Dr. Jim Taylor’s blog

I don’t know Bode Miller personally, though I know athletes and coaches who know him well. I do know alpine ski racing. I competed internationally in my youth and have worked with ski racers, ranging from juniors to Olympians, on the mental side of the sport for 25 years. And I have followed Bode’s career since he first stepped into those then-oddly shaped K2 skis back in the early 1990s.

Bode has always been my poster child for the attitude to have toward sports competition (and life, for that matter). Bode never cared about results, only about skiing “as fast as the natural universe will allow,” as Bode put it in his autobiography, Bode: Go Fast, Be Good, Have Fun.  He wasn’t afraid to fail or to fall. Bode always had a fundamental faith his road was the correct one for him even when others thought he had taken a wrong turn and gotten lost. And, more than anything, he knew who he was and was true to who he was. From the early days when he would rarely finish races and, despite his coaches’ urging, would not back it off a notch, to his breathtaking double silver medal performances in Salt Lake City in 2002, to his widely reported and criticized flameout in Turin in 2006, to his stunning performances in Vancouver, Bode was Bode for good, bad, or ugly.

So how did Bode arrive at this current junction in his journey, this crossroad of redemption and glory. It was an unlikely road in many ways. Bode was never the typical sort of ski racer growing up in New England. He was raised in a cabin with no running water or electricity in rural New Hampshire by rather hippyish parents. He was homeschooled until fourth grade. Bode never took ski lessons. And, oddly enough, competitive tennis seemed to be in his future because his parents owned a well-known tennis camp.

Regardless of which athletic road Bode took, he was destined to take the road less traveled. But he was not destined for ski-racing greatness. Bode was not phenom, having never competed at the Topolino Games, an international championship for racers 13 and under, and never won a medal at the World Junior Championships (in contrast to Lindsay Vonn who won gold and silver, respectively, at those events).

When he arrived at the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Bode’s legend had yet to precede him onto the media stage, though he was obviously well known in the ski racing world, having competed in the 1998 Olympics and won his first World Cup race in 2001. His two silver medals in Salt Lake City thrust Bode’s skiing and his counterculture personality into the spotlight.

Bode continued to be a force on the international ski racing scene leading up to the 2006 Olympics in Turin, Italy, but there was the feeling among many in the sport that, though he had great success in the intervening years, his contrarian side prevented him from truly dominating the sport from year to year.

As the media does with an athlete at every Olympics, it anointed him the “Face of the 2006 Olympics” and placed Atlas-like expectations (five gold medals) on his shoulders. And Bode accepted that burden, a mistake with 20/20 hindsight. He appeared on almost every conceivable magazine cover, was on television constantly, and was a ubiquitous presence on line. Even worse, Bode allowed himself to be commandeered by the advertising juggernaut (though he earned many millions of dollars in the process). In sum, Bode became a pop culture icon, a role that stood in sharp contradiction to his simple upbringing and his antiestablishment sensibilities.

Bode was always at his best when he lived his life on his own terms, when he was focused solely on Bode. Yet, heading into the 2006 Games, his life was no longer his own. He had, whether consciously or otherwise, sold his soul to a devil that he truly didn’t value. And it is a cautionary tale that even a strong-willed, backwoods denizen like Bode could be seduced by fame and fortune. Leading up to the Games, Bode seemed to lose perspective, lose focus, and, most harmfully, lose himself. His reported partying and his failure to win medals there were perhaps unconscious attempts to regain control of his life and to show everyone that, despite appearances, Bode Miller was his own man who couldn’t be bought or sold. Unfortunately, both the partying and poor results also kept him from being true to the ski racer in him that only cared about skiing as fast as he could.

Much transpired since 2006 for Bode, with both highs, that included a 2008 World Cup overall title and the birth of a daughter, and lows, including a career worst season in 2009, injuries, the appearance of burn-out, and talk of retirement.

Yet, one thing I have always admired about Bode is that, though he follows his own road, that road can take many forks. So, for 2010, Bode decided to leave his independent ski-racing life and rejoin the comforts – and constraints – of the U.S. Ski Team. Why such a shift? Perhaps it was the birth of his first child, or a wish for Olympic redemption after 2006, or the realization that it was too difficult or too lonely going it alone, or, at age 32, seeing the mortality of his career for the first time, or just plain growing up. Regardless, Bode was, once again, living his life on his terms, even though those terms had changed.

With the arrival of the 2010 Olympic Games in Vancouver, Bode was off the radar screen due to generally mediocre results on the World Cup this season. No Sirens-like seduction by the media, no Herculean expectations, just another opportunity for Bode to ski the way only Bode can. The result: Bode winning a complete set of Olympic medals (gold, silver, and bronze). But, more importantly, Bode having fun and describing his races the way he did during his previous heydays, not in terms of victories, but in that “absolutely amazing” feeling when “you…magically ski at your absolute best.” (thanks Wikipedia).

The long road that Bode Miller has traveled has not reached its conclusion, but just a rest stop known as redemption. But this redemption was not to his sport or his fans and certainly not to the media who placed him on Mt. Olympus and then summarily yanked him from its peak. Bode owes them nothing. Bode’s redemption comes from being true to himself and living his life on his own terms regardless of the consequences. It also comes from his accepting what life has throw at him with equanimity and learning its lessons to make the road smoother ahead.

So, Bode, enjoy the sweet elixir of victory on your own terms and appreciate your journey you’ve taken up till now. But, most importantly, realize that, whether racing down the snow-covered mountains of the world or with your daughter on a farm in New Hampshire, the road ahead will continue to be what it has been thus far for you, sometimes smooth, sometimes bumpy, but always interesting with unexpected vistas around the corner.

As I described in my recent Race to the Top? series, the need for significant reform of America’s public school system is great (Part II), yet the institutional obstacles preventing reform seem even greater (Part III). The challenges of changing a system that is so entrenched came to absurd light from a reader of my RTTT? series who shared with me her frustrations in trying to hold a principal accountable for what the parent believed was incompetence and negligence related to student safety at her children’s school in the Bay Area. This parent has provided me with a series of emails documenting her and other parents’ attempts to get the Superintendent of Schools to take action against this principal.

Let me begin with a disclaimer that all of my information is from one person and that it may not represent a complete or balanced picture of what happened. Nonetheless, the flagrant ridiculousness of the situation I will describe provides, at a minimum, a glaring illustration of the massive roadblocks, both substantial and laughable, that stand in the way of meaningful education reform. I have also kept all parties and schools anonymous to protect the innocent (and, unfortunately, also protect those who may be guilty).

The issue in this case relates to the principal’s handling of a series of incidences of bullying and assault by out-of-control students over the past several years. After frequent complaints about safety to her children’s teachers and inadequate responses from the principal, the mother reported her concerns to the school district’s superintendent.

Though the mother got plenty of lip service and crocodile-teared concern from the principal and district employees, the situation didn’t turn absurdly comical (if it wasn’t so sad) until an email arrived from the Assistant Superintendent in response to a letter signed by 10 parents asking that the principal be replaced or reassigned to another school because of his/her behavior.

Let’s deconstruct the email to demonstrate the complete absence of logic, reason, or concern for children that seems to be reflective of much of our public education system:

1. “The District does not as a practice, accept, investigate nor take action upon anonymous complaints against employees.”

The use of the word “anonymous” has a certain Clintoneque “is” quality to it. This complaint was signed, so the letter wasn’t anonymous. But, quite reasonably, the parents didn’t want their identities revealed when the complaint was discussed with the principal. So the Assistant Superintendent appeared to redefine the meaning of anonymous to fit the school district’s policy, thus absolving the Superintendent’s office of responsibility for investigating the concerns.

As the Superintendent’s office emphasized in several emails to the parent, it has a deep concern for the employees’ confidentiality, yet it shows little regard for the confidentiality of the parents (and, by extension, the students).

2. “As the Parent/Guardian handbook indicates, the District’s goal is to have concerns and complaints handled at the lowest level possible.”

And several years and much effort had been devoted to having these problems “handled at the lowest level possible” (with no success, I might add). But the Superintendent’s office didn’t even acknowledge those lower-level attempts at resolution and, in doing so, passed the buck back to the school.

3. “Accordingly, an employee is given a copy of any complaint against him/her and in addition to the expectation that an attempt is made to address the concern, the employee has the right to attach a written response.”

So, the “employee is given a copy of any complaint against him/her” (italics added) except, of course, when the employee is not. What does this statement have to do with anything related to the complaint? Because it is very official sounding, it gives the appearance of relevance without actually being relevant at all. In other words, it’s bureaucratic filler. Another convenient disavowal of the complaint.

4. “A complaint is a formal written statement alleging a substantial misapplication or violation of school, district, state or federal rules or regulations. A petition from several parents declaring dissatisfaction and requesting employee dismissal, does not meet the parameters of a formal complaint. Again, complainants need to include the details of their concerns regarding a specific incident…”

Granted, the signed letter lacked detail, but, if the Superintendent’s office had taken these concerns seriously, wouldn’t it have provided guidelines on how to prepare an acceptable complaint or expressed a willingness to help in preparation of the complaint so that it met its parameters for submission? And, last I checked, ten parents is far less than oodles of parents, but far more than “several parents.”

5. “…and be willing to meet with the employee in person in an attempt to resolve the concerns.”

The parents already tried that a number of times to no avail. That’s why they went up the food chain to the Superintendent’s office. By the way, as for attempting to resolve the concerns directly with the principal, we all know how well people react when confronted with an effort to have them fired. It should be the responsibility of the Superintendent’s office to act as the advocate for the complainant (which is really the student).

6. “The concept of protection for a “whistle blower” – which is most often an employee alleging illegal activities by his or her employer and at personal risk for reprisal by said employer – does not apply. ”

Why doesn’t it apply? Whose definition is that? No explanation or rationale is given. According to Wikipedia.com, a whistleblower is defined as someone who reports “a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption.” As the saying goes, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it probably a duck. The parents seem to have a reasonable foundation for whistleblower status and the right to press their case. Yet the Superintendent’s office rather brusquely dismisses their concerns over a series of self-serving procedural technicalities.

7. “As the principals’ direct supervisors, the superintendent and myself always inform a principal of any concern or complaint that is brought to our attention, and we consult with the principal, so that he or she may take the appropriate steps to resolve the issue.”

Except, of course, when they don’t. Or are they saying that they did because they “always” do? If not, what was their rationale for not doing so? If so, what were the appropriate steps that were taken to resolve the issue? This statement avoids directly addressing the complaint by regurgitating handbook jargonese.

8. “This practice supports the District’s commitment to a culture of collaboration.”

Yes, and there had been such a wonderful “culture of collaboration” between the principal and the parents so far in looking for ways to ensure student safety. And that heart-warming culture of working together then extended to the Superintendent’s office.

9. “We also hope that in the process, both the principal and the complainant grow together in partnership….”

And can we now get a group hug and sing Kumbaya for such a touching desire by the Superintendent’s office to have everyone “grow together in partnership.” Feelings sure do matter here in Northern California, but, Mr. Superintendent, so do results.

10.  “…in order to best meet the needs of our students.”

Excuse me? Did I read correctly? For the first time in this email, those whom the parents are advocating for and for whom should be the Superintendent’s office’s primary concern have been mentioned. The students? Oh yeah, that’s what public education is all about, right? I think what the Assistant Superintendent originally wrote and then corrected was, “…in order to best protect our own asses, oops, I mean the needs of the students.”

Sorry for being so snarky, but bureaucratic double-talk, mindless policies, and putting kids in the back of the priority line kind of ticks me off.

This post isn’t to suggest that the principal in question should be summarily fired or publicly flogged; he/she has a right to due process. The problem is with the arbitrary and unresponsive process that this parent went through to protect her and others’ children. And, most importantly, for the Superintendent’s office for adherence to bureaucratic protocol and avoiding responsibility with word games over the welfare of the students that the Superintendent is sworn to serve and protect.

What does this have to do with education reform, you ask. If schools can’t create a system that protects students’ basic safety or one in which parents’ concerns are not only heard, but acted on, what chance is there of actually effecting meaningful change to the monolith that is our public education system?

We have just concluded what was one of the most tumultuous and divisive decades in our nation’s history. I’ve been thinking about what made this period so difficult. Unexpected and, in some cases, uncontrollable events certainly played a role. The 2000 Presidential election, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and the housing bubble and the resulting financial crisis come to mind. But every decade has its tragedies, controversies, and conflicts, and they don’t devolve into the current zeitgeist of mistrust, anger, and polarization that exists today. There was something more elemental than simply a series of unfortunate events that lead us to this uncomfortable place in America’s national storyline.

As I did my best impression of Sherlock Holmes looking for clues to this mystery, I kept returning to one word: information. I concluded that it was the not the newsworthy events of the last ten years that produced such a seismic shift in the tone of our national conversation. Rather, the information that we garnered from them and how that information shaped our beliefs and reactions to those events was the real culprit. And not just information, but lack of information, incomplete information, ambiguous information, conflicting information, misinformation, disinformation, and just plain lies that really struck at the heart of this new information age.

The problem is that there is no longer any source of objective and trusted information. In previous generations, Americans could turn to reliable sources of information, for example, reportage from newspapers, television, and radio news departments. Who wouldn’t trust Edward R. Morrow or Walter Cronkite to tell us what was really happening in our world. These days, you can’t find “fair and balanced” news anywhere.

Too much information these days is tainted with an agenda, whether political, religious, economic, or some other. The influence of this information is so powerful that some people are believing and supporting policies that are not in their best interests.

There are many causes of inaccurate information, some are inadvertent and just part of being human. We are vulnerable to cognitive biases that shape how we interpret information, for example, the Bandwagon effect in which we believe things because many other people do. Or the Confirmation bias where we look for information that confirms what we already believe. Or the Base Rate Fallacy in which we favor our own immediate experiences over research findings. Or cognitive dissonance where we tend to discredit information that is inconsistent with our own ideologies.

Other causes of inaccurate information are more pernicious. This disinformation serves a specific purpose, usually to justify or forward a self-serving set of interests or goals. Political or religious ideologies, corporate strategies, and fascist governmental control are the most conspicuous examples of this type of manipulated information. Though typically in the guise of  “This is fact.” or “This is in your best interests” messages, its true benefactors are those who convey the disinformation. This transmission of disinformation usually occurs in several ways. It is portrayed as truth, yet grounded less in fact and more in emotional hot buttons. It comes from on-message sources who are well respected by the targeted audience. These spokespersons not only ignore opposing viewpoints or data, but also demonize those with whom they disagree, making it less likely that their audience will ever hear other perspectives. The result is an audience who believes fervently in the message and is highly resistant to persuasion to the contrary, regardless of the facts of the matter.

Let’s be realistic, though, information has always been misinterpreted and misused to further self-serving goals. Yet our national discourse remained mostly civil and cooperation between those of opposing viewpoints was still evident. So what has changed? It’s no accident that this new age of misinformation coincides with the new age of information technology and the emergence of the Internet and new media as potent forces in our society. In the past, there were only a few tightly controlled conduits (i.e., television, radio, print media) through which people could express their views or acquire information. Today, anyone with an Internet connection can not only receive an unending and seemingly infinite flow of information (however erroneous it may be), but also has the ability to create their own conduit with which to convey information regardless of its veracity or value.

The explosion of web sites, bloggers, twitter, and other new media has provided fertile ground for individuals and groups of every ilk and along the entire spectrum of legitimacy to provide information to a wide and diverse audience. The upside is that there is now more opportunity than ever for people to become well informed about all sides of issues. The downside, and more apparent scenario, is that those with extreme or self-serving agendas who, in the past wouldn’t have registered on the national radar, now have the ability to influence others to a far greater degree than they deserve.

This post is obviously not directed toward that audience. The reality is that, for these extremists, when ideology comes face to face with the facts, facts are the victim. You need look no further than the daily news to watch or read about people who have a profound disconnect between fact and belief.

This post is directed toward to everyone else, those who, whether a Republican or Democrat, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or atheist, environmentalist or industrialist, socialist or capitalist, are reasonable people who believe that truth should trump ideology, who are interested in separating fact from fiction, and want to know both sides of an issue before forming thoughtful and well-supported opinions. Just look at the health-care legislation. Decent people can disagree about what is the best health care system for America, but that determination should be based on facts, such as how many people will be covered and what will the costs be, not on ideology or prostituting to special interests.

Here is my proposal to return fact-based reality to our national dialogue (note: please don’t miss my ironic tone): The federal government should create a Department of Information whose responsibility it is to determine the facts behind any decision that confronts our country. I know what you’re thinking: This sounds like something that belongs in a totalitarian regime. But the reality is that someone has to decide on what is factual and what is not. So who can we trust to give us the most accurate information available? Big Business? Traditional media? The blogosphere? I certainly wouldn’t trust any of them.

Though our government is far from perfect, it does exist, at least in theory, to serve the best interests of the American people. That’s more than can be said for any other influences in our society; everyone else has a self-serving agenda. And our government already decides what is factual in many areas, whether the Office of Management and Budget deciding how much a proposed legislation will cost, the Federal Reserve describing the state of our economy, or even the decisions handed down by Supreme Court (though, interestingly, they are called opinions not facts). I know, budget estimates are often wrong, the Fed has made glaring economic-policy mistakes, and the Supreme Court can make some lousy decisions, but those mistakes may be more a reflection of the complexities of life and honest disagreement on ambiguous issues rather on than intentional misinformation.

Here’s the next part of my proposal. Anytime there is a factual dispute, the Department of Information would render a decision on what the facts are. Those parties who come out on the short end of those decisions would not be allowed to use their “facts” any longer (just like having potentially dangerous drugs or products taken off the shelf). If they do, there would be fines levied to punish the transgressors. This system would not only make clear what the facts are and empower those who want the facts to be known, but it would also discredit the lunatic fringe and reduce the influence of their views on the majority of people.

Uh oh, you may be thinking, now I’m trampling on our First Amendment rights. But we don’t actually have unfettered free speech. As Oliver Wendell Holmes so famously quoted (and so often misquoted) in Schenck vs. United States in 1919, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic” (italics added). Well, that’s what people with agendas do; politicians, any groups that begin with “Big,” television and radio talking heads and, of course, the lunatic fringe falsely yell fire in the theater of American life and it is causing a panic in our country.

Uh oh, again, as you may also be thinking that there are countries in the world that already have such a monopoly on information, namely, North Korea, China, and Iran. They certainly aren’t exemplars of truth.

Okay, so maybe a federal Department of Information isn’t going to fly. But the real purpose of my post is to emphasize how important it is for us to embrace accurate information to not only help us make decisions that are in our best interests, but also to use it as a cudgel against those who wish to distort or ignore the facts and impose their extreme ideologies on others.

You probably know that popular culture is a truly destructive force in your children’s lives. In a recent survey, three-fourths of parents believed that materialism and the negative influences from television, movies, and music were a “serious problem” in raising children. Over 85 percent of parents believe that marketing contributes to children being too materialistic, sexual content leads children to become sexually active at a younger age, and violent content increases aggressive behavior in children. Yet 66 percent of parents think they could do a better job of supervising their children’s media exposure.

But how do you help your children fight this battle against popular culture? It starts by knowing your children’s enemy.

What Is Popular Culture?

What is popular culture, you ask? It’s Paris Hilton, 50 Cent, Michaal Vick, McDonald’s, MySpace, Coca-Cola, and on and on. But this list only gives examples of popular culture. They are, if you will, some of the weapons that popular culture uses against your children. But they don’t really tell us what popular culture is.

One expert says that popular culture is a reflection of our society’s values, creating popular icons, heroes and heroines, and rituals, myths, and beliefs expressing those values. I say that popular culture used to reflect our values. No longer. Now it is a voracious beast of materialism, celebrity, and excess that shapes those values to meet its own greedy needs. Many heroes offered by popular culture are not heroic, many of its icons represent unhealthy values, and many of its rituals, myths, and beliefs are in its own best interests, not those of your children. Popular culture is also pervasive, dominating virtually every part of your children’s lives.

In Your Children’s Face

Popular culture is omnipresent, intense, and unrelenting in your children’s lives. Your children are exposed to hundreds of television channels. They have free and immediate access to an almost unlimited array of information through the Internet. They have free and immediate access to other people near and far through email, Instant Messaging, and YouTube. And when they’re not on the computer, DVDs, video games, television, magazines, advertising, and shopping malls fill your children’s lives. Research has shown that typical children between the ages of two and eighteen spend well over five hours each day consuming popular culture.

Not All Popular Culture Is Bad

Though I will probably come across as militantly against any and all forms of popular culture, I actually believe it can be a wonderful outlet for entertainment and escapism. Whether popular culture is dangerous or benign depends on the messages it’s sending and how you and your children respond to those messages. Popular culture that is simply entertainment has its place in our society. Whether film, music, theater, books, or sports, activities that transport us from our daily lives into temporary alternative realities can play healthy roles in our lives. These diversions act as brief respites from our otherwise busy lives. They give us a “time-out” that relieves stress, provides a small amount of escapism, creates pleasant vicarious emotions, and just plain entertains us. As long as the messages communicated in the media aren’t bad for children, who am I to say that Fellini is better than Spielberg or Beethoven is better than Snoop Dogg (though I could probably argue that point).

However, popular culture that instills in children bad values, attitudes, or beliefs, manipulates their needs and wants, sell goods and services that have no redeeming value, or impresses upon children anything that is unhealthy psychologically, emotionally, socially, spiritually, or physically is, by its very nature, destructive. Examples include advertising that connects certain toys, clothes, food, or drinks with being popular or cool, or music that encourages racism, sexism, drug use, or violence.

But let’s be clear here. Even “good” popular culture isn’t that good for children. Though there is certainly educational television, video games that encourage creativity and problem solving, and movies with positive messages, these media still teach children bad habits:

• Experience life vicariously instead of directly;
• Be sedentary rather than physically active;
• Have indirect social contact with others instead of real contact; and
• Prevent them from participating in activities that support their intellectual, emotional, cultural, spiritual, and physical development.

Popular Culture on the Attack

Few parents fully appreciate how popular culture affects their children’s lives. Even fewer realize how truly harmful it is to children, families, communities, and to our society as a whole. Popular culture attacks children at their most basic level, the values that guide their lives. It promotes the worst values and disguises them as entertainment. Reality TV, for example, has made the “seven deadly sins”—pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth—attributes to be admired. Throw in selfishness, deceit, spite, humiliation, cruelty, and vengeance—all qualities seen and revered in popular culture—and you have the personification of the worst kind of person.

Popular culture is like a network of saboteurs that infiltrate your family’s lives with stealth and deception, hiding behind entertaining characters, bright images, and fun music. You probably don’t notice half of the unhealthy messages being conveyed to your children. Popular culture is also an invading army that overwhelms your children with these destructive messages. It attempts to control every aspect of your children’s lives: their values, attitudes, and beliefs about themselves and the world that they live in; their thoughts, emotions, and behavior; their needs, wants, goals, hopes, and dreams; their interests and avocations; their choices and their decisions. With this control, popular culture can tell children what to eat and drink, what to wear, what to listen to and watch, and children have little ability to resist.

Two Lines of Attack

Popular culture relies on two primary avenues for communicating its messages and influencing your children. The first type of message is what I call “loudspeaker” messages, in which the messages are deafening, constant, and ever-present. The shrillness of these messages is heard, seen, tasted, or felt, and cannot be readily avoided. Examples of these loudspeaker messages are most kinds of popular culture, including movies, video games, television, and music, in addition to less obvious loudspeaker messages from billboards and magazine ads.

The second type of message that popular culture uses to seduce your children are what I call “stealth” messages. These messages are usually hidden behind entertaining characters, images, words, and music that are fun and engaging, but are designed to subtly tap into children’s unconscious needs and wishes. Messages that create positive emotional reactions, for example, dancing while drinking Pepsi, or winning a basketball game wearing a pair of Nikes, resonate at a deep level with children, causing them to want to feel that way too. Other stealth messages that tap into children’s fears and insecurities related to self-esteem, social acceptance, and physical attractiveness are particularly effective in manipulating children.

Your Children Know about the Danger

Having spoken to tens of thousands of children over the years, I have learned a surprising thing: most children aren’t fooled by popular culture. They know it’s bad. They know that all popular culture cares about is money. They know that the messages it communicates are unhealthy. Most children also know what good and bad values are and what is right and wrong. But they lack the experience, perspective, and tools to withstand the attraction: its bells and whistles, its bright lights and loud music, its beautiful people. Children have good values deep down—they may even be born with that capacity—but they lose touch with them because the contradicting messages from popular culture are so intense, invasive, and persistent; they are simply overwhelmed by the force of popular culture.

Know Your Children’s Enemy

An essential step in joining your children in the fight against popular culture is to know your children’s enemy. Study popular culture. Watch what your children watch on television, play their video games, listen to their music, visit the Web sites they surf, read the magazines they read. Then, understand the value messages they are getting from popular culture. Television, movies, and video games glamorize violence, sexuality, wealth, celebrity, and the use of alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes. Fashion and celebrity magazines affect how girls think about their bodies, the amount they diet and exercise, and the occurrence of eating disorders. The Internet gives your children limitless access to a universe of inappropriate information.

Only with this knowledge are you in a position to battle popular culture with your children. With this information, you gain the power to protect your children from popular culture and prepare them to combat popular culture when you’re not with them. You can use this power by being positive, conscious, and active forces in your children’s lives.

Recommendations

• Don’t be seduced by popular culture’s messages (you’re vulnerable too!).
• Make informed decisions about what your children watch, play, listen to, and surf.
• Talk to your children about the unhealthy influence of popular culture.
• Set limits.
• Say “NO” to popular culture.

A few months ago, I wrote a post titled The Blogosphere Jungle in which I described the truly uncivil nature of the blogosphere in which respect for opposing views and dispassionate discourse were out and ad hominem attacks and demonization were in.

Yet, as I have followed and responded to many comments to my own blog posts and read many other blogs, I have come to see the “commentariat” in a very different light. Contrary to my earlier belief, it is not another indication of the end of civilization as we know it. Instead, I now see it as a vital force in our democracy that, though not exactly leveling the playing field altogether, it at least flattens it some so that it is not tilted so steeply in favor of the all-powerful ruling class.

To paraphrase Bill Shakespeare, today I come to praise the commentariat, not to bury it.

Yes, there is enough vitriol in the blogosphere that, if it could be harnessed as energy, would make fossil fuels obsolete. And, yes, some of it comes from ideologues who care little beyond proving the righteousness of their own beliefs and demonizing all those with whom they disagree. But a lot of that anger that we see among the commentariat is really just frustration felt by millions of ordinary people who feel powerless against our country’s powers-that-be. When you peel away the rage, what you hear are voices that want to be heard. Not just one vote every few years, but one voice that can be heard regularly. Before the blogosphere, there was no such platform from which those individual voices could gain others’ attention.

The blogosphere platform used by the commentariat is now immense. And I’m constantly amazed at the number of comments that are left on some blogs, many thousands on the most widely read blogs. Does seeing so many comments discourage others from sharing their own perspectives? To the contrary, it seems to inspire people to join the digital conversation, even if they are hardly heard above the commentariat din. What I gather from this high level of involvement is that, though being heard is an essential part of this new technological empowerment, of equal importance is simply having a place to speak out. And this newly found power hopefully energizes people to express themselves in other ways beyond the blogosphere.

One thing I love about the commentariat is that it keeps me honest and humble. It was easy in previous generations for commentators, found mostly on television and radio and in print, to feel like they were “all that” when all they heard or read was the self-perceived brilliance of their own words and no one else’s. But the commentariat has changed all that. As I noted in a recent reply to a comment, if I was looking for ego strokes, the blogosphere is definitely not the place to get them. Insults aside, the commentariat is only too happy to expose the holes, biases, and inaccuracies in my thinking, and rightfully so. It also forces me to confront the influence of my own ideology and dogma in the formulation of my ideas. Any time I think I’ve come up with the definitive perspective on an issue, the commentariat shows me that I’m, well, wrong (or at least, that I don’t have The Answer). In other words, the commentariat doesn’t let me fall too far in love with my own BS. Though I may find this “tough love” a bit uncomfortable, this feedback helps me grow as a thinker and a writer by exposing the sometimes yawning gap between what I believe to be true and what may actually true.

Before the blogosphere, commentators had a mostly one-way relationship with readers (letters to the editor notwithstanding) that resembled a lecture. Though the recipients of the expressed wisdom may have learned a few things, this unidirectional flow of information didn’t maximum the potential value that those initial ideas could offer. The commentariat now makes blog posts conversations in which ideas are exchanged, challenged, and expanded. In this powerful new role, the commentariat participates in “mass collaboration” and the creation of new ideas in the intellectual marketplace.

Sure, there will always be people on the lunatic fringe who are so wrapped in their own ideologies that real discourse is impossible. But for those many millions more who want to join in these cyber conversations, I say, “Pull up a chair and have a seat at the table. We’d love to hear what you have to say.”

My first two posts in my Race to the Top? Series (Part I and Part II) focused on the effects of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top on children at the top and the bottom of the education food chain. This post will explore several of the more sensitive issues that prevent real education reform from occurring.

One point of contention involves defining precisely what is meant by education reform. As I noted in Part II of the series, the powers-that-be seem to think that improving test scores is reform. But testing is really only a way to assess the effectiveness of reform. True education reform involves two fundamental changes in our public education system. The first requires a structural shift in the areas that research has shown to actually improve education, such as teacher quality, class size, and available resources. These are very tough nuts to crack. Teachers’ unions are resistant to changes in the ways that teachers are evaluated and compensated (though they are showing signs of capitulation). It’s also just plain difficult to evaluate teacher competency. For example, should teachers be judged on their student’s test scores? That criterion seems dicey given how many factors influence test scores. And class size and resources are highly correlated with school funding. Everyone wants better public schools, but few seem willing to pay for them.

The second change demands a process shift in education, namely, changing the curricula that determine what and how teachers teach. You can’t find a topic in education more controversial than school curricula. There is the inertia of decades-old curricula that are embedded in most public schools and kept in place by highly invested groups including teachers’ unions, school boards, textbook publishers, and testing companies. Real education reform would be costly to these entrenched forces, plus they don’t want to give up the reins, even if it is an old nag. Then, when you add to the mix disparate educational, political, social, and religious ideologies that often guide curricula, you get a boiling cauldron of impassioned conflict.

Another obstacle to education reform lies in who should dictate the changes in curriculum. Those people with a federalist sensibility argue that states and local school boards are uniquely equipped to decide what is best for their children. This belief was perhaps true a half century ago when people tended to live and work where they were raised. Local control ensured that children learned what was necessary to fit into and contribute to their local communities.

But times have changed. Our mobile society, new technology, and a global economy have obliterated district, county, and states lines that once had meaning. Whether raised in Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Indiana, Colorado, or Oregon, all children in America need the same knowledge and skill sets that will enable them to compete in the national and international marketplace of jobs. In fact, local control of public education, dominated by potentially provincial attitudes and ideologies, can leave children ill equipped to survive, much less thrive, in this very flat world in which we now live. And, particularly in states with high rates of poverty and underperforming schools, the state-rights stance can maintain the status quo out of sheer habit, even if it hasn’t worked for many years.

There are certainly areas of American life that are best determined at the local or state levels because they have a better understanding of their region’s unique needs, for example, speed limits, public transportation, and first responders. At the same time, on issues of national import, our federal government should lead the way as it already does so in many areas, such as food, drug, product, and occupational safety, financial and environmental regulation, and energy policy. Shouldn’t education, one of the most essential contributors to the success and well being of our nation, be included in that list?

The final area that is perhaps the most controversial issue in education reform is how far to go outside of schools to improve students’ opportunities for academic success. Clearly, what happens at home has an immense impact on young people’s attitudes toward school, the tools they have to achieve success in school, their academic aspirations, and the effort they put forth in pursuit of those goals.

There are ideological and political issues at play here. Cries of social engineering are frequently heard, yet our country engages in social engineering every day, from programs to help people to quit smoking to school nutrition programs to the Welfare to Work program, and much of it works. Objections about cost are also heard, yet the cost of inaction or inefficacy are astronomically greater in terms of dollars and human capital; as the saying goes, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

However politically incorrect or divisive it may be, it is difficult to deny the influence that early home life plays in children’s academic life. Positive parental role modeling, good nutrition, a home environment that encourages learning, regular exposure to reading and conversation, teaching essential life skills, and parental involvement in their children’s schools are just a few home factors that appear to be associated with success in school. Yet, all of these potential influences can be lacking in single-parent homes and in families where parents are unemployed, both work (sometimes at multiple jobs), or they aren’t proficient in English.

Given that just about every attempt at education reform has failed over the past 50 years, it seems incumbent on us to consider that changes solely within the school walls are insufficient  and that reform will continue to fall short unless that reform reaches outside the classroom.

More comprehensive education reform must start at the macro level in which financially disadvantaged parents have opportunities for more education, job training, and better-paying jobs. When the vicious cycle of poverty and poor education is broken, the family, school, and community environments will shift in support of education for these children. Also, quality and affordable child care will provide an additional setting in which improved preparation for school can be fostered.

At a micro level, direct intervention in the home that develops the influences I discussed above seems like a necessary next step in preparing children for success in school. Head Start, for example, has been a long-running federal program that has attempted to institute early intervention with disadvantaged children, albeit with inconclusive results. I have also read about pilot programs in which trained educators conduct home visits and coach parents on how to enrich their children’s home environments in preparation for school.

Education reform in America has been a categorical and ongoing failure for decades, and a badge of shame that all of us must wear. And time is running out and opportunity is slipping away for many Americans. Yet there is hope. With the dramatic changes our country has experienced in the last decade, we seem to be entering a new chapter in America’s economic, political, and social narrative in which many see the need to make dramatic changes in our collective storyline.

Perhaps now is the time to plot a bold new course in education reform rather than continue the cautious and unsuccessful path we have been on for so long. Maybe this is our opportunity to muster the political courage and resolve to finally tackle this national tragedy head on and with all of the resources at our disposal. For the sake of our children and our country’s future.

In his insightful 2008 article in the Atlantic, Nicolas Carr asks, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” He goes on to explore how new technology has altered our reading habits and, more unsettlingly, how we process information and think. It is a cerebral piece that meets the high intellectual standards we expect of that august magazine.

I, however, would like to bring his lofty discussion of the impact of new technology on our lives down to the muckier level of human dysfunction. I would suggest that not only is the latest technology making us stupider, but it is also making us just plain idiots!

Of course, we have been prone to idiocy throughout history, long before the latest technological advancements. Whether a mild act of embarrassing idiocy, such as putting one’s foot in one’s mouth with an untoward comment, or an act of career-ending idiocy, such as bad mouthing the boss around the water cooler, idiots abounded, but the “blast area” was limited by the still unsophisticated means of communicating the idiocy to the world.

There also used to be time to avoid acts of idiocy. For example, while writing that angry and insult-laden letter to the girl who just rejected you, putting it into an envelope, addressing it, placing it in the mailbox, and waiting for the mail carrier to arrive, you had ample time to reconsider the suitability of that particular course of action. Due to the slowness of communication in those primitive days, we had the opportunity to, for example, calm down, reflect on our situation, consider the consequences, change our minds, prevent impulsive behavior, and avoid embarrassment, disgrace, or criminal charges.

Technology has made it easier to be idiots because it discourages thinking and deliberation, and promotes acting on our most base impulses, emotions, and needs, for example, anger, sadness, lust, or need for approval. We can be idiots more quickly, be caught in our idiotic acts more easily, and be more publicly humiliated before a far broader audience than ever before. Returning to my rejection example, that entire process of rejection (by a text message perhaps) and reaction can now occur in a matter of seconds and with fewer than 140 characters. Being an idiot has never been more efficient.

My first awareness of when technology could help us be idiots was the Seinfeld episode (season 3, episode 4) in which George (as archetypical an idiot as has ever existed) left an angry rant on his girlfriend’s answering machine while she was away on a trip and the show was devoted to the idiotic lengths to which he went to prevent her from hearing the message. George being George, his first act of idiocy led to a veritable cascade of further idiocy and self-immolation.

There have been plenty of old-technology acts of idiocy such as former President Bush’s, “He’s a Major League a@#hole” remark. The actor Alec Baldwin definitely lost out on father-of-the-year honors when a verbally abusive voicemail left for his daughter was made public.

But these example was from the primitive days before Life 2.0. With the emergence of the Web, email, mobile phones with cameras, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, gossip web sites, and online sleuths, we have newer, faster, and more creative ways to be idiots, plus we now leave digital fingerprints all over our acts of idiocy. And there is an entire army of technophiles ready, willing, and able to immortalize our idiocy for all the world to see.

Let’s consider some well-known acts of high-tech idiocy in recent years. There was the supermodel Kate Moss caught on camera snorting cocaine and, in a similar vein, the Olympic swimming champion Michael Phelps photographed taking a bong hit with a camera phone. How about the South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford leaving a stream of emails poignantly memorializing his love affair with his Argentine “soul mate.” And there’s former Senator George Allen’s “macaca” and Congressman Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” moments immortalized on YouTube. Of course, no list of acts of idiocy would be complete without Tiger Woods’s digital trail of serial infidelity. What do each of these examples of idiotic acts in this high-tech era have in common? Opportunity, ease, speed, reach, and irreversibility. Welcome to the new age of idiocy.

I know I’ve left many worthy candidates off my list, so feel free to add your own.

In my recent post, Race to the Top?: Part I, I described the academic achievement rat race in which students near the top of the educational food chain strive maniacally to win (or at least finish). I argued that the emphasis on testing by former President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law (NCLB) and continued with President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative (RTTT) has only exacerbated the problem better characterized by the title of the powerful new documentary by Vicki Abeles, Race to Nowhere. This post, in contract, explores how RTTT impacts those students and schools at the other end of the educational food chain, those who are just trying to survive in the turbulent sea of American public education.

The first mistake that this administration made was to call education reform a race. Races connote winners and losers. Yet, we need to ensure that all our students and schools are winners. I think a more appropriate name for this initiative is Climb to the Top because the focus should be on how to get to the top.

The administration’s second mistake was to continue Bush’s initial mistake of focusing on testing; instead of being a tool for education reform, testing has morphed into the end-all, be-all of said reform. Yes, assessment is essential for determining the effectiveness of programs such as RTTT aimed at achieving something as ethereal and elusive as education reform or the more tangible goal of closing the education and economic gaps between the haves and have-nots. At the same time, improved test scores should not be the ultimate objective of education reform.

This notion that test results are the essential goal of education reform has created an environment in which teachers must “teach to the test;” students aren’t really educated so much as prepared to pass tests so schools and states can get federal funding. School administrators hate teaching to the test because schools become fact factories instead of houses of learning. Teachers hate it because they are forced into a very small curricular box and are not allowed to do what they love to do, namely, educate young people. And students hate it because rote memorization of facts is neither interesting nor motivating, and they don’t get a real education. Perhaps the saddest aspect of NCLB is that it HASN’T WORKED! In the eight plus years in which NCLB has been in place, there have been few appreciable or lasting gains in test scores for which NCLB can take credit. What it has overwhelmingly succeeded at is driving schools and states to game the system (i.e., lower standards, cherry pick data) to keep the federal-funding spigot flowing. RTTT changes some parameters, but the same philosophy and methodology persist. When we continue down this road, we are validating the well-known Law of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

A third mistake our government has made is to allow improving test scores to supersede actually educating our children. For example, in a recent New Yorker article profiling the new U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, the Department of Education mandates that states must fulfill “four assurances” to receive federal stimulus money: “progress in raising standards, in recruiting and retaining effective teachers, in tracking students’ and teachers’ performance, and in turning around failing schools.” Only one, the recruitment and retention of effective teachers, is a goal that directly impacts the quality of education. The first and last are simply amorphous outcomes that will hopefully result from reform. And the third goal is simply a measurement procedure that may or may not be useful in assessing the effectiveness of the reform. Though these criteria may be useful, they are far afield of what of takes to truly improve the quality of education that our children receive in public schools. These “assurances” also obscure the real steps that must be taken to catalyze significant education reform and gloss over the meaningful results of actually educating our children.

What I find so maddening about RTTT is the absence of any discussion of meaningful process or outcome goals. Tests results aren’t an outcome, they are a measure of outcome. What should the real outcome goals be? To answer that question, we need to gaze into the future with our crystal balls and figure out what knowledge and skill sets young people will need to play a vital role in our country’s future. Obviously, they must have the basics, the 3 Rs. But those basics will only get our next generation so far in a world that grows increasingly complex by the year. Today’s young people need be capable of thinking critically, being creative, consistent effort, patience and perseverance, performing under pressure, and working effectively as a group, among others. And, just as importantly, our education system must produce well-informed citizens capable of participating actively in our democracy.

With those clear outcome goals in place, it’s now possible to create a set of process goals to achieve those outcome goals. Here’s a few for starters: build family, community, and school cultures in which interest in learning and educational aspirations are the norm; create home and school environments that support and encourage learning; instill a love of and motivation to learn; meet the individual needs of students; and teach good life skills and study habits.

With those process goals identified, we can develop a set of procedures to achieve the process goals which will then fulfill the outcome goals. There is actually good evidence for what some of those procedures are. One of the most robust findings, not surprisingly, is competent teachers. Small class sizes give those capable teachers the chance to really connect with and impact their students. Though I haven’t seen any data on this, I would also assume that a safe school environment is essential to learning. And perhaps the most important, and daunting, contributor is an early home environment that provides positive role models, rich verbal interaction, consistent exposure to reading, and opportunities to learn essential life skills such as goal setting, self-discipline, and time management, all of which will serve young people well as they progress through school.

Arne Duncan has a very big carrot, about seventy billion dollars, with which to motivate states, schools, educators, parents, and students to reform our public-education system. But incentive without the means to harness that motivation is akin to wanting to drive somewhere, but not having a map or even a destination. And RTTT offers neither.

Secretary Duncan would be wise to read a recent commentary in the New York Times by Susan Engel. In the piece, Dr. Engel advocates an overhaul of the educational curriculum itself that is based on our scientific understanding of child development and effective teaching practices. The focus should be on what and how children learn, not on what and how they can pass a test. As she suggests, we need to develop “a curriculum designed to raise children rather than test scores.”

Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent over many decades in the name of education reform with nothing appreciable to show for it. Remember the Law of Insanity? Secretary Duncan has an historic opportunity to spearhead real education reform. So, yes, spend the money, but, far more importantly, give educators what they need so we will finally get the real results for which we have been waiting for so long: educated children capable of working toward and achieving the American Dream.

Race to the Top is the name given to President Obama’s education-reform program that is supposed to change the education system in America. But what it should be called is Race to Nowhere, which happens to be the name of a powerful new documentary by Vicki Abeles that explores, as the film’s subtitle states, the dark side of America’s achievement culture.

I saw Race to Nowhere last week with my wife and was blown away by its message. As the father of two young girls, it scared the heck out of me what lies ahead for them. And as the author of two parenting books with similar messages as the film, it was a real reminder of the very human and societal costs of our current education system. Through interviews with students, parents, teachers, and other educators, and bookended by a story about a 13-year-old girl who committed suicide after failing a math test, we see the price that so many young people are paying for trying to hang onto the runaway train of academic overachievement.

The pressure young people are under to achieve that elusive notion of success has become, for many, a crippling weight on their shoulders and the price tag is high. Race to Nowhere presents some compelling arguments against the emphasis on test scores that increased exponentially with the passage of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (it should be called the Almost Every Child Left Behind Act, given its abysmal record in raising test scores or graduation rates, much less actually educating children). Students now focus on memorizing facts (and then forget them shortly after), find learning to be aversive rather than inspiring, and see no problem with cheating to get ahead (in the 1940s, 20% of students admitted to cheating in high school; today, well over 75% make the same admission).

The physical and psychological toll is heavy as well. Students rate academic stress as their greatest source of stress, exceeding family problems and bullying. Rates of stress-related illness, depression, anxiety, and burnout are on the rise. Academic-performance-enhancing drugs, such as the ADHD drug Adderall to enhance energy and focus and beta blockers to reduce anxiety, are SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) on high-school and college campuses. And teenage suicide rates, particularly among teenage girls, have increased dramatically in recent years.

What is this culture of faux achievement like? Let’s look at more statistics from the film. More than 70% of young people don’t get the recommended amount of sleep for their stage of development (and sleep is essential for healthy brain development). Children have lost 12 hours of free time each week while homework time has increased by 50%. Homework is now given as early as first grade and reaches its apogee in high school where students now spend up to seven hours a night on homework, despite evidence demonstrating that it has no value up to 5^th grade and loses its value if greater than one hour for middle-school students and two hours for high-school students. And talk about being unprepared; 40% of students require remedial classes when they get to college.

The numbers are truly frightening, but the interviews of students, parents, and teachers in Race to Nowhere really hit home. The frustration among teachers, the sadness among students, and the fear and pain felt by parents bring the cold, hard data to life. No parent can leave the film without a profound feeling of disgust at our education system, a mama or papa bear’s instinct to protect  their cubs, a determination to catalyze a transformation, and, sadly, a feeling of futility about changing such an inertial system.

How did this pressure-cooker of an achievement culture (and, by the way, it can be found in sports and the arts as well as in school) develop? There are many culprits, some legitimate and others manufactured and dishonest. The economic instability and uncertainty that has increased in recent years has created genuine fear among parents for their children’s future. This fear drives parents to push their children relentlessly to ensure that they get ahead in school. Popular culture, and the aspirational dreams it has spawned, has redefined the meaning of success upward in terms of wealth, status, and materialism, so that being merely competent at one’s job and comfortable in one’s lifestyle is akin to failure; everything must be bigger and better and more, more, more. The availability and demand for a college education, particularly in the “best” schools (read Ivy League or its equivalent), have far outpaced supply, so competition is greater than ever (I attended Middlebury College back in the day, but I probably couldn’t get accepted now with my GPA and SAT scores). The child-development, tutoring, and testing industries are an almost $10 billion scam that feeds on the fears of parents that their children will be left behind.

The ramifications for the students themselves extend beyond the current physical and psychological toll; there may very well be a price they pay in their futures. For example, such a mind- and body-numbing educational experience will suck any joy of learning they may have right out of them. The current emphasis on rote memorization will sap their internal motivation to learn. As highlighted in Race to Nowhere, today’s students may lack the critical thinking, creativity, and focus necessary to survive, much less thrive, as they enter higher education and the working world.

The toll on our country may be equally dramatic. Are we leaving this generation’s young people ill prepared to assume the mantle of leadership? Will they have the knowledge and tools necessary to continue America’s arc as the frontrunner in innovation and progress? The low rankings currently held by our students compared to other countries on international achievement tests don’t bode well for their or our future.

Is there hope? I’m not optimistic that effective federal or even state education reform will ever happen given the political hot potato that it is. But there appears to be a smidgen of hope at other points in the educational food chain. Colleges and universities, one of the big culprits of this academic arms race, have the power to ratchet down the pressure and some appear to be getting the message. A growing number of prominent schools are not accepting AP courses or are making SAT scores optional. Some high schools are following this lead by abolishing AP classes from their curricula (with, by the way, no damage to college acceptances).

So what can you do to provoke educational reform in your schools? Be active in your school’s parent association. Show the school administration the latest research findings. Join your local school board. Be a squeaky wheel in your children’s schools. Be willing to buck the system. Make the need for change urgent and immediate; you don’t want your kids to miss out!

Lastly, and at the bottom of the educational food chain, the only educational reform you have total control over is that of your own family. You should give serious thought to how you want your children to be educated and then explore school options that are consistent with your educational philosophy. Whether public, charter, private, or home schools, you have choices in where your children go to school. As Vicki Abeles demonstrated in Race to Nowhere, you have the power to step off that runaway train.