Thoughts on France on Bastille Day

I’m not necessarily a Francophile. But I like seeing a people get their due. Besides, two good friends celebrate their birthday on Bastille Day so . . .

I’ve visited France more than any other foreign country (save Canada). I had the pleasure of traveling there in 1997, 2001, 2016, and 2019. I’ll be heading there again in 2024. Even though I don’t know the language at all I feel welcome and comfortable there. 

France is our nation’s oldest friend. Heck, had we not won an alliance from them in the winter of 1777-78 we likely never would have won our independence outright from Great Britain. Fear of France reestablishing its empire here also prompted Britain to sign an overly generous peace with us in 1783. 

France's history is intertwined with our outstanding northern neighbor. In some ways, that even prompted our war of rebellion. Parliament's promises in the Quebec Act which were meant to satiate their Francophile subjects in Canada threatened many Colonists' dreams of what our future could be. The expansion of French legal and religious customs down along our frontier unified the Colonies in their fight against England. 

France was also one of our thorniest foreign policy dilemmas in our early nationhood. Whether one was a supporter of their revolution or against it was a marker of partisan politics in the 1790s. And then debate erupted in the first decade of the next century as to whether or not we should involve ourselves in the messy wars stirred up by Napoleon. Eventually that led to war between the U.S. and Great Britain again in 1812. 

There was also a silly episode in and around the time of our Civil War in which France provoked us by setting up a dictatorship in Mexico. Eventually they withdrew that feeble plan. 

A great deal of our cultural identity came from France. Our nation's capital was largely modeled after Paris's elegant city plan. And until the early 20th century we tended to borrow French terms to describe what was new and fashionable. 

As a Social Studies teacher one inevitably comes across students mocking France for its losses in modern day wars. But the record suggests something else was true. World War I was an astounding victory for France. Within the opening weeks of the war, France lost control over approximately 1/7 of her territory and her industrial plant. And still France held off the Germans. For four long years. 

Throughout the war their industry remained sophisticated. So sophisticated that we armed our men and pilots with French munitions and planes. We provided men and food. 

France's army was the global gold standard of fighting forces when World War I ended. And when that army failed to repel German invaders in 1940 it struck those in the West as an inconceivable event. France's fall in 1940 was a catastrophic and unforeseen event in American foreign policy. Their collapse both led to tension between America and Britain and brought us closer together in renewed understanding of the seriousness of Hitler's threat to Europe and the world. 

France bled with us in World War II. Normandy was a region that had often sat on the sidelines of war. In 1944 it was the central stage. The civilian loss of life in Normandy equaled the Allies' military loss of life liberating that region. 

France's rebuilding after liberation was astounding. Their armies helped us conquer Germany. Their economy quickly rebounded after the war and, with Germany, buoyed the recovery of Western Europe. A recovery that was vital for U.S. victory in the Cold War. 

France is a friend who sometimes gets us into trouble. The ties between our countries explain (in part) our involvement the Vietnam War. Sometimes they counter our intentions with other European allies (and adversaries). They are leaders of an economic entity, the Eurozone and EU, that rivals America for economic heft. 

France is an exotic destination that many Americans still seek out for vacation and travel. I know I'll be back.  

Thwarting them at the moat

On July 13 social media shared the news that a notorious speaker agitator for “parental rights” was going to be present and available for comment at a local watering hole in my town the next day. Later that day social media indicated that his appearance had been cancelled and he would instead be appearing at some less well-known watering hole in another town. 

Good. We kept the barbarian on the other side of our moat. That’s a win. 

The “parental rights” movement is so problematic right now. I can only use the quote marks when referring to it. The movement has chosen that name because it instantly vilifies anyone who is against the movement. What? You’re against parents having rights? No, I’m certainly not against parents having rights. I’m a parent. If I think one of my children is being wronged by the school, I want the school to be answerable. 

But that’s not what the movement is. The “parental rights” movement we see now began as a protest over vaccine and mask policies. However, once those issues became moot it moved on to other targets. Now the fight is over what books are in libraries. Or over how educators are indoctrinating their children. Or how schools make their kids feel bad. 

Make no mistake, the movement is a wrecking ball. It’s a destructive force seeking to shatter the public education establishment. It's led by individuals who look at educating youth as a zero-sum game. In other words: your child only wins if my child loses. Such movements have existed before. They’ll exist again. In some ways, they don’t go away. 

I’ve invested my life in public education. It was my formal learning in grades K through 12. I attended a private college but then have committed 25 years (and counting) of my career to it. It’s important that I believe in what I do and that I believe in what I’m part of. 

Public education has its warts. That’s why it’s important that I believe in it, because if I were to focus simply on what’s wrong with it then I would leave it. There are certainly inefficiencies in the model. And it’s a model that can leave some students feeling like a number. It serves some communities better than it does others. And there’s an orthodoxy it will teach. 

I give a lot of thought to that orthodoxy as a Social Studies teacher. We live in a great (not to be confused with perfect) country. History, in particular America’s history, is worth knowing. Democracy is good. Participation in the political and economics system is good. Starting the day with a pledge to the flag is good. Institutions and political figures deserve some degree of respect. 

Many on the far left will take issue with that orthodoxy. Currently, many on the right are saying that my colleagues and I aren’t doing good enough of a job teaching it. Welcome to that spot between the rock and the hard place. 

My thirteen years as a student in public education wasn’t perfect. There are uncomfortable and awkward moments when one systematizes a common space for youth and adolescents. Peer pressure and bullying are real. Not all of my teachers were excellent. I might not have grown to my full potential as a student. That being said, I was very ready for college. 

And that matters. It also matters that I formed an identity, learning that I love music and history in my time at Owen J. Roberts. Learning that I love being a Wildcat for as hokey as that sounds. I certainly learned to read and write. And I left school rather well-read. I grew in ways I wouldn’t have grown had it been left up to just my parents or the private school they could have afforded. 

And in my quarter century I’ve seen the power of an institution that welcomes all children. The disabled. Those with learning disabilities. Those who don’t speak English very well. Those whose parents came from another land for a chance to obtain a golden ticket to prosperous adulthood: an American college education. 

A particular change I’ve noticed over my career is the increasing number of children who are classified as being in special education but who are mainstreamed. In fact, I taught more than a dozen children this past year with diagnosed conditions requiring an IEP or 504 agreement . . . And my schedule was entirely AP Economics courses. I’ve learned how to better meet these kids’ abilities, and I’ve seen them effortlessly work alongside their peers. 

And my town values that. It’s why we keep that barbarian on the other side of the moat. It may have been just for a day. But it was a victory nonetheless. 

Prices in July . . . not so hot

The CPI brought out some mostly good news on Wednesday. Overall inflation is 3.0% for the year. That's higher than policymakers want to see but it's also the lowest year-on-year increase we've seen in a long time. But . . . 

(*ugh . . . it's awful when an economic teacher does that, or anyone for that matter. "But" essentially cancels out what came before that conjunction. Let's go with "that being said" . . . wordier, but not as dismissive.)

The inflation numbers are good news but come with a lot of caveats. Food is still up 5.7%. Core inflation is still up 4.8%. Energy is down nearly 17% (!) but that is flighty and could be reversed next month. Also, it's possible we're experiencing pain at the cash register due to base effects. In other words, only up 3% isn't too bad but it's up 3% from a pretty nasty number last year. 

In addition to energy, a few other items fell year-over-year. Airline fares are down. Used cars and trucks, too. The subcategory "meats, poultry, fish, and eggs" fell a smidge, too. Some prices are normalizing like new vehicles, apparel, and hospital services. Rent and rent equivalents are up, which is problematic for those renting their shelter (and possibly good for people who don't . . . it means real estate values are rising). One item that really concerns this father: motor vehicle insurance is up nearly 17%. Yikes. That is certainly an increased expense for this household (our vehicle policy is now more than $4,000 a year). 

----

Sorry to say but we're about a year and a third away from the next presidential election. Many voters vote with their wallets, and the 2nd economic quarter of a presidential year factors heavily in election results. I don't foresee the horrific conditions occurring in April-June '24 to be like those that dislodged Donald Trump in 2020. But we could be living through an uneasy expansion at that time, and that could sway the vote against Joe Biden. 

Many economists predicted we would suffer a recession in 2023. Many say it's still on the way. But we've avoided it so far. And I've heard some interesting explanations for why that's the case. My favorite is that the U.S. has been going through a rolling recession with some sectors and areas suffering, but others not and that suffering isn't enough to become a downturn in the aggregate. Also, it's possible the Fed pulled off a soft landing or is in the process of doing so. It could be that we're living in the economic equivalent of a plane that is circling the runway waiting until it's clear to land. 

It's also possible that we're just really resilient as an economy. China, by the way, is going through a hard time. Their economy has slowed down and is in recession. They've failed to bounce back from Covid-induced shutdowns the way we have. And part of that is attributable to how much of their economy vs. ours is built around consumer spending. China's economy has a preponderance toward investment and savings, something one would think is good. But as has been the case with Japan, household spending may not be robust enough to really power the economy the way America's households do. Perhaps that's why we've had a rolling recession: sectors were buoyed by our surges in dining out, dining in, buying furniture, revenge travel (and so on). 

---

For most of my career it's been hard to make my students care about the problems of unanticipated inflation. As you can surmise, it's not as hard to do now. They've seen prices escalate. They've heard their parents complain. My job now is to remind them that inflation measures tend to exaggerate which should temper one's reaction to a published list of inflation figures. 

We are living through a moment, though, that shows an interesting dilemma with economic policymaking. Many do root for the Fed to rid us of inflation by jacking up interest rates enough to get to a 2% target rate. But economists contend that that would cost people their jobs. Let's put a number to it: we would probably need to see an unemployment rate of about 6.5% to get inflation down to 2% right now. Yikes. That's five million more Americans unemployed. That's what I would call an ugly tradeoff. 

I'm mesmerized, then, at how inflation tends to be a greater problem for the rich than the poor. And that may seem paradoxical, but our country's experience has shown me how people of means have good reason to fret over unanticipated inflation. They are likely salaried and cannot work extra shifts to cope. They have savings, and the real value of those savings dwindle as prices rise. Calling for the Fed to do something dramatic is easy to make because someone else will be the job loser, and rich folks have more to fall back on in the event they are laid off. 

Poorer folks don't suffer as much. Wages for shift work usually rise more quickly than salaried gigs. And there's probably sufficient demand for one's boss to give one more shifts. There are ways to cope. 

The inflation is corrosive, though, and I've seen how it colors a lot of conversation that people have. And complaints about inflation linger even as the pace at which it occurs is cooling down. So we sit here in July 2023 and see news that's more good than bad, but we have lots of reasons why we expect better. I hope it gets better. I'd really like to see a good third quarter about nine months from now. 

So, maybe it is a place for social policy experimentation.

There was a really perplexing quirk in the Supreme Court's decision regarding affirmative action. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts offered a carve-out for the Armed Services academies. In other words, West Point, Annapolis, et al. can use race as a criteria by which they determine who to admit. The rationale? National defense necessitates this flexibility given the public good served by an officer corps who reflects the racial diversity of the Armed Services' enlisted ranks. 

I was a pretty politically engaged kid in the 1990s. Considered myself a conservative, too. A significant flashpoint I remember from 1990s politics was the norm of "don't ask don't tell" in the armed forces. Could gays actively serve. I guess we weren't ready for that 30 years ago, leaving us with that awkward compromise. The Clinton administration took heat from both the right and the left for the policy. On the right, though, critics often justified their views by saying the military isn't the place for experimenting on social policy. Interesting. I guess in 2023 our Supreme Court has decided that it can still be a lab for affirmative action. 

As I've written earlier, I'm of two minds about the Supreme Court's decision banning affirmative action. I guess I'm half-empty on their decision. And it's tempting for me to rail against the double-standard of saying private institutions like Harvard cannot do x but the government through the armed service academies can. But I'm more interested in how what the court did is consistent with how we often use the armed forces to engage in social policy experimentation. 

There was significant debate about how to properly compensate the veterans of the Continental Army after the Revolutionary War concluded. Many at that time advocated for land grants to these men honoring their service. The implications for what this could have meant regarding democratization of property ownership are immense. 

In the American Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation turned the Army into a giant force of liberation. It clearly offered the enslaved a chance to serve in the Army, thus hinting at citizenship for these men. In the final set of public remarks Lincoln offered, he suggested support for giving black veterans the right to vote. And after the war was over, scores of black men continued to serve in the army. 

Even before the Emancipation Proclamation the armed forces of the Civil War were a liberating force. In fact, the Army's experience in the field prompted consideration of how to put "contraband" to use in the war effort, introducing all sorts of messy issues regarding those contraband soldiers' dependents. 

The World War II era offered tremendous examples of how the Armed Forces could be a laboratory for social policy experimentation. Educating troops on topics as complex as digging adequate cover, preventing the spread of venereal disease, and insuring loved ones became important jobs for the Army and Navy. And they often turned to cartoon studios to help craft the right messaging. 

As the war wound down, Congress created the GI Bill offering ways to open education and entrepreneurial opportunities to veterans. It was an unprecedented elevation of human capital, and it stuck. Nearly eighty years after World War II's end the GI Bill continues to offer access to education as a reward for serving our nation. Of course President Truman ordered the integration of the Armed Forces in 1948. This took place years before desegregation had widely occurred in American society. The federal government's work of formally desegregating then addressing de facto segregation began with the Armed Forces. 

Our Armed Forces continue to offer immigrants looking for a chance to be American an opportunity to serve the country the have adopted. There isn't an explicit promise of citizenship to these men and women, but the implicit promise is quite compelling. 

And now today the Supreme Court says there's such compelling interest to have our officers' reflect the diversity of the enlisted ranks that our service academies (and I would imagine our ROTC programs) can engage in a practice deemed unconstitutional elsewhere. It's hard to think of a more compelling piece of evidence that our work at securing equal protection under the laws hasn't been completed. And it seems like the military will remain one place that racial minorities can get access that might be denied elsewhere.   

Against this backdrop we've had the spectacle of a military appropriations bill and the approval of scores of promotions held up by culture war politics. A few holdouts in the House and Senate want to make a point about access to abortion, access to medical services for transgender Americans, and prohibitions on diversity training. I guess there are more who realize the importance of this social laboratory than they care to admit.  

A teacher's summer errand loop

As a teacher I take joy in how the summer affords me to leisurely go about my days for a few precious weeks. On Monday, I took my time doing a loop of errands. My itinerary looked something like this. 

First, I dropped off my bike for some overdue maintenance at Scooter's Bike Shop. I made an attempt to inquire about buying some overpriced thingamajigs for my bike but the owner talked me out of it. 

Second, I made my way to Best Buy to check out desktop PC offerings. But on the way I jumped into an appliance and lighting store to investigate laundry options. They had a neat all-in-one model there - a combo washer and dryer. Sherry and I concluded its odd dimensions wouldn't be a good fit for our space. 

I did eventually get to Best Buy. There was a decent desktop PC there but I punted the decision until later in the week. I've learned recently that I'm something of a dinosaur in my desktop computer preferences. There's not too many of us shopping for such a thing anymore. I do see options, but then become conscious of how I'm getting something that the market is largely rejecting. 

Fourth stop (boring): Costco for gasoline. Then it was time to arc home in time to meet Sherry for lunch at 12:30. 

That brought me to a grocery store, Redner's, I don't shop at as often as I should. Where I grew up they had a reputation as being a bit too cheap and I have to overcome some snobbish tendencies to pull in. When I do pull in I'm glad I did because the staff is so darned nice. (Whoops, I forgot to mention the ATM stop right before Redner's.)

My sixth stop was my favorite hardware store where I remembered a few critical items (propane) but forgot others (birdseed and bungees). Will stop again later in the week. 

And all this got me back (whew!) just in time for lunch with Sherry. 

After lunch I set out on foot to clear out the last few errands. That included stops at the SEPTA station for Key cards, the post office for postcard stamps, and then finally the library. I'm employing a new trick to cut down on spending on books: I mark books in my wishlist on Amazon but then consult the list at the library. If the book is there I borrow it and remove the item from my wishlist. I picked up two books there. 

And more importantly: a board game. One can check out board games for three weeks? Really? Awesome. So for a few weeks I have a board game that is out of print to temporarily enjoy: Acquire. Splendid. And I came home with ideas for museums to visit using free passes from the library. 

Relics

The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a Washington Post article today about an unusual political and historical problem. Here's the article (sorry, there may be a paywall). Apparently divers and salvage experts brought an artifact from a sunken German cruiser to the surface. It's a bronze eagle from the Graf Spee, a warship scuttled in the river near Montevideo in 1939. The eagle holds a swastika in its talons. And the Uruguayan government doesn't know what to do with it. 

The article talks about one idea I love. Melt it down and turn it into a hopeful work of art. A dove, namely. Do that! Turn that sword into a plowshare. I'd also go for the idea of disintegrating it through explosion. Yes, I'm okay with that too. 

The Uruguayan government is facing a lot of pressure from groups arguing that history, even history of evil things must be preserved. And many of these groups are quite well-meaning. There's a tension, though, with presenting and interpreting such history. And even when it's done well, the relics can still become historical pornography, attracting some would-be pilgrims who celebrate Naziism rather than revile it. 

By the way, I'm not suggesting museums properly and wisely interpreting Nazi relics should shut down such exhibits. I am suggesting that this relic doesn't need to be added to the collection. Rather, I wish it had never been unearthed at all. The ship's final resting place was the appropriate place for this relic. A token symbol of Naziism slowly disintegrating at the bottom of a river, affixed to a ship sent out to harass Allied shipping that couldn't even survive the first calendar year of the war before it was forced into hiding and then sunk. 

Dwight Eisenhower, when a general commanding troops in Europe, ordered that any memorials or runes left behind by retreating troops be destroyed. He would allow no honorifics to the evil cause of Naziism. That approach would have served us well here by leaving the eagle in the deep. 

Though I'm a historian, I typically find myself uneasy at fortune-hunting. I want relics to be exhibits, not collectibles. I resist putting a dollar value on items of historical importance. And then I worry about the risks, legal, monetary, physical and otherwise involved in retrieving such items. 

---

The historian in me is glad I came across this story. It reminds me of some interesting side-stories that say a great deal related to World War II. One of those side-stories regards the sinking of that ship itself. Very early in the war, Germany sent this state-of-the-art ship out to harass Allied shipping. The mission didn't go well. Allied ships engaged the Graf Spee, dealt it heavy damage, and forced it into a neutral harbor in Uruguay. Eventually its captain realized he had to scuttle it. This episode is a symbol that as early as 1939 Germany lacked a navy sufficient to project its power in such a way to win a war against Britain and France. It had to hope that they both would give up. 

Uruguay's neutrality is also an interesting side-story. Latin America's alignment with the Allies wasn't a given. Uruguay, Brazil, and Argentina were home to many Europeans of German and Italian lineage. Might they cast their lot with the Axis? Might they be neutral in the sense that Franco's Spain was neutral. There was a conference in 1940 (in Havana) in which U.S. officials met with Axis diplomats warning them clearly that interference in the Americas would lead America to declare war. It was a world war in the literal sense. Latin America's role in it was an interesting piece of the puzzle. 

And, of course, the migrations after the war fascinate me as well. The article mentioned that Uruguay features a very large Jewish population. Many of them resulted from migrations that occurred after World War II. Australia, too, saw significant migration after World War II (not necessarily Jewish, but significant). Americans probably don't know well enough the major movement of people spurred by World War II's devastation and political sentiment. There is more that is worth reading about. 

Musings from a Conference

I volunteered to assist at a conference yesterday. The conference was for church musicians and it was held at my church. I've been to conferences as a teacher. Some have been meaningful. Others forgettable. Many cliched. It was interesting for me to peek behind the curtain at how one works, especially since I wasn't part of the target audience. Still, I learned some interesting things. 

First, hiring professional IT/filming crew is worth the cost. There was an outfit the conference hired called GNTV. They filmed the sessions and worship service that concluded the conference. I was envious at seeing professionals with all their equipment record the sessions, envious because I went through a period of time where parents and my employer expected me to conduct and film and record my classroom work all by myself. As I think about professional development occasions at my employer, I wonder if we'd think of investing in what we do by professionally recording it. 

Second, churches like mine are in a re-think of what is the new normal. Weekly worship attendance is down relative to pre-covid times. No need to blame anyone. That's just the way it is. As one presenter I overheard described it, the folks who are or aren't back have made up their minds. The new normal is a smaller physical footprint in our churches. But . . . 

There's a moment here to consider the congregation that is participating from afar. Streaming live worship used to be a bridge to people who were waiting until the moment was right to return to in-person worship. No longer true. Streaming worship is essentially evangelical outreach. It's akin to an additional worship service. It's time to be grateful that they're there and consider how to integrate them into congregational life knowing it won't be an in-person connection.  

I remain impressed at the care musicians, including church musicians, give such thought to copyright. There is so much to consider about copyright when streaming worship from a church. These people are inclined to pay attention to that messy set of details. And I don't think it's just fear of getting caught that motivates them. I think there's a genuine ethical sense compelling them to honor copyright. 

The conference purchased boxed lunches to be delivered rather than use our kitchen or rely on potluck generosity. Good call! The local business the conference supported delivered a good product. They offered vegetarian and gluten free options we might have been hard pressed to pull off. The participants viewed the professionally-made and boxed and varied options a great sign of hospitality. The personal touch of the church's kitchen might be for real, but it's perhaps outdated in today's age. 

There was something quite humbling about being staff on call to support a conference. It was good for someone (like me) who is accustomed to being part of the audience. Some folks grumble. One gives advice about how to get somewhere and it often gets ignored. There's a lot of waiting. Problems come up and you quickly realize you don't know where everything is (for the life of me I couldn't find the right size trash bags for deal with the waste from lunch). Most folks are grateful but many really don't interact with you at all. It's a great check-the-ego experience.

I was proud that my congregation was able to support a conference like this. One gets into the weeds of finances and attendance records pretty easily. One can therefore overlook the blessing that a large campus in good repair is just that, a blessing.    

3.6%

I look forward to the jobs report coming out at 8:30 am on what is typically the first Friday of the month. If it's during the academic year, this is the news item that begins or ends class on Friday. And I get a particular thrill looking at the report(s), coming to my own conclusion, encouraging the kids to come to their own conclusion, and then (finally) seeing if our conclusions aligns with what the journalists and the markets are saying. 

So, how does the job market look? On a scale of cataclysmic bad to awesome, this one landed somewhere between okay and good (with meh being below okay and solid being above good). One of the two headline numbers is the unemployment rate which went down a little bit, from 3.7% to 3.6%. Down is good, but the difference between May's and June's numbers is very small. Further, we are about as low as possible with the unemployment rate. Due to frictional (firing and quitting), structural (when demand for one particular type of job dries up), and seasonal factors there should be about 4.0% of the population unemployed. So by the standard definition we are at or a smidge below full employment. By the way, here's the report. Oh, and please keep in mind that the unemployment rate tends to make things appear rosier than they really are. 

Looking at more lines on that report, we can see some hey-the-glass-is-half-full sort of numbers. The participation rate is unchanged. Long-term unemployment and discouraged workers are both decreasing. Part-time for economic reasons is also down a little bit. That's good news for a lot of Americans. 

There's a few ugly lines, too, though. The unemployment rate for black Americans jumped upwards. Same with Latino and Asian segments of our population. And youth unemployment went up, too. This is all suggesting some problems in the labor market related to the service industries. 

The other headline number is the quantity of jobs added. One finds that information on a sister report put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (here it is). Again there is a combination of good and bad news, with a little bit more good than bad. In June we saw 209,000 jobs added to the economy, lower than the benchmark I use of 225,000 in a good month in a healthy economy. The diffusion index is going the wrong way (I invite you to think 50.0 = bad and 75.0 = great), but it's rising for manufacturing. So, again, I'm seeing a pattern here that services might be weak but durable goods / manufacturing might be strong. 

One also finds wages and hours reported on this report. Those numbers seem to indicate upward movement in the economy. Both wages and hours are rising a smidge. That's good news for people at work. But will rising wages contribute to more inflation? More on inflation when that report comes out Wednesday.

Of course the markets reacted poorly on Friday, and that's where the irony of all the labor market stuff comes into play. We have a job market that's more good than bad but the markets swoon? Why would that occur? Because the markets worry about interest rates, and the Federal Reserve likely will resume raising interest rates later this month. The evidence suggests there's more slowing the economy needs to do to get inflation under control. And that leads to the big policy dilemma facing us right now. Inflation is more of a problem than jobs. To get inflation under control, one can make the jobs market worse. Ugh. More on that later. 

TPIR

For reasons too random to list here I've started watching The Price is Right again. What a pleasant show!

And, my, things have changed since I last tuned in. No, I'm not just talking about the new host. (Drew Carey seems to have grown into his role as host.) The games remain a mix of new and old. The audience is clustered in pods, though that might just be a legacy of the Covid era. But there's no commercial break between the first and second pricing games! And the troupe that used to be known as Barker's Beauties are now the Price is Right Models. And there's a man in that group!

I guess, though, those changes are more cosmetic. The bones of the show remain the same. They encourage the audience to participate by giving contestants help with answers. The format is largely the same: six pricing games, two big wheel spins, two showcases. The host is on the contestants' side. Those elements are all in place. 

So, can I repurpose elements of the show for my classroom? Probably. Mom claims that my favorite TV show when I was little was The Price is Right and I should probably consider that foreshadowing of my career as an economics teacher. I need to give thought to using some clips from the show when I'm working through inflation in Macroeconomics. And some of the Blackjack-like elements fit nicely with marginal analysis in microeconomics. 

There were two moments with the show that gave me cause to reflect as a teacher recently. First, an episode I watched recently happened to feature a young man from the area, Benjamin Hartranft. Benjamin is somewhat well known in the North Penn area: he's an outspoken advocate for including individuals with a diagnosis of Autism. He does public speaking engagements on inclusion for those with special needs. He's done a fantastic job leveraging relationships and goodwill with area schools and sports teams. And he was a contestant on an episode that aired recently. The show and its host seemed to do very well working with Benjamin, allowing him to authentically compete. 

And then, also, I watched the documentary The Perfect Bid which made a dive into the history of the show. From it I learned that in the Bob Barker years there was typically no editing. In other words, they filmed it stem to stern, then allowed the video of what they filmed to simply go to broadcast. They didn't reshoot segments. They didn't cut material that wasn't worthy of making it to screen. They ran the cameras, kept it with the time parameters, and allow the production crew to put it in the can and get home early. In other words, Bob Barker and the crew were essentially executing an hour-long lesson on prices, probability, and personality, every day, for more the two decades. I think I can relate to that. 

Fives!

The College Board said they were releasing scores on July 7. They were wrong. They came out on Wednesday, July 5. Their release led to a really fun burst of activity. 

The two kids I worked with most directly on these efforts (aside from my students) both shared their fives with me. Sam earned a five in AP Euro! I'm thrilled, though I would've been thrilled with a four. Oh, and Amber, the daughter of a friend, shared her news of a five early on also. I had coached her through some tricky material while making dinner a couple of times (it was funny . . . she twice realized she was stuck on something in AP Macro around 5 pm or so, so she called, and I would walk through the intricacies of deficit financing and the nature of the Long Run Phillips Curve while stirring something). Sam, by the way, mostly did this on his own. I nudged him occasionally, and once or twice I affirmed and clarified the feedback he was getting from his teacher. Ironically, I won't hear from the majority of students I actually taught this year. 

Those two are teenagers, though, and slept in a little bit. The first person I heard from was my friend and partner in crime at work who shared the news that a student we were rooting for earned a three. She passed! We were quite pleased. Then my friend and I proceeded to evaluate the status of our annual bet (Who scored better in AP Macro? that person deserves a beer!) I was convinced I would be buying this year. Lo and behold, we tied! Tied with a 4.06 average. 

It's remarkable about how this publication of test scores got teachers talking in the midst of the summer. There were three other colleagues in my department I was connecting with about AP Economics scores. One colleague just joined us in teaching it this year, and his kids did pretty well on it. Another colleague had been tutoring one of my students, more on executive functioning stuff than economics material per se. She was happy to hear the student earned a four. By the way, when students share news of a four with me, my response is largely similar to how I respond to a five. Sometimes the difference between earning a four and five is luck. (The understanding evinced by a four is quite different than that evinced by a three). Oh, and usually fours are good for credit at colleges. 

Though I tend to be skeptical of standardized tests I have put a lot of stock in these results. It's a chief gauge by which I calibrate my teaching practices. I keep close track of my results with a spreadsheet, looking to see what my long-term trend is but also seeing if there is fidelity between what a student earns in my class and how they perform on the exam. In many ways, this data represents my chance to reset and focus on the year ahead. This year, the reports indicate that my students and I met with more success than it felt like we were meeting in real time. I should be reluctant to do too much differently in the year ahead. 

Four(th)

Happy Independence Day! We celebrate our nation's birthday today and mark how many years we've made it around the sun since 1776, the year of our nation's birth. Or was it 1776? Quite a bit of controversy has been stirred the last few years since a group of journalists at the New York Times launched an endeavor urging Americans to think of 1619 as the year of our origin. That, by the way, was about a dozen years after a colony emerged in present-day Virginia. Our Constitution was drafted on September 17, 1787, a day we mark as Constitution Day. And on January 1, 1863 the Emancipation Proclamation took effect. Could these, also, mark our beginning as a people? 

But even if one were to focus in on the Revolutionary Era, the story gets messy. The Second Continental Congress began meeting in 1775. The Boston Tea Party took place in 1773. Any of those events could mark our genesis as a nation-state. If we were to go later, our treaty of friendship with France in the winter of 1777-78 short-circuited a plausible chance at a negotiated peace with Britain. And the fighting of the Revolution didn't end until 1781, the treaty formalizing our peace settlement two years after that. Any of these years could claim to be our starting spot. 

Oh, and the Declaration of Independence itself wasn't promulgated on July 4. Actually, on July 2. And as soon as the ink was dry, our Founding Fathers (or at least the most noteworthy of them) fled Philadelphia for their states believing that the most important work of nationhood would be happening in those thirteen units. Thomas Jefferson, often credited as the Declaration's chief author, was one of those who returned home for the important statecraft. Who was left in Philadelphia minding the store? Young bachelors and old widowers. The B-team of the Founding Fathers. 

Dates are fun, but history is messy. Major eras don't start and end as cleanly in real time as they do in our rear-view mirror. When was our nation born? There's a lot of plausible answers to that. The totemic importance we put on the precise date of July 4 might catch the signers of that document a bit surprised if they were alive today. July 4, 1776 is a good compromise date for a long and complicated story. A story that involves the messy emergence of this country I love, and that's why I celebrate this day. 

Ambivalence

Ambivalence can be described as being of two minds. And that is how one can characterize my response to the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down race-based affirmative action. Is the Constitution color blind, obliging government to ignore circumstances of race? Or, is the Constitution a document compelling government to put its thumb on the scales to counter-balance racial injustice? Was it time for a two-dimensional definition of inequality (race-based) to give way to more sophisticated ways of understanding inequity? Was it a mistake to cast aside a system that gave black and brown kids a shot at elite colleges that might otherwise be denied in favor of white and Asian students? It's really hard to say. 

That elite college thing is the thing, though, isn't it. I've worked for many years with students applying for college, and many of them are focused on acceptance into one of those elite colleges. Casting aside the merits of that pursuit of the prized sheepskin from that prized institution, I've come to know that the process by which one gets admitted is a game. And games can be gamed. And now the rules for the game will be in flux for at least a little bit until a new equilibrium is reached, an equilibrium that offers a silver bullet combination of essays and/or GPA and/or test scores and/or life experience that brings home the prize. Frank Bruni's take on the game of admissions remains a masterpiece in understanding this realm, a realm whose rules the Supreme Court has temporarily scrambled as one would the image on an Etch-a-Sketch. 

One major reason for pause, though, is what we have seen in the year since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Many of those who cheered the Supreme Court's decision to reverse that controversial half-century-old precedent did so because they hailed the promise of letting the issue of abortion return to the States where it supposedly belongs. What we received is Constitutional cacophony. What is legal in what state and when? What governor vetoed? What veto got overridden? What state supreme court ruled on what? What will be dealt with via state executive order vs. state law vs. amendment to state constitution? And then will abortion become a civil or a criminal issue? Confusion and noise have prevailed above all else on that issue in the year since. And we will see that happen with college's attempts to create or maintain diversity on their campuses. Can a college cultivate a student body that is diverse? And if it can, what form will that diversity take? I guess it will depend on the state in which the college is functioning. I'm sure that will add another layer of complexity to the game of college admissions, creating a longer limbo until we arrive at the game's new and not-entirely-equitable equilibrium. 

More like a frisbee . . .

One of the more compelling articles I've read in sometime isn't about politics or economics or history, but instead about this big not-quite-as-round orb we call home. Here's a link to the New York Times article about the changing tilt of our planet: Pumping Groundwater Has Changed Earth's Spin, Study Finds. Well, that's fascinating. Apparently we don't go round and round an axis as neatly as that globe on your desk suggests. In fact, my favorite line in the article likened the planet's trip through the solar system to a wobbly frisbee. So, why is the earth's tilt changing? Long-term geological reaction to an ice age long ago (is that too political?), climate change (uh oh, that is getting political), and the pumping of massive amounts of underground water (okay, that can get uncomfortable real fast). Not to worry: our seasons aren't going to change anytime soon. But we could see our GPS technology fouled by this modification of what the planet is doing. 

There's always a tradeoff. Always. We cannot seem to agree in this country as to whether or not our behaviors and economic activity is changing the climate, though it seems foolish to think there is not some tradeoff to all of the energy we create and consume. And the article's first two explanations for the change in Earth's tilt seems to take the two different sides of any climate debate. Interesting. But that third one is a kicker. And it's hard to dispute that extracting billions of gallons of water from beneath the surface of the earth won't somehow alter the mass of this rock as it hurdles through space. There's always a tradeoff. Even if that tradeoff is just the inconvenience of a little bit less precision from devices we take for granted. 

And the piling on keeps piling on . . .

Institutions are made up of people. Institutions are also easy to blame. Just take a look down the road in Philadelphia where the Moms for Liberty Convention is meeting. There's a lot of institution-blaming going on down there. Bureaucrats at departments of education. Schools. Teacher unions. It's also easier to blame these institutions than the teachers. Even the political hopefuls who are obsequiously playing for this crowd know this. Maggie Hanna in the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that "Some of the education officials were careful to draw a distinction between union leaders and rank-and-file teachers." This blaming of institutions isn't entirely honest, because it allows individuals to blame individuals implicitly and indirectly. Is it really the unions, the schools? Or is the problem that "We've got a lot of bad teachers, and the problem is you can't get them out?" Those are our former president's words. At that same convention where so many falsely profess their concerns are about the institutions, not the people. Baloney.