was made up of watching Parenthood on Netflix (terrible), cleaning my room (boring), actually writing those last papers (not really) and finally watching the movie Reality Bites (meh).


I think the problem with Reality Bites was that it was billed to me as (and this is an ever-so-subtle quote from the Wikipedia article) "encapsulating an era".  Like, that listening-to-Radiohead-before-they-were-cool, Clinton-campaigning era and generation I apparently missed.  "Encapsulating" is way too strong.  Things that should have been emphasized about this movie:


-It really captures the laziness of a large proportion of 20-somethings, and the resentment they tend to feel for the less-lazy among them.
-It captures some terrible haircuts.  Seriously Ethan Hawke, go see a barber.  You too, Stiller.
-Watching this movie in 2012 really shows how quickly fashion cycles - most of the outfits, between the lace-up boots and floral skirts and weird glasses, could definitely be sold at Urban Outfitters right now for way too much money.
-The grandpa guy from Frasier is in it, and is one of the most entertaining parts.
-It makes you wonder what it really takes to get 20-somethings motivated.  These people, apparently representative of a whole generation, are aimless and without ambition and unwilling to take unfulfilling jobs.  They were graduating into the labor market of the 90's, those bastards.  But, one could argue, perhaps this lack of struggle, the overabundance of jobs and opportunities, provided no impetus for them to settle into their life paths.  But...my generation is also facing a certain malaise, in large part because we have no jobs.  So is there some magic balance of jobs and unemployment that will suddenly inspire college grads to be productive, ambitious, happy members of society?  Most likely not.  Just today, one of my roommates and I were discussing the merits of some sort of post-high school community service/military service type requirement, kind of like they have in Israel.  I am scared of the military.  I am scared of giving 18-yr-olds guns.  But doing Teach for America, something totally draining and totally outside my comfort zone, was the single hardest thing I've ever done, but also did more to aid my maturity than 4 years in college.  PS I am super mature now.
-Winona Ryder was so freaking beautiful.  She should be allowed to steal everything.

Obsessions

Here are some things I am "obsessed"* with:
Slate.com
Mini foods
Old books
West Wing
Stories about Rick Santorum's wife
Maggie Gyllenhaal (why is she so beautiful?)
Adam Scott (why is he so beautiful?)
Food blogs
How I Met Your Mother
HBO shows
And now...Paleo recipes


So turns out my body is even more Jew-y than I had originally thought.  Rather than just not being able to drink a hearty milkshake because of the milky part, I actually can't drink that milkshake for a whole long list of reasons.  Reasons that are also going to stop me from getting to eat normal bread.  Or cupcakes.  Or pie.  If you know me at all, you know this is a huge.  Problem.


But it turns out lots of other people have this same problem, or choose to give those things up (no, I don't understand it either) and they post recipes about it!  Pies I could actually eat!  It's amazing!  So obviously my new free time activity is watching episodes of How I Met Your Mother on Netflix while attempting to find every single pie recipe that has ever been written that I can eat.  Duh.


Here is the point of this post: how did people get obsessed with things before the internet?!  If someone in 1955 discovered that, in spite of their deep, abiding love of pies, they would not be able to eat them again, did they just have to find one random recipe and let it go?  Or (God forbid) give up pie?  But then after they found the one recipe...then what did they do?  Move on? Do other things? I don't understand.  I know we're supposed to be the generation of no attention span, but the idea of not being able to do one thing, or research one thing, for hours on end is really foreign to me.  I feel this in very small doses when I'm watching a show that's current.


Example: I'm a Mad Men fan.  I know some people wait until the whole thing is over because they can't stand the waiting, but I can't stand the waiting now.  I win for impatience.  But every time an episode ends, I cannot believe it.  I cannot believe that I am not going to be able to watch at least 4 more episodes immediately.


So in schools, maybe instead of complaining that kids have no attention span anymore (because I would argue that they do), we need to understand that the type of media they have attention span for has shifted, and adapt accordingly.  Can't textbooks be done Wikipedia-style?  History done in a way that shows the entertaining narrative, with better writing?  Science done with more experiments and less reading?  Novels read through a kind of digital treasure hunt rather than a lengthy readaloud?


All of this to say, I wish Matthew Weiner would teach my history class.  I would go every day.








*This is said as a psychology major with full knowledge that obsession is a real thing that is  very much over-used.  However, it is also said as an English major who tends to lean toward descriptive linguistics and thinks the word "obsession" now basically just means something you really, really, really like.  And also as a public policy major who loves caveats.  Ok, I feel better.

Quick Burst of Feminism

Maybe it's because I just listened to a great podcast about Adrienne Rich.


Or maybe it's because I spent way too much of yesterday in heels.


But I saw this on facebook today and almost posted one of those incredibly annoying facebook status rants.  Instead I saved it for here.  PS Language warning, all you kindergarteners who read this blog.

FUCK THIS.
1. Everyone does this sometimes.  In fact, I think I know way more annoying passive-aggressive males than females.  This may be because I come from a long, proud line of vocal women, so I'm not at all saying the opposite stereotype is true - the ability to say one thing when we mean another is just universal, not female.


2. Not everything a woman says is intended to be male-centric.  Personally, when I say "I'm cold", I mean...my body temperature is low.  I am cold.  You should probably turn up the heat, but most likely I would have already added that tidbit.  I may or may not want to cuddle, but I will be sure to let you know if I do.


3. While everyone does do this sometimes, the vast majority of the time, if a woman (or anyone) says, "Leave me alone", it means "Leave me alone.  I'm mad at you right now and will let you know when I no longer am."


This is the more serious point here: women are not children, in spite of what life boat rules may seem to suggest (super excited to see Titanic 3D...)
When women say x, the assumption should be that they mean x.  Because this kind of logic is exactly how we end up with women being pressured into things they didn't want, and men not understanding how that happened.  Yes means yes, no means no, and "Leave me alone" means "Leave me alone".
And in the reverse, giving these kinds of messages to girls does not encourage them to be strong, independent thinkers.  It encourages them to not know what they want, to think they need to be all coy with what they want, and to generally act like children.  
This is one of my favourite blogs, and in this entry, she discusses how we teach children from a young age that hitting means liking, and how screwed up that is.  I agree.  I, for one, do not want affection expressed that way.  If someone tells me "I love you", I want it to mean just that - not "tell me you love me right now" or any other message.


All of this to say, if I tell you I love you...I secretly hate you.  But I promise I'll be consistent about it. 

Suit Distress

About 2 months ago, I got bangs.  It was a big moment for me, as my hair-cutting choices tend to be pretty conservative and predicated on me doing little to no work on maintenance.  Bangs are high maintenance.  But they're just so dang cute and after I read about my fifth article describing Zooey Daschanel as a girl who likes cupcakes and polka-dots (2 of my all-time favourite things) I figured I should start doing my best to look more like her.  So bangs.

Problem: I forgot that I really really hate hair maintenance and also that I'm not like Zooey in any other way besides the two aforementioned affinities.

Further problem: I over-think these kinds of things and end up getting mad at "the man" for putting me into a box that I've just constructed in my mind.

To sum up the issue, a friend recently was sitting in my room and said, "You do not come over as the kind of person who would own this many scarves.  Or this many books on political strategy.  Certainly not both."

I should say up front, my comment on hair maintenance may have been misleading.  I hate that, but I really, really love getting dressed.  I own way too much clothing and putting it together in new ways is just one of the best activities there is.  My first day working in the Senate, I felt out of place.  Apparently both Democrats and Republicans can unite on one issue: they are anti-colour.  Grey, black, brown suits.  Everywhere.  My bright yellow sweater felt sadly out of place.  And at lunch, everyone is apparently only willing to eat pre-packaged sandwiches and/or salads.  Again, my curry and cupcake felt out of place.

But why?  Why, The Man?  Why are people in yellow sweaters supposed to go work in cupcake shops and not allowed to write strategy memos?  Even here at the school district office where I currently work, people ask if I'm a teacher.  Because I wear polka dots.  Apparently in order to work in education policy, a boring black suit is required.  One response to this would be to say that I would like to be taken seriously and therefore will wear a suit.  But as my mother, who has been forced to go suit-shopping with me on the two occasions on which I have bought an event-specific suit, can attest, that is just not really going to happen.

I think this is okay (The Man).  If we're going to build a stronger link between practitioners and policy-makers, perhaps wardrobe should be the first step.  I like that when I go into classrooms to chat with teachers, they don't feel threatened, they don't feel like I'm from some foreign place where it's not uncomfortable to wear a jacket and heels all day.  I like that when I leave the Hill, people don't automatically know I work there from the suit-badge combo and feel like I'm "one of them".  I think it makes me a better strategist, a better policy wonk and a better advocate.  And also better dressed.

So everyone (you too, The Man), go out and get yourself something in yellow.  You're welcome.

Political Stories No One Cares About

CNN.  Because I'm working from home right now and watching you.  This one is for you.

A lot of people are consuming the news.  A lot more than they used to.  I assume very smart people work at these news outlets and do research on what people want to see/read/hear, so I fully acknowledge that I am likely in the minority on these.  But still.  I consume a lot of news.  So please stop these types of stories - they make me feel dumber.

1. Things Candidates Buy

I don't care about John Edward's haircuts, Santorum's sweater vests, Mitt Romney's multiple personal jets (I assume).  If someone looked at my bank statements, they would see a shocking percentage spent on frozen vegetables, Starbucks, and one-off iTunes purchases (damn you for making buying TV episodes so easy!)  This tells you close to nothing about me as a person or my ability to govern.  (I wouldn't be good at it.)  Also, campaigns are weird, weird times.  I have no doubt that Santorum actually needs a ridiculous amount of sweater vests - it is probably easier to leave one in every hotel in the country than trying to pack a bunch.  I don't know why Edwards needed that haircut, but meh, I'm sure he did.  Unless they're buying illegal guns or children, I don't care.

2. Things Candidates Eat

This is very related to item 1.  Romney talked about eating grits in the South. This got a disproportionate amount of news coverage.  I'm pretty sure you're required to say the word "grits" within 6 hours of landing anywhere below the Mason-Dixon line or they kick you out.  Obama ate a burger - and he's supposed to be the healthy president!  To be honest, I'd rather they take those 10 minutes of coverage and devote it to how he caved in on tax cuts - he's supposed to be the liberal president!

3. Gaffes Staffers Make

Let me be clear: I LOVE hearing about gaffes candidates make.  And this Republican field has apparently learned this and is doing its best to make me very, very happy.  Well done.  But yesterday, a Romney staffer made the now-famous "Etch-a-Sketch" gaffe.  First of all, he was not saying anything we didn't all already know.  Second of all...he's not Romney.  If he says something like that again, he'll just be fired. So who cares?

4. Candidates' Thoughts on Sports

Boring.

5. Other People's Coverage of Candidates

If you haven't picked this up, I always enjoy bashing Fox.  Well I should say, almost always.  (Side note: recent study shows that consumers of Fox News are actually LESS informed on basic political facts that people who consume NO news.  Yes there are a few issues with this study.  But still. Ha.)

But you know, everyone is guilty of taking things out of context (see: "I enjoy firing people"), and NPR/CNN/Slate, while you may do this less than other people because you're a little more center, it is still not interesting to talk about how other people are oh so irresponsible. General rule: If the Daily Show or Colbert Report can cover your news better than you, maybe just let them.

I'm sure there are a lot more that bother other people, and probably that bother me.  But as I know the president of CNN is positively addicted to my blog, I'll at least get these out there.

Uninspired

I turned in my first complete draft of my thesis this week, got back a midterm and a big paper, and am getting a serious case of senioritis...or 2nd-year-itis...or whatever the grad school equivalent of "good God why am I so close to done but not done yet"-itis is.  So this is going to be a very short post.  Because I have a large amount of Being Human to watch.  And, as the title would indicate, I am feeling uninspired.


BUT.


You know what is inspired?


This web series.


Enjoy.

Hatin' and Appreciatin'

This past week, I've been back home in sunny southern California, thoroughly enjoying all the beach time, perfect weather and burritos it has to offer.  Every time I'm home, all I can think is...my goodness I was such a whiny brat.
As I'm sure anyone from my home town would agree, this town is not exactly a happening spot, especially when you're a teenager and your mobility is limited.  I never understood why my parents moved there - it's small, it's boring, nothing is open past 7 PM.  When a small skate park opened when I was in middle school (possibly elementary school?) it was a BIG deal.  Will children be out and about...after dark?!  The hooligans!  We also talk like we're stuck in the 1950's in my town.
But anyway, when I drive into my town, this is what I see.

Seriously.  I lived here.  And complained about it.

If you've seen the movie Easy A (and who hasn't? AFI Top 100 List material if I've ever seen it), that was all filmed in my town and actually at my high school.  I went to see it with a high school friend at a theater in DC and we may or may not have pissed off everyone else in the theatre by yelling out everything we recognized.  As I said...the whole thing was filmed in my town, at my high school.  So we were slightly obnoxious.


So yes, every time I come home, I get mad at myself for wasting time as a teenager with all my complaining when I should have been soaking up the great weather, the beautiful mountains, the delicious oranges that grow everywhere.  And I've been beating myself up for this since my very first visit home in undergrad.  This, in part, is because I went to school in a really, really ugly place.  If you're wondering, Abilene, TX is not pretty.  There are maybe 3 trees in the whole town, and the grass is green for a glorious 2 weeks some time in April.  Otherwise it's brown.  Everything is brown.


It wasn't until I moved to New York and went back for a visit with some friends that I realized...Abilene is a pretty special place.  People are unbelievably friendly, you never have to work that hard to find friends, people throw amazing dance parties in their living rooms, and best of all, you can always find parking.  Always.  


So it's possible you are seeing a pattern at this point.  I did not.  I did not enjoy living in New York (it's crowded! People are mean! Everything is expensive! I have to be a teacher here!) and visiting Abilene just reinforced everything I was hating.  And the things I did actually like about New York got all mixed up and muddled in the hating.


I know everyone says that you have to live in the moment, embrace where you are, blah blah blah.  I have come to agree with that, but for totally cynical reasons.  This is coming up even more so at the moment because I'm trying to figure out where in the world I'm going to live when I graduate.  But anyway, currently, I live in Washington, DC (or "Warshington", if you're a Newt fan.  Also, if you're a Newt fan, you probably do not enjoy anything else I've written.  Sorry.)  I love my city.  Love it.  It's easy to get around, the buildings are beautiful, cool things happen here, and my school is pretty great.
Being happy with where I am, though, has also allowed me to be realistic about the things I don't like about living here.  For example, the winters are cold.  It's also annoying that my vote doesn't matter, there are no good cheap nail places and very limited Mexican food.  Also the winters are cold.  And it's taken all my past locations out of either their nostalgic rosy glow or PTSD-dominated nightmare state.  Examples: My hometown is really, really beautiful and cozy and has great burritos.  However, your neighbors have a ridiculous amount of control over your day-to-day life, nothing is open when you need it to be, and you are forced to run into your high school teacher when you're at the grocery store.  New York is cold and expensive and hard to get around and I did, in fact, have to be a teacher there.  However, the food is amazing, you can see some amazing concert/movie/talk pretty much every night of the week and there are bagels.  Delicious, amazing bagels.


So what is my point here?  My point is, if you're anything like me and you tend to idealize the past and complain about the present, there is a really good reason to appreciate the grass on this side of the fence.  It allows you to complain with greater clarity and specificity, and really, isn't that what makes the world go 'round?

Midnight in Paris, J'taime

In spite of my love of movies, celebrities, fashion and E! anchors interacting awkwardly with famous people, I do not, in fact, love awards shows.  I find they usually go on too long and they are one event for which I am okay just looking up the score later.  No, it's not clear why award shows fall into this category and Presidential debates do not. But so it goes.


However, having watched almost all of the movies represented at the Oscars this year, I was eager to see who the winners and losers were, and, of course, discuss them with people.  Turns out one of my classmates has pretty much exact opposite taste in movies than me.  He loved Hugo; I thought it was pretentious.  He hated The Artist; I thought it was brilliant.  And on we went.  One that I was particularly surprised by was his strong dislike for Midnight in Paris.  He said he found it cheesy, misogynistic and pedantic.  I granted him the misogynistic piece - I'm beginning to think Woody Allen used up all of his ability to write an interesting female character in one go with that Annie Hall lady - but the rest?!  No no no. 


Maybe you had to have been a very particular kind of literature nerd to enjoy that movie - as in, you don't just love reading, you were in fact the kid who would read a book before bed and then could not stop thinking about how much you wish lived in that book.  You have thought to yourself, "I'm almost positive Jane Austen didn't marry because she created Mr. Darcy and then there was just nowhere to go from there."  (Hypothetically.  Someone could have thought that.  I would imagine.)


Because, yes, I was that particular kind of book geek, and I felt that Woody Allen must be one, too.  Because the way he imagined diving into those worlds, it was so picture perfect the way all of us book geeks have imagined our heavens looking.


I grew up reading Enid Blyton.  In particular, she wrote all these books about girls at boarding school, taking them from Form 1 to Form 6.  It was like pre-Harry Potter, minus the magic, with a lot more field hockey.  And tinned sardines.  Anyway, when I finished reading the Malory Towers series, I remember crying myself to sleep - it was as if, in finishing the series and realizing there were no more to be read, it only then became official that I would not, in fact, be going from Meiners Oaks Elementary straight to Malory Towers in Cornwall.  And up to that point, that was more or less the plan.  Even though I hated being away from my parents, field hockey, and most definitely tinned sardines.


Somehow I feel like Woody had some of those nights, too.  So I think I'm in good company.

Home Schooling

There was a pretty large homeschooling contingent at my undergrad.  One of the features of going to a Christian institution.  It wasn't necessarily a good or bad thing but...you could definitely tell who the homeschool kids were.  Voice just a little too loud? Clothes just a little...off? There's a reason.  Now, I should say, a chunk of my own family homeschools, with great success, and I also know some other people personally who came out of homeschooling well-adjusted, happy, super smart and generally lovely people.  But someone just recently posted this link on my facebook, which lays out the top 12 reasons to homeschool.  I think almost all of them are more good guidelines for how public schools need to adapt than anything else.  And some are just wrong.  So now, given my love of lists and public education, I am going to go through them.

1. Learning is customized not standardized

My goodness why is this not true everywhere?  As Rick Hess has pointed out, the utopian worldview of edu-folks has led to "a 'differentiated instruction' community which offers a strategy of reform predicated on the notion that, if every teacher is exquisitely trained and does everything just right, it's possible to effectively teach children of highly variable achievement levels together in a single classroom." As he (I think) rightly points out, this is a pipe dream.  BUT that doesn't mean that every child should not be receiving an education that is tailored to their levels of ability.  It just means we need to stop thinking about it in a single-teacher-30-student model.

2. Associate with those you enjoy rather than those who share your birth year

Again, there is no reason why we structure schools the way we do, based on birth year alone.  Social promotion has done no favours for urban schools, and actually leads to some of the problems in item (1).  However, this is also a point where I fundamentally disagree with the list.  One of the things the author states as an advantage for home school is that, "At home children can choose to be with those whose company they enjoy."

This is great for them.  Until they leave their bubble and oh wow most of us have to spend large chunks of every day with people whose company we do not in the least enjoy.  Or even just people we could take or leave.  Dealing with these people is a skill one should absolutely develop, and however homeschool parents may think they are replicating it with their own children (church, play groups, homeschool groups, etc) there is just nothing to replace being stuck in a room with someone you don't care for for 6-8 straight hours.  Welcome to life.

3. Freedom to learn with their tools

Again, I wish this were true in public schools.  But fortunately, I think this one is slowly changing.  As we learn more about mobile technology, more districts are incorporating laptops, cell phones and tablets into their curricula.  Also, an advantage of learning about these tools in a school setting is that you encounter a variety of views about the use of them - some teachers will want them in every class, others will want them put away immediately.  Hey, it's almost like how in the real world, you will have some bosses who will check their blackberries 18 times per meeting and find it unprofessional of you not to answer emails at 8 PM, and other bosses who will demand everyone shut phones down as soon as a meeting starts.  It's almost like school is a training ground for life or something, and dealing with many different kinds of people, who may or may not align with your own style, is part of the training.

4. Socialize with those who share your passions not just your zip code

See item (2).  Almost exactly the same, except instead of "end social promotion", my point is "utilize the internet".

5. Real life measures are better than bubble tests

Okay, I can't respond to this one without just directly quoting the reasons the author gives for homeschooling being superior on this point:  

"In school we measure students success with bubble tests and response to prompts.  At home we measure success by what children accomplish that matters to them. Some teens like Leah Miller have developed their own personal success plan. She sets her goals and then assesses her success in meeting them."

First of all, excellent point on the bubbling.  That is absolutely not how we should measure students, and we absolutely should have measures that are important to them and relevant to their future.  But I'm not sure that a "personal success plan" is right either.  Again, let's imagine, if we could, that school is some kind of training ground for real life.  While if you work for Google, you might be allowed to imagine your own success and judge yourself on it, this is not the norm.  In pretty much every other job, there are external goals and deadlines you have to meet, regardless of whether or not they match your "personal success plan".  But I think probably homeschoolers do a better job of balancing the relevant/irrelevant goals than public schools do.  We should fix that.

6. Don’t just read about doing stuff. Do stuff!

Maybe if certain people (homeschoolers love Republicans, by the by) stopped cutting off funding for public schools or demanding all funding go to increasing reading and math scores, public schools could do this, too.

7. Travel when you want

See item (6).  Also, one of the points that the author makes is that often public school schedules don't make sense for family travel plans.  There is no reason why public schools need to maintain an outdated schedule designed to aid the agricultural cycle.

8. You are more than a number

Here is the quote from the list: "In school the only things students have to show for their work are numbers and graphs known as report cards, transcripts, or data reports."  Given that this list was written by a public school administrator, I have to ask...what on earth is she telling her teachers?  That should absolutely not be all children have to show for their work.  And I don't think it is, in the vast majority of schools, where the vast majority of teachers are competent and hard-working.  If this administrator is seeing her students going home with only "report cards, transcripts or data reports", she should do something about that.

9. Do work you value

The vast majority of teachers work really hard to ensure that the work their students are doing is meaningful and valuable to them.  Unfortunately, "accountability" for teachers has gotten translated to "test scores" and teachers are forced to do a whole lot of meaningless test prep.  On this one, both parties are to blame.  We have not figured out a really good way to hold teachers accountable.  But fortunately, I think this one is coming along, as well.  Denver is doing neat things, NYC schools have recently adopted a more equitable evaluation system that will allow teachers to do more than "teach to the test"...we're slowly figuring out how to do it.  

I should note, the author of the list opens it up by saying, "Education reform is happening today, but it’s slow and often ineffective. Parents need to do what is in the best interest of their children, right now."  So she sort of speaks to this point.  However, getting actively involved in your child's education (finding out who the best teachers at your school are, checking their homework, contacting teachers if you feel your child needs enrichment, etc) can tap into great resources that are available at almost every school.  It should also be noted that most homeschool parents are not pulling their kids out of inner-city schools.  They are more likely to be whiter, higher-educated, higher-income and religious.  Ie not Title I school material.

10. Independence is valued over dependence

This is starting to get a little repetitive, so I'll just say...same basic point.  Public schools do need to work on having more independent, student-driven learning experiences.  At the same time, getting used to accommodating the learning/working needs of others is part of life, and working toward other people's goals and deadlines is just a reality.

11. You don’t have to waste learning time with standardized tests

Overall, of course, I agree with this.  See item (9).  But the author says, "In school students and their teachers are spending a large percentage of their time preparing for tests and testing even though test have little to no role in real life. My last test was more than a decade ago. How about you?". Uh...sorry lady, my last "test" was yesterday.  And no, not because I'm in school.  Because "test" doesn't mean just standardized tests.  It means performing in high pressure situations.  I had to write a memo to send out to a whole department at work in less than an hour.  I had to sit through a meeting and take notes and use those notes to sound like I knew what I was talking about with my boss.  Standardized tests in their current form, unfortunately, don't have a whole lot to do with real life.  But the process of performing on command is absolutely part of real life...unless maybe you're an administrator?

12. No more meaningless worksheets and reports

Amen amen.  I think 90% of public school teachers would agree with you.  Now, Ms. Administrator, if you could just take care of all the discipline issues in every classroom so that every teacher could concentrate on meaningful, engaging activities with his or her students, that would be great.  Thanks.

And Now Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Programming

Ok, after a few days of blog-detox post-challenge, I am ready to go back to writing.  I will certainly not be posting every single day (nobody wants that) but I will, I hope, be posting much more regularly than I did pre-challenge.  As in, I will be posting.

Today's post is also inspired by my classes, but in a much less rosy way.  It has always confused me that professorship is viewed as the "pinnacle" of the teaching profession since, it would seem to me, it is in fact a totally different set of responsibilities and challenges.  I thought about this quite often during my time in Newark, as I had a couple of friends who were pursuing Masters in English and were also teaching undergraduate courses.  Sometimes they would try to commiserate.  While I have the utmost sympathy for having to grade 20+ 15 page research papers, it is, in fact, nothing like managing a classroom of 20+ 7th graders.  I'm not trying to place a value on which one is harder (the latter) or which one is less draining (the former).  I'm just saying, they are totally different.

BUT if we are going to keep pretending like being a professor is the highest form of teaching, then here are some things I wish professors would learn from their "lesser" K-12 colleagues.

1. There are more ways to teach than a lecture.  In your classroom, you have at least 3 different kinds of learners.  Lecturing appeals to one of them.  And the format of the lecture shouldn't be the same for each and every class - marching through your notes/outline is boring for you, and most likely boring for us, too.

2. Don't ask questions for your own benefit.  Any K-12 teacher will tell you, doing "checks for understanding" should be to reinforce the student's understanding, not just to take your own lesson plan forward.  One of my all-time professor pet-peeves is the "Let's play a fun mind-reading game!" problem.  You know what I mean.  When the professor asks a question like, "What do you think the most important element in this reading was?" and then proceeds to ignore, downplay or disagree with every answer until someone says the magic words.  The magic words being whatever answer the professor already had in his or her head.  That is a waste of everyone's time.  As I learned in my 5 weeks of teacher preparation, questions should be to check for understanding, spur student reflection, or some combination.  Maybe professors need a 5 week refresher, too.

3. Lessons should have measurable objectives.  Professors of the world, your students can tell when you walk into class and you have absolutely no idea what you want to come out of the class or why, exactly, you even assigned the reading you did.  It's annoying.  It's a waste of time.  It makes us all reflect on how much we're paying for tuition.

4. Grading should be transparent and easily understandable.  This is especially true in a university setting, where the A versus A- distinction actually matters.  It's unfair and frustrating to give little to no feedback and then assign an A-.  Again, as I learned in my minuscule amount of pedagogical training, students should be able to articulate clearly and easily exactly why they earned the grade they did on any given assignment, and in the course or subject as a whole.  The expectations and rubric should be so crystal clear that any disagreement can be solved by referencing those two things.  I understand things get fuzzier as you move up in the academic spectrum.  But the basic idea that grades shouldn't come out of the clear blue sky still holds, however old the students are.

5. Technology is a tool, not an end in itself.  It's awesome that there's a smartboard in your room.  If you know how to use it effectively, you totally should.  But please PLEASE do not take 20 minutes of this class I paid for trying to figure out how to load your PowerPoint.  Every time this happens in one of my classes, all I can think is, "you are so lucky you are teaching adults and not my kids in Newark - someone would definitely be in a fistfight by now."

Maybe that's how I can get some of these lessons across...start reacting like a 7th grader would.

Ok, first step: stop showering for a week. Work on my whine.  See how many extra syllables I can squeeze into the phrase, "I have to go to the bathroo-oo-oo-oom.  It's an emergency-y-y-y".

Come Together...but Probably Not Right Now

Santorum won.


Santorum won.


Santorum won.


I don't know if I'm repeating that over and over to myself to make myself believe it, or in some sort of reverse-Wizard of Oz-type attempt to send myself to an alternative universe where it isn't true.  Alas, I have no ruby slippers.


I've been going back and forth with people all day, trying to parse out whether this result is good for Romney, or Paul, or Obama, or none of the above.  I'm really not sure.  Colorado is the one that's really throwing me.  Minnesota had crazy low turnout, Missouri didn't count, (except in the sense that spending $7 million of taxpayer money on a meaningless contest instead of schools or something else "counts"...) but Colorado.  Colorado is supposed to be a reliable, bellweather-y type state, filled with Mormons.  And Santorum got it.  The other two I can justify as being good for Romney (breaking up the anti-Romney vote by drawing people away from Newt, making Romney look reasonable by comparison, etc.) but Mitt should have owned Colorado.  He did actually spend some money there (though not as much as other places), Colorado is a bit more moderate and he was all over it in 2008.  So this race just got interesting all over again.


So now on to the title of this post.  Today in my Rivlin class, we talked about "core values" and polarization.  First we made a list of core liberal vs. conservative values (with a sidebar for libertarians).  In a class with 18 liberals and 1 conservative, this list was pretty amusing.  I learned that apparently liberals are the ones who are for things like compassion, empathy, tolerance, and equality.  And conservatives hate everyone and love the free market.  Fortunately, although my professor is pretty far to the left, she makes a pointed effort to balance the discussion as much as possible.  Even though one side is clearly wrong.  She  essentially made the case that most important policy issues involve a balancing of the two lists of values that we all hold dear (collective responsibility and personal responsibility; tolerance and justice for wrongdoing), rather than picking one side or the other.  


But this is the problem I saw.  One of the things on the list of "liberal" values was "Faith in experts/bureaucracy/government institutions", giving examples like the UN, climate change, czars etc.  We talked about how liberals, even though they tend to favour personal freedom of choice for things like abortion and use of marijuana, also believe that it's right for the government to discourage overconsumption of sugar and cigarettes through heavy taxation and/or regulation.  While these may seem in conflict, it is really a faith in experts and technocrats over individual choice if the evidence is strong enough.  So then my professor said that she really believes that part of the way you solve gridlock and start working toward solution is to get everyone in the room to recognize and articulate the end goal, so that everyone can see we are working toward the same place, even if we want different roads to get there.  The idea at that point is that you can get people to make a few compromises on the method because they are dedicated enough to achieving the overall mission.


In general, for most people, I buy this.


But.


If you have one side of the table holding lack of faith in experts and institutions as a core value, I just don't know how the discussion even gets started.  For example, my mom and I watched this documentary called "Vaccine Wars" recently about the fight over mandated vaccines for children.  In the interviews with the doctors and parents, it became clear they weren't even having the same discussion.  The evidence is, quite simply, conclusive.  If you accept a)the general rules of statistics (ie things like sample size (your 1/5/50 kids getting autism don't count as irrefutable evidence if there are tens of millions of kids with no symptoms and the other factors are fuzzy) and causal direction) and b) the expertise of institutions like the CDC and the NIH.  Now once you accept the evidence...there isn't really an argument to be had.  It's dangerous and stupid to not vaccinate your child.  But if you don't accept things like huge studies with quality sample sizes and statistical controls as evidence, then there's really nothing to be done.  It's unclear what would then count as evidence.  And then...what?  People on one side are wondering why we're even still having this argument (think climate change, regulating high fructose corn syrup, gun control), while the other side is demanding more "evidence" from institutions whose authority they are never going to accept anyway.


I'm getting frustrated just writing this.


Maybe this is why I work in education policy, where everything is fuzzy and nobody really knows if anything does or doesn't work for sure.  Ah, the peace of uncertainty.

Caucus Coverage

Very quick entry to just inform everyone that if you don't watch CNN coverage of caucuses, you absolutely should. Watching the likes of Wolf and John King trying to squeeze a story out of a bunch of people in a gym contributing and counting their 20 votes is just hilarious. The zoom-ins on the counting, the break down vote by vote of who's winning, the interviews with Minnesota voters...you have to see it to believe it.

True Age Test

I remember for a while there was a little fad of "True Age" type IQ tests or physical tests or whatever that were supposed to tell you how old you really were, based on how long you could stand on one leg (thank you, Wii) or how fast you could answer questions.  Those are all well and good, but here is how I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I am a 90 year old woman on the inside.


1. I never remember anyone.  Ever.  Some friends and I have an incredibly awesome facebook group (it's secret and you can't be in it) in which we mostly bitch about how dumb other people are.  Also, we are really mature.  But anyway, a good portion of our posts are along the lines of, "Remember this person? Look at where they are now!"


I never remember who it is.  Ever.  I think maybe during high school I only saw my teachers and friends and whatever boy I was in love with at the time or something.  But I remember no names or faces and if someone told me I was actually home schooled, I wouldn't have a whole lot of evidence to refute it.  This is very related to Piece of Evidence #2.


2. The eras of my life are already getting blurred.  I was listening to Marc Maron's podcast today, and he was talking about a recent visit to Boston, where he used to live, and how he kept running into people and not remembering if he knew them when he was in college, when he was older, when he was a kid, or what, and how at his age, he's gone through so many life stages that they all get put into one pot.


Apparently my age is already enough for me to do this.  I recently saw someone on the street here in DC that I'm pretty sure I recognized, but didn't go up and talk to because I absolutely could not place if she was a California acquaintance, Texas, New York, DC...maybe the solution for me is to stop moving.


3. I don't like loud activities.  The one exception to this is dancing.  But other than that, my favourite things to do include reading, watching massive amounts of TV, jogging, listening to talk radio and podcasts, and shopping by myself with headphones (listening to talk radio and podcasts).  I love love listening to music, but concerts...meh.  People are so loud!  With the yelling and the speakers!  Also, get off my lawn!


4. I get sick all the time.  Pretty sure any insurance company that actually evaluated my immune system would conclude I have the same expected costs as a senior citizen.


5. CNN tells me so.  All of its ads are for erectile dysfunction, retirement plans, AARP auto insurance and mobility aids.  Although they also seem to think there's a slim chance I'm just a Christian single looking for God's match for me/in the market for a fleet of airplanes.  Little do they know, I'm a just a Wolf Blitzer fangirl.

Valentine's Day

In case anyone had missed all the store decorations, candy everywhere and guilt- and shame-inducing commercials, Valentine's Day is coming.  Time to buy stuff.

I realize it is a trope for single girls to say they "hate Valentine's Day".  I have to admit...I said this.  Every Valentine's Day.  For the first 19 years of my life.  But for the past 5 years, I have been hate-free.  And let me tell you why.

1. I finally actually researched the other meaning of V-day for February 14th.  I remember at my high school there would be random girls talking about this celebration and handing out lollipops, but I didn't really process.  Then, my freshman year in college, I started volunteering at a domestic violence shelter, and we organized an official V-day event.  My sophomore year, I baked vagina cookies and handed them around to people, spreading the good news that February 14th is about more than heart-shaped everythings and cheesy cards.

A Love That Lasts Forever

2. I got a long-term Valentine.  Sophomore year, 5 of my girlfriends and I decided we were not waiting around for dates, and we went on wonderful dates with each other.  My friend Lara and I drew each other's names and had quite possibly the best date of my life.  We dressed up all fancy, went to dinner and then watched some horribly cheesy movie.  That has become the tradition.  Every year since then, at least one of us has been dating someone else (actually I think she's been dating someone else every year, and I've been dating someone else at least 2/5...) but we are always each other's Valentine.  Last year and this year, we've been separated by half a country.  But no matter!  We skype and watch bad Netflix movies.  As a side note, this kind of thing is probably what also made certain members of my family more or less convinced I was a lesbian.  I guess I see where it might come from.

3. I decided to not let Hallmark determine my life.  And I mean this in the opposite way of how bitter single girls usually mean it.  Yes, Valentine's Day is something of an invented holiday.  And yes, we do spend entirely too much money because someone tells us the time has come to be romantic.  But really, almost every holiday was invented by someone, somewhere.  There are super fundamentalist Christians who refuse to celebrate Christmas because it is not actually Jesus' birthday and the Romans just wanted to make it coincide with a pagan festival.  I think this is ridiculous.  It's a day we have arbitrarily chosen to celebrate the nativity and give each other fun presents and wear silly sweaters.  I like all of those things, so I am going to celebrate the hell out of Christmas.  If you've ever visited my house when I've had the chance to be part of decorating, you know this to be true.  In the same way, February 14th is a day we've arbitrarily chosen to celebrate love and give each other candy and wear hearts and red and things.  Red looks good on me, I love candy and I support people being in love.  I will not let the fact that Hallmark makes a ridiculous profit deter me from celebrations.

4. February 15th.  February 15th, chocolate suddenly becomes insanely cheap.  And it is awesome.