Every once in a while I do arrive late at a party, and such was the case with the Five Thirty-Eight blog. Apparently it was big news back in 2008. And 2012. In fact, it was such big news at one point that the New York Times owned / bought licencing rights to it. And now ESPN.
ESPN?
I've seen more references to it recently amongst my circle of friends and it seems like its worth it for me to follow the blog more closely. But I want to know where it's coming from (funding, independence, bias, etc.) before I do so. Now that was a little hard to do given the lack of the typical "About" page on the site. I did enough poking around on Google to find what I needed to find.
But again, ESPN owns it? Seems odd.
Technically, ESPN owning it means Disney owns it. It's part of a conglomerate that includes ABC News.
There is something very interesting at work, I think, in ESPN's decision to acquire this property.
In the 2012-13 school year I noticed a much greater trend of my students following the news. This increase was especially pronounced with the boys in my class. Many of them were registered for text alerts from ESPN, ostensibly for sports news. But ESPN pushed out ABC News stories to them quite often, and that would prompt students to initiate news conversations with me. As a Social Studies teacher, I thought this was pretty neat.
Those students I taught that year are now in their early twenties. ESPN knows that cohort well.
ESPN must see potential profit in this, and if they see that, I think we should take note. Five Thirty-Eight departs from a statistical way of seeing news events, which I think has natural appeal to a lot of younger news followers. Perhaps today's novice followers of the headlines will come to see news the way they have come to see projections for RBIs, sacks, and playoff rankings. That will lend itself to a different way of keeping tabs on the 2016 general election than older folks like me who might look more into issues identification, financing links, and intra-party fighting. Maybe younger voters will get more engaged.
I think there's more to this than ESPN having a lot of money to burn. But my son has arrived here at the lodge fireplace, and we must needs play a game of Ticket to Ride.
Happy Presidents Day.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Saturday, February 14, 2015
A nine-week generalist
It's an interlude before I start to become a one-trick pony, er specialist. For nine weeks (one marking period) I am teaching three different courses at one time. Typically, in our block scheduling environment, I teach three out of four periods a day. One period is reserved for preparation and grading. It is normal for a teacher to have two sections of one particular class and then one of some other. With the exception of one marking period in 2008-09, that has been true for me. Now, however, I move from a Law elective to AP Macroeconomics to AP U.S. History.
It's work, but so far I'm enjoying it and think this will be a good nine-week departure for me. I get to work with three very different groups of kids in three distinct disciplines. Further, the Law class satisfies my appetite to discuss Constitution and government without getting into the stuff for which I have a strong distaste such as campaign finance reform. Also, I don't find myself bored looking at nearly 60 renditions of a given assignment: there are no more than 31 copies of anything to grade at one time.
This arrangement may also force me to better use my time, to better plan ahead. After all, in one prep period one hardly has time to adequately prepare for two different courses. Trying to get away with mapping out three is laughably impossible. So I do my mapping in advance, and I don't overdo that mapping.
It's likely that next year I'll be teaching all Macro all the time. This might be my last chance for a few years to see the variety of students that make up a high school. I should take the time to really listen to them and learn from them.
It's work, but so far I'm enjoying it and think this will be a good nine-week departure for me. I get to work with three very different groups of kids in three distinct disciplines. Further, the Law class satisfies my appetite to discuss Constitution and government without getting into the stuff for which I have a strong distaste such as campaign finance reform. Also, I don't find myself bored looking at nearly 60 renditions of a given assignment: there are no more than 31 copies of anything to grade at one time.
This arrangement may also force me to better use my time, to better plan ahead. After all, in one prep period one hardly has time to adequately prepare for two different courses. Trying to get away with mapping out three is laughably impossible. So I do my mapping in advance, and I don't overdo that mapping.
It's likely that next year I'll be teaching all Macro all the time. This might be my last chance for a few years to see the variety of students that make up a high school. I should take the time to really listen to them and learn from them.
I'm invoking my First Amendment protections to comment on an issue of public concern regarding education
The Pennsylvania Assembly recently passed legislation regarding teachers and other adults in the school setting that has me profoundly troubled. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a story in December regarding this change to existing state law. The Commonwealth also has a website dedicated to the law: www.keepkidssafe.pa.gov. Also prompting me to write this is the knowledge that many school districts are purchasing or considering the purchase of finger-printing machines (at significant expense . . . it seems like they cost about $10,000) so as to facilitate compliance with this law. The district for which I am an employee has made such a purchase.
There are two main parts to this legislation on which I have very different opinions. The first of these involves expanded responsibilities for school employees as mandatory reporters, a measure that seems prudent to me. I entered this profession knowing I couldn't legally turn a blind eye to suspected abuse or neglect. The state has simply clarified that reporting instances of possible abuse must be made to law enforcement agencies rather than one of my in-building superiors. That's a measure that will make kids safer.
The other main part involves teachers on a regular basis renewing their criminal background checks. Demeaning. Ineffective. A threat to liberty. It's nothing more than overreaction and animus masquerading as an attempt to protect kids.
The new requirements immediately put me and my colleagues under a presumption of guilt. Once every three years we have to re-verify that we're not criminals and haven't done anything criminal in the past three years. Please know that teachers have to submit to such checks upon coming into the profession, a measure I can't necessarily oppose. Oh, and the check must be done at cost by the teacher. So, every three years it's necessary to pay $50 to prove my good name is what it is. My good name.
All this will commence with very little benefit for protecting minors. The legislation was inspired, in part, by the Sandusky scandal, and I don't see how background checks for that perpetrator would've prevented his crimes. In fact, crimes involving predators sexually exploiting youth don't often come from someone with a record, say, for shoplifting, burglary, or assault. There's simply not much of a correlation between crimes that would leave a trail and the sexual abuse of children.
There is also a troubling threat to liberty posed by these new requirements. Do such background checks presume guilt? They might in that if I don't get that check my employer is obligated to terminate my employment. What other professions require such checks? Is there another kind of demeaning test I'll need to recurrently pass. Frankly, it would be far more effective to scrutinize what kind of websites teachers have searched for online rather than submit to these background searches. If we're setting the precedent that criminal checks and re-checks can take place, are we really that far from checks that are more invasive? We can be concerned that well-meaning (and not-so-well-meaning) crusaders can cloak intrusions on our liberty by claiming that laws are about protecting kids. I can't help but chuckle at the website in which the state has put up this legislation - keepkidssafe - knowing it's a shield for deflecting any criticism. For how can one be against protecting kids?
I also worry about strict, intrusive, and not-very-effective laws like this are stand-ins for more costly but effective measures to keep kids safe. Perhaps schools should have extra janitorial staff on duty outside of school hours, which would permit more eyes to catch criminal and exploitative behavior. Perhaps we should have more administrators so that teachers could be monitored more closely. If we're willing to better fund schools, schools wouldn't need to set ridiculous standards of how close one must be to school to qualify for bus transportation, thus reducing time students are vulnerable and in transition from home to schools' supervised environment. Oh, and we could have district employees drive buses rather than outsourcing companies' employees. We pinch pennies on the periphery of the school day, and thus make it more possible for crimes to occur.
If I could return for a moment to the purchase of finger-printing devices. This particular reaction of schools is troublesome. Are these purchases designed to make a buck? After all, schools can rent finger-printing services out to other entities Are these purchases designed to make it easier for schools to follow the law? Why would schools need to? After all, it's the employee who loses their job if the checks don't take place.
I dare school districts to say to Harrisburg: It's your law, you manage the paperwork.
I'm tempted to wait until December 24 to submit my materials, and urge every other educator in the state to do the same thing so as to create bureaucratic bottleneck befitting this dumb, demeaning law.
I hope I see a school board and community offer to pay the $50 fee for each and every one of their teachers as a token acknowledgement that they trust them, don't think they're criminals, and that they understand how there's an additional burden for hard-working professionals that they can make more tolerable.
And I hope that all of us, as taxpayers in a society that values local control of public education, to look for more substantive means for protecting and honoring children than to put in place shoot-from-the-hip policies that react to crime.
There are two main parts to this legislation on which I have very different opinions. The first of these involves expanded responsibilities for school employees as mandatory reporters, a measure that seems prudent to me. I entered this profession knowing I couldn't legally turn a blind eye to suspected abuse or neglect. The state has simply clarified that reporting instances of possible abuse must be made to law enforcement agencies rather than one of my in-building superiors. That's a measure that will make kids safer.
The other main part involves teachers on a regular basis renewing their criminal background checks. Demeaning. Ineffective. A threat to liberty. It's nothing more than overreaction and animus masquerading as an attempt to protect kids.
The new requirements immediately put me and my colleagues under a presumption of guilt. Once every three years we have to re-verify that we're not criminals and haven't done anything criminal in the past three years. Please know that teachers have to submit to such checks upon coming into the profession, a measure I can't necessarily oppose. Oh, and the check must be done at cost by the teacher. So, every three years it's necessary to pay $50 to prove my good name is what it is. My good name.
All this will commence with very little benefit for protecting minors. The legislation was inspired, in part, by the Sandusky scandal, and I don't see how background checks for that perpetrator would've prevented his crimes. In fact, crimes involving predators sexually exploiting youth don't often come from someone with a record, say, for shoplifting, burglary, or assault. There's simply not much of a correlation between crimes that would leave a trail and the sexual abuse of children.
There is also a troubling threat to liberty posed by these new requirements. Do such background checks presume guilt? They might in that if I don't get that check my employer is obligated to terminate my employment. What other professions require such checks? Is there another kind of demeaning test I'll need to recurrently pass. Frankly, it would be far more effective to scrutinize what kind of websites teachers have searched for online rather than submit to these background searches. If we're setting the precedent that criminal checks and re-checks can take place, are we really that far from checks that are more invasive? We can be concerned that well-meaning (and not-so-well-meaning) crusaders can cloak intrusions on our liberty by claiming that laws are about protecting kids. I can't help but chuckle at the website in which the state has put up this legislation - keepkidssafe - knowing it's a shield for deflecting any criticism. For how can one be against protecting kids?
I also worry about strict, intrusive, and not-very-effective laws like this are stand-ins for more costly but effective measures to keep kids safe. Perhaps schools should have extra janitorial staff on duty outside of school hours, which would permit more eyes to catch criminal and exploitative behavior. Perhaps we should have more administrators so that teachers could be monitored more closely. If we're willing to better fund schools, schools wouldn't need to set ridiculous standards of how close one must be to school to qualify for bus transportation, thus reducing time students are vulnerable and in transition from home to schools' supervised environment. Oh, and we could have district employees drive buses rather than outsourcing companies' employees. We pinch pennies on the periphery of the school day, and thus make it more possible for crimes to occur.
If I could return for a moment to the purchase of finger-printing devices. This particular reaction of schools is troublesome. Are these purchases designed to make a buck? After all, schools can rent finger-printing services out to other entities Are these purchases designed to make it easier for schools to follow the law? Why would schools need to? After all, it's the employee who loses their job if the checks don't take place.
I dare school districts to say to Harrisburg: It's your law, you manage the paperwork.
I'm tempted to wait until December 24 to submit my materials, and urge every other educator in the state to do the same thing so as to create bureaucratic bottleneck befitting this dumb, demeaning law.
I hope I see a school board and community offer to pay the $50 fee for each and every one of their teachers as a token acknowledgement that they trust them, don't think they're criminals, and that they understand how there's an additional burden for hard-working professionals that they can make more tolerable.
And I hope that all of us, as taxpayers in a society that values local control of public education, to look for more substantive means for protecting and honoring children than to put in place shoot-from-the-hip policies that react to crime.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
A Macroeconomic Family Film
Sam, Caroline, and I needed something different Friday night. We didn't feel more ambitious than TV viewing, but needed to see something we hadn't seen. So, I called up commonsensemedia.com and looked for something. Our search ended with Millions, a film we watched over two nights.
Verdict: One of the more thoughtful movies I've shared with my kids in a long time.
Here's the review from Common Sense Media. Roger Ebert's too.
I had to pause the movie three times to explain what was happening, because there are some moments that defy a nine-year-old's grasp of how the world works. Heck, the premise of the film is set against an imaginative robbery of money that was set to be destroyed by government. Oh, but that's not all, there's a race-against-the-clock plot line that features the impending conversion of British Pounds Sterling into Euros. Oh, and the sly humor involving the just-barely proficient police and the evangelistic Mormons required some explanation too.
It's a British film, which means they take some things as PG that might make Americans perk up and be uncomfortable: there's a scene involving the boys and a computer as well as the dad's decision to invite his girlfriend overnight that made me momentarily uncomfortable.
Without being preachy, the film give me a chance to talk ethics and faith my kids. It presumes an intelligent audience: the film is for kids to watch with their dad or mum, and hopes that dad or mum will clarify what is confusing. It allowed me to suspend disbelief at several moments. It gave me reason to make predictions about how it would turn out, then defied my prediction.
It might be the first film I've ever considered showing my 12th grade AP Macroeconomics students AND my nine-year-old son, with meaningful lessons for both. I'll admit that I pushed the boundaries a little bit with my seven-year-old daughter . . . but I'm glad I did.
Verdict: One of the more thoughtful movies I've shared with my kids in a long time.
Here's the review from Common Sense Media. Roger Ebert's too.
I had to pause the movie three times to explain what was happening, because there are some moments that defy a nine-year-old's grasp of how the world works. Heck, the premise of the film is set against an imaginative robbery of money that was set to be destroyed by government. Oh, but that's not all, there's a race-against-the-clock plot line that features the impending conversion of British Pounds Sterling into Euros. Oh, and the sly humor involving the just-barely proficient police and the evangelistic Mormons required some explanation too.
It's a British film, which means they take some things as PG that might make Americans perk up and be uncomfortable: there's a scene involving the boys and a computer as well as the dad's decision to invite his girlfriend overnight that made me momentarily uncomfortable.
Without being preachy, the film give me a chance to talk ethics and faith my kids. It presumes an intelligent audience: the film is for kids to watch with their dad or mum, and hopes that dad or mum will clarify what is confusing. It allowed me to suspend disbelief at several moments. It gave me reason to make predictions about how it would turn out, then defied my prediction.
It might be the first film I've ever considered showing my 12th grade AP Macroeconomics students AND my nine-year-old son, with meaningful lessons for both. I'll admit that I pushed the boundaries a little bit with my seven-year-old daughter . . . but I'm glad I did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
