Encouraging Educator Courage

“Abject capitulation to unconscionable dictates from incompetent 

or insecure superiors can be contagious.”

 ---  Jonathan Kozol 

This from Alfie Kohn in Education Week:

Education research doesn’t always get the respect it deserves, but let’s be honest: There’s already enough of it to help us decide what to do (or stop doing) on many critical issues. Likewise, there are plenty of examples of outstanding classrooms and schools in which that research is being put into practice. What’s lacking is sufficient courage for those examples to be widely followed.

It pains me to say this, but professionals in our field often seem content to work within the constraints of traditional policies and accepted assumptions—even when they don’t make sense. Conversely, too many educators seem to have lost their capacity to be outraged by outrageous things. Handed foolish and destructive mandates, they respond only by requesting guidance on how to implement them.

The Cowardly Lion was able to admit that he lacked what made the muskrat guard his musk. Cowardly humans are more likely just to change the subject. Propose something that makes a meaningful difference, and you’ll hear, “But we’ve always ...,” “But the parents will never ...,” “But we can’t be the only school in the area to ...”

What, then, do truly courageous educators do? They dig deeper, they take responsibility, and they share power.

Digging deeper. It requires gumption to follow one’s principles wherever they lead. One may hope, for example, that children will be lifelong learners. But what if evidence and experience tell us that interest in learning declines when students are graded and made to work on academic assignments at home? Are we willing to question any traditional practices—including grades and homework—that interfere with important goals?

Advanced Placement courses often just accelerate the worst kind of lecture-based, textbook-oriented instruction. They’re “rigorous,” but that doesn’t mean they’re good. When it was reported that Scarsdale High School in New York joined other schools in deciding to drop all AP courses, an administrator at a nearby school circulated the article to his colleagues under the heading “Do we have the guts?”

To dig deeper is to ask the root questions: not how many AP courses kids should take, but whether to replace the College Board’s curriculum with our own; not how much homework to assign, but why kids should have to work a second shift every evening; not how to grade, but whether to do so at all.

Even when practices seem to be producing good results, a courageous educator questions the criteria: “Wait a minute—we say this policy ‘works,’ but doesn’t that just mean it raises scores on bad tests?” “My classroom may be quiet and orderly, but am I promoting intellectual and moral development, or merely compliance?” “Aren’t our graduates getting into prestigious colleges mostly because they’re from affluent families? Are we helping them become deep and passionate thinkers?”

Taking responsibility. The path of least resistance is to attribute problems to those who have less power than you. It’s much harder to respond the way a San Diego teacher did (when she wrote several years ago in these pages): “If a child starts to act up, I ask myself: ‘How have I failed this child? What is it about this lesson that is leaving her outside the learning? How can I adapt my plan to engage this child?’ I stopped blaming my children.”

We have to be willing to fight for what’s right even in the face of concerted opposition. Maureen Downey, a reporter for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, wrote several years ago about how tough that can be in a culture where those “who speak up when they believe their students’ welfare is at stake, and who question the system, earn the label of troublemaker.” Lots of principals, she added, are “too cowed to practice ‘creative insubordination.’ ”

Parting with power. It takes guts, not just talent, for a teacher to lead students beyond a predictable search for right answers—and to let them play an active role in the quest for meaning that replaces it. That entails not only accepting some unpredictability and messiness but also giving up some control.

A teacher in Washington state was proud of herself for having posted this sign at the front of her classroom: “Think for yourself; the teacher might be wrong!” But gradually she realized that her classroom wasn’t really learner-centered. “I wanted [students] to think for themselves,” she confessed in a journal article, “but only so long as their thinking didn’t slow down my predetermined lesson plan or get in the way of my teacher-led activity or argue against my classroom policies.” It takes courage to admit one hasn’t gone as far as one thought.

I’ve met teachers who took a deep breath and let kids choose their own final grades, who tried out a no-homework policy to see what would happen, who stopped decorating the classroom by themselves and instead invited the kids to decide collectively how they wanted their classroom to look.

I’ve also met administrators who facilitated democratic decisionmaking among the staff instead of merely trying to get “buy in” to decisions they’d already made, who invited teachers to run faculty meetings on a rotating basis rather than controlling all the meetings themselves, who suddenly realized that much of their airy talk about “responsibility,” “citizenship,” “character,” and “motivation” really just amounted to euphemisms for obedience.

"Too many educators seem to have lost their capacity to be outraged by outrageous things."

 

These days, the greatest barrier to meaningful learning is the standards-and-testing juggernaut—top-down, corporate-style mandates that are squeezing the life out of classrooms. This, therefore, is where courage may be needed most desperately. I’m heartened by teachers—most recently in Seattle, but before them in Colorado, Massachusetts, and Illinois—who have refused on principle to administer standardized tests. (“How can I teach my kids to stand up for what they believe in if I’m not doing that myself?” asked one Chicago test boycotter.) And by the Michigan high school teachers who rejected the reductive focus on numerical “data” in the standard version of “professional learning communities” in favor of a teacher-designed initiative to focus on what students need. And by hundreds of Florida teachers who returned their bonus checks for having produced high test scores. And by the New York superintendent who told me “it’s time for civil disobedience”—and then worked to create an alternative diploma that wouldn’t be based on high-stakes tests.

I understand how real fear keeps more of us from doing what we know should be done. I don’t want to blame the victims, or minimize the culpability of those who pass bad laws. But if every educator who understood the damage done by those policies decided to speak out, to organize, to resist, then the policies would soon collapse of their own weight. Many teachers and administrators debate whether to do so, or struggle with whether to respond to students’ interests rather than conform to prescriptive state (or national) standards. They know the risks, but they also realize that Jonathan Kozol was right: “Abject capitulation to unconscionable dictates from incompetent or insecure superiors can be contagious.”

It takes courage to stand up to absurdity when all around you people remain comfortably seated. But if we need one more reason to do the right thing, consider this: The kids are watching us, deciding how to live their lives in part by how we’ve chosen to live ours.

Linn and Everson on Testing, Standards and Accountability

 "The quick and widespread adoption of multiple-choice testing 

was in hindsight a big mistake for this country, 

 but—now — states will tell you it is all they can afford."

--- Howard Everson

This from Top Performers:

Bob Linn is often described as the dean of American testing experts.  Howard Everson, long the Vice-President for Research at the College Board, is one of the nation's top psychometricians.  Marc Tucker asked the two of them to draw on their nearly half century of experience in this field to reflect on the current state of testing in the light of the recent emphasis on student performance standards and the growing strength of the accountability movement.

Marc Tucker: Over the last 15 years, each of you in succession has chaired the New York State Technical Advisory Committee, responsible for advising the state on testing issues.  New York State has, since the Civil War been home to the Regents Exams, an essay-based examination system originally designed for courses taken by elite students.  More recently, New York State has also been home to a more conventional multiple-choice system of accountability testing.  Both have been evolving.  Have they been sitting comfortably side by side?

Howard Everson: The TAC had been raising questions about the reliability of the scores from the Regents for a long time, but New York State officials did not really focus on those issues until the accountability movement placed much higher stakes on the results.  These issues were exacerbated in the case of the Regents by the fact that the teachers, not the state, had control of the content and scoring of the exams.   At the same time, the Regents were concerned that the multiple choice tests were not rigorous enough, not measuring the higher cognitive demands associated with college readiness or the Common Core State Standards.

Bob Linn: It has always been my view that there are just some things you can't do with multiple-choice test items.  Having kids construct their own answers has important advantages.  But there can be reliability and comparability issues when teachers score them.  I should note, though, that the College Board, to its credit, has worked hard, and I think successfully, to increase reliability in its Advanced Placement program by training the scorers properly.  That shows that it is possible to have a reliable course-based system of assessment with human beings scoring the exams.

MT: So how do the two of you think about reliability and validity now, in the light of this history and the current demands on testing?

HE: I would add to the tradeoffs among validity, reliability and cost, the stakes that get attached to the tests.  When Bob and I were on the TAC in the early 1990s, the stakes were shifting and changing and they are continuing to do so.  As the stakes rose, we were pushed to emphasize reliability more, validity less.

MT: Do these high stakes push you towards multiple-choice?

HE: Yes. It is not just the technology of the testing itself that changes over time; the most important change has been in the way tests are used here in the United States.

MT: If we look globally at the kinds of assessments used by top-performing countries, we see testing systems based largely on curriculum that are similar in design to the Regents and the College Board Advanced Placement tests—heavily essay-based with some multiple-choice items, but mostly essay.  Those countries are doing very well.  In their systems, there is not much test-based accountability for teachers but there is a great deal of test-based accountability for students.  Their exams probably don't meet some of the psychometric standards for reliability we have in the United States. Where does that leave the two of you on where we should be going as a country?

HE: There has been a lot of litigation on testing in the United States and I think it has forced us to emphasize test score reliability over validity.

BL: One big difference between the United States and other countries is the prestige and trust in teachers, which is very low in this country and tends to be quite high in the top performers.  This has led to the development of accountability systems that use external measures to see if schools and individual teachers are doing a good job. This has morphed into the next level: evaluating individual teachers.  Unless we can find a way to increase the prestige of teachers and public confidence in them, it will be hard to move too far away from using testing for these purposes.

MT: If we were to rely less on tests for reliability purposes, do you think we would be able to develop tests that will do a better job of measuring the kind of higher order thinking skills that lie at the heart of the Common Core State Standards.  

BL: Yes. I think that is true.

MT: What is your advice on the right balance between validity and reliability, especially if we want to embrace the goals implicit in the Common Core?

HE: I think the importance of reliability has been overblown.

BL: I agree it is less important than comparability and validity and fairness.  It would be highly desirable to go where the two state testing consortia want to go. They want to include, in addition to multiple-choice items, items where kids are required to do things, solve problems and show how they come up with solutions to the problems they are given.  But the realities of timing and cost are pushing them in a direction that will likely force them to come up short.

MT: Is this country getting ready to make a profound mistake?  We use grade-by-grade testing in grades 3-8 but no other country is doing it this way for accountability; instead they test 2 or 3 times in a students' career.  If the United States did it that way, we could afford some of the best tests in the world without spending any more money.

BL: Raising the stakes for our test-based accountability systems so that there will be consequences for individual teachers will make matters even worse.  Cheating scandals will blossom.  I think this annual testing is unnecessary and is a big part of the problem.  What we should be doing is testing at two key points along the way in grades K-8, and then in high school using end-of-course tests.

HE: I am in the same place as Bob.  The multiple-choice paradigm first used in WWI and eventually used to satisfy the NCLB requirements has proven to be quite brittle, especially when applied in every grade 3-8 and used to make growth assumptions.  The quick and widespread adoption of multiple-choice testing was in hindsight a big mistake for this country, but—now — states will tell you it is all they can afford.

Welcome to CharterLand!

This from the National Opportunity to Learn Campaign:

Many policymakers like to herald charter schools as the cure-all solution to a struggling public education system. But even if you wanted to attend one, a charter might not want you. Based on research from Dr. Kevin Welner at the National Education Policy Center, this new infographic from the OTL Campaign illustrates the obstacles and pitfalls some charters set up to weed out or push out struggling students and those who need additional supports. While some charters do well by their students, even in the best possible scenario charter schools aren't a systemic solution to providing an opportunity to learn for all students.

Ensuring every student has access to a quality education shouldn't be a game, so is "CharterLand" really the best way forward for America?

“Good schools shouldn’t weed out kids. They should teach everyone.” That’s the bottom line of the new CharterLand infographic from the Opportunity to Learn Campaign of the Schott Foundation.

Inspired by the venerable children’s game “Candy Land,” the infographic asks players to work their way past Hoop ‘n’ Hurdle Hills, Marketing Meadows, and Push-out Path, illustrating the various ways that charter schools can shape their student enrollment. This shaping is done though a dozen different practices that often decrease the likelihood of students enrolling with a disfavored set of characteristics, such as students with special needs, those with low test scores, English learners, or students in poverty.

The game is based on the article, “The Dirty Dozen: How Charter Schools Influence Student Enrollment,” written by Kevin Welner, Professor of education policy at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education and director of the National Education Policy Center.

Welner’s article, published in the journal Teachers College Record, identifies 12 different approaches, using lighthearted category names such as “The Bum Steer,” “Location, Location, Location,” and “Mad Men.” The new CharterLand infographic continues in that lighthearted vein, but the subject itself is of crucial importance, since it raises vital equity issues.

Researchers and governmental authorities have long known that, while many individual charter schools are both equitable and excellent, charters generally under-serve a community’s at-risk students. The new infographic and Welner’s article both build on this research to identify the charter school practices that result in those enrollment outcomes.

When charter schools fail to serve a cross-section of their community, they undermine their own potential and they distort the larger system of public education. “It doesn’t have to be this way,” says Welner. “The task for policymakers is to redesign charter school policies in ways that provide choice without undermining other important policy goals. For instance, being innovative doesn’t require being selective or restrictive in enrollments.”

Kentucky's new science standards come with controversy

Science Supporters Urged to Gear Up for Legislative Session 

to not be "drowned out by a smaller, but louder, anti-science crowd"

This from WDRB:

As early as next month, the state's school districts could begin training teachers on a new set of controversial science standards that supporters argue will better prepare students for college, but that opponents claim will place undo emphasis on climate change and evolution.

The Next Generation Science Standards, adopted by the Kentucky Board of Education this summer, could be implemented in the 2014-2015 school year.
WDRB 41 Louisville News
But they're could be a legislative road block waiting in the wings. After a legislative panel rejected the new standards this week, Gov. Steve Beshear asserted his executive authority -- claiming he will implement them anyway.

That has led to talk that lawmakers could create some legislation when they return in January as part of an effort to end that plan.

"They've been controversial for both sides," said Martin Cothran with the Family Foundation, a conservative lobbying group opposed to the Next Generation Science Standards.
"We are opposed to the implementation of them because they spend an inordinate amount of time some theoretical issues on climate science and evolution at the expense of basic science," Cothran said.

Dr. Robert Bivens, President of Kentuckians for Science Education, spoke to WDRB News by video call from Lexington -- and says the standards are meant to better prepare students for college.
"A lot of people have said that physics or chemistry aren't actually in these standards, that's simply not true. All you have to do is Google new science standards -- and you will find that it is all there," Bivens said.

Jefferson County Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Donna Hargens, who represents the state's largest school district, released a written statement in support of the move.

It reads: "Jefferson County Board of Education and Jefferson County Public Schools support the full implementation of the Kentucky Core Academic Standards, including those in science. These rigorous standards will help ensure our students graduate prepared for college or career and are able to compete in a global marketplace. We believe in setting high expectations for all students and know these standards support that goal

Bivens claims the new science standards are intended to better prepare students.

"We're not trying to make believers , we are not trying to convert people. If you don't understand evolution, you don't necessarily understand why you need to take antibiotics. Understanding evolution is vital to modern medicine," Bivens said.

Cothran claims Gov. Beshear "ignored the process" of public input through his use of his executive authority to implement the new science standards. Cothran claims he plans to have talks with lawmakers to come up with legislation to block the implementation. Lawmakers return to Frankfort in January.

This from WFPL:

Listen (and Learn) More About Kentucky's New Science Standards: 

The Why and How

Kentucky is moving forward with new science standards following a controversial week of rejection and then embrace as Gov. Steve Beshear announced he would use his powers to override any legislative committee's decision to block implementation.

The Next Generation Science Standards were developed an an independent consortium of 26 states including Kentucky and are meant to update the state's current science standards that haven't been touched in over a decade.

Among the controversy is whether the standards overstep their reach by including more lessons on climate change and evolution. Some also argue that the standards are inferior to the state's current standards.
But educators and the science community overwhelmingly support the standards.

WFPL spoke with Dr. Tom Tretter who is a faculty member in Science Education at the University of Louisville and director of Gheens Science Hall and Rauch Planetarium. Tretter was also part of higher education team that Kentucky used to evaluate drafts of the standards during their creation.

Listen to the following answers he gave to some questions that have been brought up over the past couple weeks.

Did Kentucky take the Next Generation Science Standards--once developed through the consortium--back to the state and then consider changes to those standards specific to Kentucky?

Listen 0:37

Are the new science standards similar to the common core standards in math and English language arts that were adopted and implemented in Kentucky last year and how are they improved over Kentucky's current standards?

Listen 1:37

Are there fewer standards, but taught more in-depth similar to the common core standards?  

Listen 0:36

We've heard local districts will have control over their curriculum and how to teach the standards. What does this mean and how is curriculum different from standards?

Listen 1:01

Will this allow districts and schools to teach things like evolution and climate change the way they want, which may not include what science seems to suggest?

Listen 1:07

What if you live in a community where lawmakers, teachers, the school board reject elements of the new standards. Will it be easy enough to reject the standards in the classroom?

Listen 1:13

This from the Daily Independent:

Issue is science

Beshear imposes standards that legislators had rejected

Within hours after members of the Kentucky General Assembly’s Administrative Regulations Review Subcommittee voted 5-1 to send the Next Generation Science Standards back to the state Department of Education for revamping, Gov. Steve Beshear issued an executive order imposing the standards, something the governor has the power and right to do.

Legislators on the subcommittee based their rejection of the standards on a combination of religious beliefs, biblical teachings and politics with perhaps a dash of real science thrown in for good measure. Unlike legislators on the subcommittee, Steve Beshear is in his second and final term as governor and may have run for his last political office. Thus, he does not have to worry about earning the wrath of the voters and could base his decision on what is clearly best for public education in Kentucky. While we are certain that many in this state will disagree, the governor made the right decision.

Beshear spokesman Terry Sebastian said in a statement that the governor was disappointed by the subcommittee’s vote.

“The governor views these standards as a critical component in preparing Kentuckians for college and the workforce,” Sebastian said. “Therefore, as provided by law, he will implement the regulations notwithstanding the finding of deficiency.”

Robert Bevins, president of Kentuckians for Science Education, said opposition to the standards is “a major embarrassment” for Kentucky, a state that he said is already considered “an ignorant backwater.”

“Know that we will be a laughingstock,” Bevins told lawmakers. “We will be the Flintstone state.”

Supporters believe the new standards will allow Kentucky students to keep pace with peers in other states as they prepare for college and careers. Critics complained that the standards go too far in stressing the teaching of evolution and climate change.

The debate has been heated at times in Kentucky. Subcommittee co-chairman Johnny Bell, a Democrat from Glasgow, clamped down on verbal jousting in Wednesday’s meeting, sternly threatening to have people removed for outbursts.

“We’re not going to debate this,” Bell said. “If we do, we’re going to end up in fisticuffs, and I don’t have a gun or knife or anything.”

The proposed standards were developed by a consortium of 26 states with input from scientists and education experts from the nation’s top universities and have already been implemented elsewhere. The Kentucky Board of Education adopted them in June.

Education Commissioner Terry Holliday said Kentucky’s existing science standards are “woefully inadequate” and he said the subcommittee vote was political. “I pretty well predicted this,” he said.

The debate over evolution dates back to before the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 in which the defendant was accused of violating state law in Tennessee by teaching evolution. Eighty-eight years later politicians in Kentucky are debating whether Kentucky schools should be forced to talk about evolution. That doesn’t sound like much progress.

The other issue that drew the wrath of opponents concerned whether science classes should be required to teach about climate change. There is abundant evidence that overall temperatures are getting warmer, albeit  less so in the most recent years. The real debate is over what is causing climate change, not that it is happening. Possible causes should be discussed in high school science classes.

Science education in Kentucky’s public schools has not changed much over the years. That means that little classroom time will be devoted to either evolution or climate change. School children are not going to be brainwashed into believing one theory or another. They are simply going to be informed, and providing accurate information is what pubic schools should be doing.

The standards now could be referred to the Joint Education Committee for further consideration. However, if that committee were to find them deficient, Beshear could again override.

Thus, all this debate is much ado about nothing, but it does show us that not that much has changed in Kentucky since days when three-time Democratic presidential nominee William Jenning Bryan and famed attorney Clarence Darrow stood in a Cleveland, Tenn., courtroom and argued about evolution.

This from the Courier-Journal:

If ignorance is bliss, some members of the Kentucky General Assembly should be very happy.

Because that’s essentially what a handful of legislators voted for last week when their committee on a 5-1 vote rejected new science standards designed to provide Kentucky students with a more rigorous, fact-based science education to prepare them for colleges and careers.

Known as the Next Generation Science Standards, and developed by national scientists and educators, they are a framework for individual school districts to use to develop local curriculum meant to get students excited about science, help them understand the theories behind the facts and rekindle the joy extinguished through rote memorization.
They are part of a voluntary, national trend among states to adopt more rigorous, basic academic standards for public education, including the Common Core standards Kentucky was the first state to adopt.

Fortunately for Kentucky public school students, Gov. Steve Beshear announced he plans to order the science standards enacted anyway through executive action.

Lawmakers voting against them — fully aware he could override their vote — took the easy path rather than face anger back home from a weird coalition of tea-party types, religious groups and the coal industry. Sen. Perry Clark, a Louisville Democrat, was the only committee member to vote in favor of the standards.

While opponents offer a variety of objections, they are fixated on two things: Evolution and climate change.

Critics are riled up because the standards call for study of evolution, the science-based theory that human life developed from a common ancestor and has evolved over time, without including the Biblical-based belief of creationism that God created the world in seven days.

They also are unhappy that by referencing climate change, the standards threaten another sacred subject in Kentucky — coal, which when burned in power plants, produces emissions linked to climate change.

In an astonishingly candid comment, state Sen. Sara Beth Gregory, an Eastern Kentucky Republican, said she voted no because of coal.

“In a state where many people are dependent on coal to put food on the table and keep the lights on, it’s a very sensitive issue,” Ms. Gregory said.

Sensitive? A lot of scientific material might be considered “sensitive” — human reproduction, for example — but that doesn’t mean students shouldn’t learn about it in biology class.

Sen. Joe Bowen, an Owensboro Republican, also voted no, cited, citing a “groundswell of dissent.” He offered this convoluted view of his duty:

“Our responsibility as legislators is to determine good public policy,” he said. “Good public policy is what the people of this Commonwealth want.”

Rep. Johnny Bell, a Glasgow Democrat and chairman of the committee, also voted no. He said afterward he had some misgivings about his vote but had been inundated by calls from his Southern Kentucky district from opponents citing the evolution issue.

Yet the citizen “groundswell” and phone campaigns may not reflect the true feelings of Kentuckians.

The Kentucky Department of Education said that prior to the meeting, it received more than 4,000 oral or written comments on the standards, with 3,700 of them in favor of them. This information was not discussed at last week’s meeting.

A handful of supporters showed up at the meeting and, speaking for them, Robert Bevins, president of Kentuckians for Science Education, made a compelling argument for the science standards. Supporters expressed surprise afterward that the committee speedily rejected them.

“I didn’t think this was debatable any more than gravity is debatable,” said Michael Mansfield, a United Methodist minister who has a degree in science from the University of Kentucky.

Supporters of science standards must keep up the fight. It’s over for now, but the General Assembly, when it meets in January, could overrule Gov. Beshear’s decision to enact the standards if lawmakers so choose.

That would be a very bad choice. But it wouldn’t be the legislature’s first bad decision and science standards supporters need to stay organized and make sure they aren’t drowned out by a smaller, but louder, anti-science crowd.

Liberal Arts Majors That Pay You Back: PayScale Data

This from the Huffington Post:

A new report on the salary potential of colleges and majors from PayScale makes one thing pretty clear: an engineering student can expect to make a lot more than than someone studying creative writing.

Eight of the top 10 majors with the highest earning potential are engineering fields, according to PayScale, the other two rounding out the top being computer science and physics. A liberal arts major doesn't show up until "Government" lands at No. 14. The next liberal arts field comes in at 28 with "International Relations."

In case you're wondering about many of your favorite HuffPost scribes, "Broadcast Journalism" lands at No. 69, followed by "Journalism" at 72, coming in just ahead of zoology and geography.
PayScale's salary report is based on surveys collected from approximately 1.4 million employees. All jobs are included, not just those specific to the major, PayScale said, but advanced degrees are not considered.

Most liberal arts majors are likely used to being told they aren't going to make as much as their counterparts in the science and business colleges of their universities, though many would counter they chose their field because they found it more fulfilling.

Considering the top of PayScale's data was so heavily packed with technical fields, we decided to break out the liberal arts majors to reveal which ones have the highest earning potential.

• 1     Government

   

  Starting Median Salary: $43,200 Mid-Career Median Salary: $97,100

• 2      International Relations

  

  Starting Median Salary: $41,700 Mid-Career Median Salary: $85,700

• 3     Advertising

   

  Starting Median Salary: $40,000 Mid-Career Median Salary: $79,400

• 4     Philosophy

   

  Starting Median Salary: $39,700 Mid-Career Median Salary: $78,300

• 5     Fashion Design

   

  Starting Median Salary: $39,400 Mid-Career Median Salary: $77,100

• 6     Political Science

   

  Starting Median Salary: $41,700 Mid-Career Median Salary: $77,000

• 7     Linguistics

   

  Starting Median Salary: $39,700 Mid-Career Median Salary: $76,800

• 8     Architecture

   

  Starting Median Salary: $41,900 Mid-Career Median Salary: $75,800

• 9     Global & International Studies

   

  Starting Median Salary: $39,600 Mid-Career Median Salary: $73,200

• 10     English Literature

   

  Starting Median Salary: $40,800 Mid-Career Median Salary: $71,400

Cookie Monster Passes the Marshmallow Test

'Sesame Street' to teach ABCs of self-restraint

This from USAToday:

For 43 years, Cookie Monster has lived by one sweet, simple rule: When he wants a cookie, he gets a cookie.

Not this year.

For its new season, debuting Monday, Sesame Street aims to help its young 3- and 4-year-old viewers succeed in school — and in life — by learning a little self-restraint. The bad news: When Cookie Monster wants a cookie, he doesn't always get one. The good news? If he waits, sometimes he gets two.

Explored nearly a half-century ago in the Stanford University "marshmallow test," the research underlying the idea says that kids who develop strong "executive function" skills such as self-control, patience, grit and long-term, flexible thinking succeed in school and life.

For the experiments, Stanford psychologist Walter Mischel and his colleagues sat preschoolers at a desk with a marshmallow and a bell and told them they could eat the marshmallow anytime they wished. But if they waited 15 minutes until an adult returned, they'd get two marshmallows.

Mischel originally intended the experiment as a look into how children resist temptation. The first findings, published in 1970, also detailed the kids' coping strategies. But when researchers began tracking down the marshmallow kids in the early 1980s, they found that those who'd waited for two marshmallows at age 4 had much higher SAT scores and better academic records as teenagers.

The results, popularized recently in journalist Paul Tough's 2012 book How Children Succeed, have helped spawn a broad effort to rethink what helps children do well in school, with so-called "non-cognitive skills" taking on as big a role as kids' ability to read, write and do math.

Mischel himself consulted with Sesame Street researchers on the new season. The new approach isn't much of a departure from what the legendary show has focused on since its 1969 premiere.

"We always have been given great credit, and rightly so, for teaching the academic skills," says lead researcher Rosemarie Truglio. "But we have always focused on the social and emotional well-being of children, and sometimes we don't get credit for that because it's not as overt."

When she and her colleagues talk to teachers, Truglio notes, they say preschoolers "really need to have stronger skills in how to regulate their emotions and how they interact with others." That helps them arrive at school with the ability to focus on academics.

When she approached the show's writing staff with the idea of focusing on executive function, "I had no idea what it was," says head writer Joey Mazzarino. "But when we heard what it was, first of all, I said, 'I could use some help with that.' "

It didn't take long for Mazzarino, a father of two, to see that "delaying gratification is a big deal — it's a huge deal." Then he realized: Cookie Monster "is the poster boy for someone who needs to control himself. We thought, 'This is actually perfect for us.' "

In the new season, "Cookie," as his friends call him, struggles repeatedly to resist temptation, usually with a measure of success. "He's just going through this terrible conflict inside and how to overcome it," Mazzarino says. In one skit, a spoof of Star Wars called "Star S'mores," Cookie plays Flan Solo. His challenge: Not to eat his partner, a cookie named Chewy. after original Star Wars character Chewbacca, nicknamed "Chewy."

 Video here.

In another skit, Cookie actually undergoes a cookie-based version of the marshmallow test, appearing as a contestant on a TV game show dubbed The Waiting Game. The show's Guy Smiley Singers sing Good Things Come to Those Who Wait. Tony-award-winning composer Jason Robert Brown wrote the music. Mazzarino wrote the lyrics. He won't say how the skit ends.

To anyone who worries that delayed gratification will take the fun out of Cookie, Mazzarino says relax.

"It actually amps him up because you're just making him wait and wait," Mazzarino says. "The more he waits, the more tension he gets. He's always had that struggle, but he mostly doesn't struggle — he just eats. Nobody's ever made him wait that long."

JCPS lengthens school day to help struggling students at 18 low-performing schools

This from Toni Konz at C-J:

Starting this week, the school day will be a couple of hours longer at 18 of Jefferson County’s lowest-performing public schools — an effort to boost achievement for thousands of struggling students.

Jefferson County Public Schools will provide an extra two hours of tutoring and support on Mondays, Wednesday and Thursdays, part of a $5 million effort by the district to help students who need it the most.

 

The district has identified 5,130 students eligible for voluntary after-hours academic help at its 18 persistently low-achieving schools — Fern Creek, Shawnee, Valley, Western, Doss, Fairdale, Iroquois, Seneca, Southern and Waggener high schools and Frost, Western, Knight, Olmstead North, Myers, Stuart, Thomas Jefferson and Westport middle schools.

District officials say they will offer the same extended learning opportunities to other schools after the newest round of test scores comes out later this month.

“We want to give these students an extra opportunity to learn what they haven’t learned,” said Superintendent Donna Hargens in an interview. “By extending the day, they will be able to work directly with a teacher who can help them with lessons or assignments they are having difficulty with.”

Although the extended-day program is not mandatory, Hargens said she hopes parents and students will take full advantage. Letters have been sent to parents for students who qualify for the program, either because of a teacher’s recommendation or because of academic data that shows that are falling behind.

“These kids were selected to participate in this program because they have needs — it’s very intentional,” Hargens said. “The schools are expecting them to take advantage of this extra help. We don’t want this opportunity to pass them by.”

Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday, who has criticized JCPS’s handling of overhaul efforts at 18 low-performing schools and called on officials to make more drastic changes, said Friday he applauds the district’s effort.

Holliday said that while many of the state’s other struggling schools offer after school tutoring, none are as detailed as Jefferson County’s.

“This is the most comprehensive plan for extended day that we’ve seen, and we have great confidence that this plan — if parents and students take advantage — will have an impact on student outcomes,” he said.

Principals across the district say they are equally optimistic.

“This kind of intervention will be more direct — we’ll be able to provide specific enrichment opportunities for each student and make sure we are catering to their specific needs and not a one size fits all solution,” said Iroquois High principal Chris Perkins. “It shouldn’t look like what they learned during the day — it will be more focused, more prescriptive.”

Brent McKim, president of the Jefferson County Teachers Association, said the extended-learning program will help resolve some of teachers’ frustrations over trying to help struggling students.

“Many teachers have said they just don’t have enough time during the day for interventions and for planning quality instruction for other students,” he said. “This will give teachers time to work with struggling kids in a smaller setting, while also planning quality lessons.”

Finding the funding

The $5 million being used for the extended learning program is coming from the district’s reserve funds, a move that was overwhelmingly supported by the school board over the summer.

“If we can provide a longer school day for kids who are struggling and match them up with teachers who can best reach them and are committed to making a difference, this will be money well spent,” school board member David Jones Jr. said in an interview Friday. “This is a huge investment, and I have high hopes and expectations that this program will work.”

Hargens said the district will spend $3 million to pay approximately 200 teachers and 100 other classified staff members as part of the extended-day program at the 18 schools. That leaves approximately $2 million for other schools to use on after-school learning programs.

“We have kids who are struggling in every school and we want to be able to help as many as we can,” she said. “We are waiting for test scores to come out later this month and will determine our next steps based on the data that we receive.”

As part of the $5 million, the district will provide bus transportation back home to those who participate.

Hargens said the district will also use separate federal nutrition funds to provide a third meal for students.

“We are trying to remove the obstacles that have prevented students from participating in these kinds of programs in the past,” she said.

Dewey Hensley, chief academic officer for JCPS, said each school submitted a plan on how they will use the extended learning time in their buildings, but all schools will focus their interventions in math, as well as reading and writing across all subjects.

He said the extra learning time will also blend technology with one-on-one instruction in an attempt to “connect students with the greatest needs to the most effective teachers.”

At Iroquois, Perkins said he is hoping to target about 150 students daily.

“Our main goal is to go above and beyond what we are already doing and get our kids back on track before it’s too late,” he said.

Priscilla Najera, an Iroquois junior, said she thinks the longer school day will be beneficial.

“I think it will really help me focus on some things I’m having a hard time understanding,” she said. “This will give me more of an chance to talk to a teacher and get extra help.”

The 17-year-old said she isn’t concerned about losing time after school to socialize.

“Education is more important than going to play or whatever,” she said. “I can do that later on.”

Knight Middle School principal Faith Stroud said the extended-learning program will help many of her families who can’t afford tutoring.

“This is a free program that we will use to help our students with their academics, but also work on connecting with them outside of the normal school day,” she said.

Stroud is focusing Knight’s extended-day program on her entire sixth-grade class, using teachers to help with homework and build important skills such as accessing resources. On Thursdays, students will be encouraged to participate in academic clubs.

Of Knight’s 150 sixth-graders, 40 have committed to participating, Stroud said.

“You have to look at who your kids are and who you can have the most influence and potential with,” she said. “A lot of my older kids can’t stay after school because they are responsible for getting their younger siblings off the bus.”

District officials say they are hopeful the extended day program will have an impact not only on test scores, but on overall academic achievement.

“We are making a huge commitment to our students who need extra help,” Hargens said. “I really believe it’s going to make a difference.”

Did I Really Go to Harvard if I Got My Degree Taking Online Classes?

This from The Atlantic:

About two years ago, my classmates and I gathered in Harvard Yard to receive our graduate degrees alongside more than 7,000 of the university's newest alumni. As the procession made its way to our designated seating area, an onlooker eyed our banner with a puzzled look and asked the guy in front of me, “What in the world is the Extension School?”

My classmate’s reply: “It’s the back door into Harvard.” Ouch.

I often felt the same way – that I’d snuck into one of the world’s premier institutions for higher learning. There is little chance that my slightly-above-average undergraduate GPA and an extra-curricular résumé that only consisted of a part-time job at a music store would’ve secured a spot for me in one of Harvard’s ultra-competitive graduate schools. Yet, with no admission letter in hand and exactly zero hours spent preparing for graduate admissions tests, I became a Harvard student.

And I was not alone. The Extension School – Harvard’s degree-granting continuing education school – has a student population of more than 13,000. In fact, almost all of the Ivy League schools offer courses to “nontraditional students,” which the National Center for Education Statistics considers to be those who are older than typical college graduates, work full-time, or are financially independent and may have family dependents.

These continuing-education programs at Ivy League schools are not new creations; they’ve been around for over a century. They were established to engage the local community, further the education of university staff and their family members, and provide new skills to working adults. Their open enrollment and lower tuition rates have long made them appealing to such students. The reduced cost is in keeping with tradition. In the definitive book on HES, The Gates Unbarred, the former Dean of Harvard’s Division of Continuing Education Michael Shinagel describes the early days when courses were free to the indigent and only cost two bushels of wheat for those who could afford it.

Today, three Ivy schools--Columbia, Harvard, and University of Pennsylvania--offer undergraduate and graduate degrees that are obtained largely through evening, weekend, or online classes, making them more accessible to nontraditional students. Admission, however, is not open to anyone and an application process is required, including the familiar admission rites of essays, recommendation letters, and transcripts.

Though I was officially a Harvard student by simply registering online for classes, I was not yet a candidate for the master’s of liberal arts. To gain admission as a degree candidate to HES, the primary requirement is to complete three courses--including an incredibly difficult “gatekeeper” course--and obtain at least a B grade in each of them. Upon completion and submission of the application, I was officially a graduate-level International Relations concentrator. At about $2,000 a course, the total cost of the degree requirements--36 credit hours and thesis--cost me less than $25,000 total. (The cost of a two-year master's degree at Harvard's Kennedy School, in contrast, would have been more than $90,000.)

At HES, of the 13,000 students, only about 2,000 are admitted degree candidates, and the school confers about 600 bachelor’s and master’s degree every year. Shinagel notes that of all the students that have taken courses at HES since its inception, less than one fifth of 1 percent have graduated with degrees. As it turns out, Harvard is hard.

After earning my undergraduate degree as a traditional student, I went off to the Navy and accepted a commission to become an officer. Ten years into my career, I found myself staring at another promotion board, but not having the graduate degree that many of my peers earned in military colleges. In this regard, HES was a godsend. Twice a week for the next three years, I’d wrap up a full day of work at the naval base and make the 100-mile roundtrip to Cambridge to learn from Harvard’s professors. And when this wasn’t possible, I took the courses online for credit.

The advent of broadband Internet has changed the reach and nature of continuing education. A recent study by the Sloan Consortium found that nearly a third of all higher-education students had taken at least one class online during the 2011 fall semester alone. It also found that 62.4 percent of the colleges in the study offered degrees that could be obtained entirely online, up from 32.5 percent ten years ago.

Perhaps the most surprising finding, however, was that though online enrollment is rapidly increasing, the study surveyed chief academic officers and they report that more and more of their faculty do not accept the value and legitimacy of online education. Certainly an argument can be made about the value of classroom learning over online delivery. But there is no debating the stigma attached to allowing students to earn credits from a university without ever stepping foot on campus. This is something that has not gone unnoticed by HES, which is why it mandates in-person attendance for a certain number of courses for admission and degree-seeking students.

Today, views on online continuing education programs have been commandeered by the rise of for-profit universities. These institutions’ business, academic, and student welfare practices are increasingly being questioned. A Senate report found that though these schools received $32 billion federal student aid, their tuitions are still relatively high and they spend less of those dollars on student instruction. Graduation rates are extremely low and student loan default exceptionally high.

These perceptions of online education contribute to a narrative that says these programs are an easy way to earn to a degree. This is particularly unnerving to Ivy League institutions and an anathema to their prestige. And, unfortunately, sometimes its students walk in with guilty consciences, especially when, like me, they probably would not have gained admission in the more traditional way.

But walking through Harvard Yard on the way to debate issues with some of the best minds in the world does much to strengthen one’s sense of belonging. The miles on my car, train tickets, late nights reading countless academic journals and writing papers, and the nine months working on my thesis with a world-renowned political science professor are proof that there was no shortcut to earning my graduate degree.

All who apply themselves can walk proudly out of the gates with a prestigious diploma in hand. This is exactly what Harvard allowed me to do. The school even provided a few stalks of wheat to carry during the procession as a reminder of HES’s founding mission and as confirmation that I did indeed belong.

"Reign of Error" Reviewed: Ravitch Rises

This from Anthony Cody at Living in Dialogue:

Diane Ravitch has emerged as an iconic figure on America's political landscape. What Daniel Ellsberg was to the Vietnam War, Ravitch has become to the battle raging over public education - a truth-teller with the knowledge that comes from decades on the inside of the education "reform" movement. Her new book, Reign of Error, The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools, goes on sale Tuesday, and reveals a great deal about the nature of the epic struggle raging over the future of public education in America - and beyond.

Ravitch's previous book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, was a breakthrough. An "establishment" figure reviewed the evidence and categorically rejected the dominant reform strategies then on the ascent. What's more, Ravitch called out what she termed the "billionaire boys club" for their heavy-handed atte
mpts to privatize the public schools.

Reign of Error picks up where Death and Life left off. Over the past three years the patterns of corruption and influence have become clear, as has the evidence. Her prose is precise and accurate, and devastating. She does not mince words. The third chapter, "Who are the Corporate Reformers," provides a thumbnail portrait of the titans and their proxies. From Gates to Jeb Bush to Barack Obama, we see the web connected by the power of wealth.

Some have suggested that Ravitch applies too broad a brush in her indictment. Here is what she writes:

Some in the reform movement, believing that American education is obsolete and failing, think they are promoting a necessary but painful redesign of the nation's ailing schools. Some sincerely believe they are helping poor black and brown children escape from failing public schools. Some think they are on the side of modernization and innovation. But others see an opportunity to make money in a large, risk-free, government-funded sector or an opportunity for personal advancement and power. Some believe they are acting rationally by treating the public education sector as an investment opportunity.

Ravitch is not vilifying. She allows for good intentions as well as selfish ones. We do not need to look into the hearts of corporate reformers to determine that they are wrong for our schools. We just need to look at the results of their policies.
And that is where Reign of Error is most useful.
True to the title, the book takes on the errors that are central to the corporate reform narrative.

• While we hear that schools are failing, the truth is test scores and graduation rates have never been higher.
• Poverty is not an excuse for low achievement. It is a significant obstacle which must be dealt with.
• Using test scores to identify and get rid of "bad" teachers will do more to harm students than help them.
• Merit pay for test scores likewise has never worked.
• Schools are not improved by closing them.

On Teach For America, her analysis corresponds to my experiences working as a mentor teacher in Oakland:

By its design, TFA exacerbates teacher turnover or "churn." No other profession would admire and reward a program that replenished its ranks with untrained people who expected to move on to a new career in a few years. Our schools already have too much churn. Nationally, about 40 percent of teachers leave within the first five years; in high-poverty schools, the rate is 50 percent or so. Few members of TFA stay in the classroom as long as five years. Researchers have found that experience matters; the weakest teachers are in their first two years of teaching, which is understandable because they are learning how to teach and manage their classes. Researchers have also found that staff stability matters. The more that teachers come and go, the worse it is for the schools and their students. One recent study determined that teacher turnover depressed achievement in both mathematics and reading, especially in schools with more low-performing and black students. The disruption was harmful to students whose teachers left, as well as to other students in the school. Turnover itself is harmful, possibly because it undermines the cohesion and collegiality of the community of educators.

On the subject of charter schools, Ravitch does not issue the blanket condemnation she has been accused of. Instead, she makes specific observations of the practices of charters around the country, and their impact on the local communities they inhabit. And she raises some critical questions:

Will charter schools contribute to the increasing segregation of American society along lines of race and class? Will the motivated students congregate in charter schools while the unmotivated cluster in what remains of the public schools? Will the concentration of charter schools in urban districts sound a death knell for urban public education? Why do the elites support the increased stratification of American society? If charter schools are not more successful on average than the public schools they replace, what is accomplished by demolishing public education? What is the rationale for authorizing for-profit charters or charter management organizations with high-paid executives, since taxpayers will pay their salaries, with no benefit to their own children?

On the subject of online education, Ravitch describes recent boondoggles, and observes,

Online technology surely holds immense potential to enliven the classroom. But the story of cyber charters warns us that the profit motive operates in conflict with the imperative for high quality education.

When Ravitch discusses vouchers, her dedication to quality education shines through.

If the market were always right, the best products would always be the most successful, but that is not necessarily the case. If the market were always right, only the highest quality books, movies, and television programs would top the charts, but that is not necessarily the case.

Would the free market produce better education? Should the state subsidize schools where teachers are not certified and meet no particular standard of professionalism? Should taxpayers fund religious schools whose beliefs do not accord with modern science or history?

Ravitch was faulted for her last book's lack of solutions to the problems she identified. The last third of Reign of Error is devoted to concrete policy solutions, and evidence that they are sound. Prenatal care, early childhood education, and, of course, a solid, well-rounded education for every child. Smaller class size and wraparound social services are also endorsed.

The issue of testing is of critical importance, because this, more than anything, has emerged as the linchpin of corporate reform. Her seventh solution is:

Eliminate high-stakes standardized testing and rely instead on assessments that allow students to demonstrate what they know and can do.

Every time we decry the effects of standardized tests, we are told that this is the only way to hold schools and teachers accountable. Ravitch offers another idea.

Just imagine that every school district and state had a team of expert educators who regularly visited and inspected schools. They would review student work and meet with the principal, teachers, parents and students. They would analyze the demographics, the curriculum, the staff, the resources, and the condition of the school. They would interview educators to gauge the progress of students who advanced to the next level of schooling, from elementary school to middle school, from middle school to high school, and from high school to postsecondary studies. Schools that are struggling to meet the needs of their students would get frequent visits, no less than annually. Schools that are successful would require fewer inspections. The evaluation team would make recommendations to help the school improve and send in support personnel when needed. It would prod the authorities to make sure the school got the resources and support it needed. The goal of the evaluation should be continuous improvement, not a letter grade or a threat of closure.

In the final chapters of Reign of Error, Ravitch explains the pernicious effect of privatization:

But as school choice becomes the basis for public policy, the school becomes not a community institution but an institution that meets the needs of its customers. The school reaches across district lines to find customers; it markets its offerings to potential students. Districts poach students from each other, in hopes of getting more dollars. The customers choose or reject the school, as they would choose or reject a restaurant; it's their choice. The community no longer feels any ties to the school, because the school is not part of the community. The community no longer feels obliged to support the school, because it is not theirs.

Educators feel that Diane Ravitch speaks for us in a way that few others do. That is clearest when she writes this, in bringing her book to a close:

Genuine school reform must be built on hope, not fear; on encouragement, not threats; on inspiration, not compulsion; on trust, not carrots and sticks; on belief in the dignity of the human person, not a slavish devotion to data; on support and mutual respect, not a regime of punishment and blame. To be lasting, school reform must rely on collaboration and teamwork among students, parents, teachers, principals, administrators and local communities.

Ravitch's own journey, which has taken her from inside the first Bush administration to standing alongside those protesting Obama's education policies on the National Mall, is remarkable. This book provides us with a definitive study of the state of education reform in the modern age. This is a living history written by someone willing to make it, not just write about it.

In the year to come there will be study groups gathering by the hundreds to talk over this book and better understand what is happening to our schools. This book was not written simply to be read. Like the best books, it was written to be discussed, wrestled with, and acted upon.

What's Next For Kentucky's New Science Standards?

This from WFPL:

Kentucky’s new science standards could face more legislative opposition, but educators are expected to convene as early as this month to begin training for implementation for the 2014-2015 school year.

The Next Generation Science Standards that were approved by the Kentucky Board of Education this year revise science education in general, but have drawn controversy for expanding on evolution and climate change.

Some claim the standards are inferior to Kentucky's current science standards, but many in the science and education communities have backed the them, saying they're needed to prepare students for college and career.

The General Assembly's Administrative Regulation Review Committee rejected the standards in a 5-1 vote this week, but Gov. Steve Beshear said he will use his powers to enact them anyway.

Officials with the Kentucky Department of Education say the state will develop Leadership Networks made up of representatives from each school district. These individuals will be responsible for taking what they learn back to their districts to teach others.

At the same time, the regulation allowing the new science standards could still be heard in a "subject committee," likely Kentucky’s Interim Joint Education Committee that's made up of 40 state lawmakers, said Donna Little with Kentucky's Legislative Research Commission.

This subject committee could decide whether to approve the standards or not. If rejected there, Beshear would have to override that decision too and send a letter stating his intention to do so, she said.

“If the governor takes six months to send the letter, the regulation would not go into effect for six months. If he sends it the next day it would go into effect the next day," said Little.

But Kentucky's education system is not waiting for that to happen.

The University of Louisville's Dr. Tom Tretter offered feedback during the standards' creation and is a member of one of the Leadership Networks. He says Kentucky needs to begin training now for the next school year and if, for some reason, the standards are rejected, there won' t likely be monumental changes made.

“We feel like it's best case and most prudent to go ahead and move forward under the initial assumption at least that we’re going to be working with these Next Generation Science Standards or something that might look just like them," he said.

Tretter says it'll be a challenge to implement the standards and said the Leadership Networks will allow educators to discuss and change how they are implemented.

KDE officials say the networks are similar to ones created when it trained for implementing the Common Core standards in math and English language arts.

"That’s where the real work comes into play in my mind and that’s what we want to start to tackle with these leadership teams," he said.

'Good Morning America' anchor Sam Champion fondly recalls his EKU roots

This from H-L:

Sam Champion, the jovial, smooth-talking, impeccably dressed weather anchor on Good Morning America, is a proud Kentuckian with fond memories of overnight stays at state parks, his first encounters with broadcasting at Eastern Kentucky University and anything on the menu at Starnes Barbecue in Paducah, his hometown.

"My dad was a Kentucky Colonel, my grandfather was a Kentucky Colonel," said Champion, adding he even had a few encounters with the Kentucky Colonel, Harland Sanders, who knew some of his relatives.

Sam Champion of Good Morning America fame cut his teeth on the broadcast business at EKU.

Champion's deep Kentucky roots will be on display Friday as America's top-rated morning show is highlighting the early days of its anchors and how they began their careers. The show, which runs from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., will feature live segments from EKU where the marching band, cheerleaders, dance team and communications students will gather to celebrate along with their alum.

Champion is only too happy to share his ties to the Bluegrass as he did in an interview this week with the Herald-Leader.

Born in Paducah, Champion, 52, and his family traveled the globe after his father joined the Marines. But when it came time to choose a college in 1979, his parents — Lt. Col. James H. Champion and his wife, Sylvia — urged their son to come back to Kentucky, where he still had extended family. They wanted him to be close to relatives as he went off on his own.

Before making a decision Champion made a tour of Kentucky schools. He thought of becoming a Hilltopper at Western Kentucky University. The Bowling Green campus was beautiful, he said, but he couldn't face trudging up the hill every day. He considered the University of Kentucky but then learned that EKU had just built two new television studios for broadcast majors and he was all in.

He also honed his craft in Lexington, landing an internship with WKYT his sophomore year. He ran tape and has "a boozy, hazy recollection," he said, of covering some UK games. But his coup, he said, was convincing his bosses to let him do stand-up reports on the weekends.

"They didn't have any weekend reporters," he said, so he offered to cover sports.

They said yes and a career was begun. Champion said he doesn't have copies of those reports from the early '80s and that may be just as well.

"Doing TV isn't a natural skill set," he said, "The more you do it the better you'll be."

He says he thinks that first taste of television news in Lexington set him up to succeed.

"I just remember there were great opportunities," he said. "If I had been anywhere else, I don't know if I would have had those opportunities."

After working at stations in Paducah and Jacksonville, Fla., Champion began at WABC in New York in 1988. He joined Good Morning America in 2006.

He said he keeps in touch with his college advisers, touching base with them even before deciding to take the job with GMA.

Champion, who married his partner, Rubem Robierb, in 2012, said he didn't enter into the union to be an activist for same-sex marriage but because he was in love. Still, Champion said, he and Robierb hear from kids every day glad to have high-profile openly gay role models.

"I never intended to stand up necessarily for anything," said Champion, who did not make a habit of making his private life public until he announced his engagement last year. "When you fall in love, you want to make the choice that anyone else has a right to make."

Champion said since his father died in 2010 and his mother no longer lives in the state, he doesn't get back as often as he'd like to. But Kentucky still holds a place in his heart. As a kid, he spent summers traveling the commonwealth with his grandfather, who worked inspecting natural gas lines. Often, he said, they would spend the night at Kentucky state parks and Champion remembers those visits fondly.

Good Morning America in July did a segment about the anchors and their favorite things. Champion picked Starnes Barbecue, because he favors the Paducah restaurant's pulled pork sandwich with secret sauce.

Champion does have a request for those who own land along Interstate-75 between Lexington and Richmond: Don't develop it. Keep that beautiful drive beautiful.

Beshear right to OK science plan

This from the Herald-Leader:

Panel put activists above Ky. students

A state legislative panel's Wednesday rejection of new science standards for Kentucky public school systems presents an "either-or" situation that is thoroughly depressing both ways.

From Marc Murphy @ C-J

If the five members of the General Assembly's Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee who voted against the standards truly reject the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting climate change and the theory of evolution, it's a depressing commentary about the quality of the people we send to the General Assembly.

If some or all of those lawmakers don't reject the scientific evidence but cynically voted to keep future generations of Kentucky children from getting the best education possible just to placate the coal industry and religious conservatives and help them win re-election, it's a depressing commentary about the quality of the people we send to the General Assembly.

(The five were Sen. Joe Bowen, R-Owensboro; Sen. Mary Beth Gregory, R-Monticello; Sen. Ernie Harris, R-Crestwood; Rep. Johnny Bell, D-Glasgow; and Rep. Tommy Turner, R-Somerset.)

The Next Generation Science Standards represent the work of a 26-state consortium that includes Kentucky.

While the guidelines do emphasize evolution and climate change, they cover other aspects of teaching science in middle schools and high schools.

The goal is to give students a broader hands-on understanding of how science works and better prepare them for college and beyond. And no student's science education would be complete if evolution and climate change are removed from the discussion.

Fortunately, Gov. Steve Beshear understands how important these new standards are for ensuring future Kentucky students the science education they will need as they move on through the 21st century.

His office issued a statement after Wednesday's subcommittee meeting saying he would use his executive authority to implement them. We applaud him for doing what those five naysayers on the subcommittee didn't have the wisdom or gumption to do.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/09/13/2819095/beshear-right-to-ok-science-plan.html#storylink=cpy