Dan, Zero, Law, One

And this is why we should be in favor of more spontaneous and unintentional reading.

I found myself with nothing to read today and a few minutes in which not to read it so I started looking at the back of a bottle of household cleanser. The product in question was and is Lysol Bleach Multi-Purpose Cleaner. It has foaming action which is really exciting. It also kills 99.9 percent of viruses and bacteria. It seems to me that if you go that far in your formulation, spend the money and kill the other .1 percent.

Anyway, I saw the following statement on the back of the bottle:

"It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling."

That got my attention.

First off, what kind of contentious debate on the senate floor precipitated the passage of the Federal law regarding Lysol? Were there amendments and riders? A filibuster or some back room deals? Where is the scathing expose which blows the lid off of this process? Inquiring minds and all that.

Then I got nervous. I read through the rest of the instructions and it all seemed to make sense, but, heck, what if I use it in a way that is "inconsistent" with the labeling? What does that even mean? The instructions say to turn the nozzle counter clockwise, but what if I turn it clockwise? Will the door be immediately kicked in and dozens of sun-glasses wearing G-men will come busting in, securing the premises and marching me out in front of reporters. 

"An anonymous tip," they'll say. "A true American, doing his civic duty and letting us know that someone used this product in a way inconsistent with its labeling. God bless the tipster who is helping us get this filth off the streets and away from our children. We are one clockwise turn from absolute anarchy. Chalk one up for the good guys."

And then, I can never vote :(

I let my imagination go even further. I pictured the defendant rising as the charges are read.

"Your honor, the defendant brutally killed everyone after embezzling funds and running a Ponzi scheme! So we are looking at multiple charges of murder-one, theft, racketeering and fraud. He is horrible -- he even tortured an animal!"

"Tortured you say?"

"Yes, your honor. He sprayed Lysol on the cat!"

"Well then, that's inconsistent with the labeling! Please amend the indictment to include a federal charge of Using Lysol the Wrong Way."

The label, by the way, also brags of the "Whitening Power" which has, I believe, recently been ruled unconstitutional by the High Court.

Fair warning, people. Don't be drawn in by the foaming action. And stop reading the labels.

School Like That

I hate to harp on issues related to education but it is the only instrument I know how to play so, harp, I shall. In the midst of the pandemic (heretofore to be referred to as “the pandemic”) school administrators around the country, and probably in its middle, are wrestling with the model for schooling come late August – in person, with or without masks, plexiglass shields, swords of omens or albatrosses, or distance (Zoom or a competitor or generic equivalent, depending on the prescribing doctor) learning with students in a galaxy, far, far away. Or some sort of centaur like hybrid, exploiting the absolute worst of each delivery context so as to completely baffle social scientists in the year 3000.

As of my last check, many colleges and at least two large public school districts have opted for fully distance learning, at least at the outset. I sense that something along these lines will trickle and ripple across the country and, in light of a recurve-in-nation, require that we work from home in the next school year. As such, we spring plan F into action. By the way, “Plan F” is “FREAK OUT.”

If I learned anything from my experience using distance learning for the final 3 and a half months of the school year then I’m the only one. And though we have received praise from stakeholders regarding how we weathered that storm, the impetus is now to do better than just plain great. We must enter an era of miracles, just to survive. As per my earlier posts (tell your friends!) things like assessment, informal conversations, sidebars, bodily engagement and other pedagogical bits and pieces are done for. It is time for a reinvention, and this has me worried. It isn’t that I can’t reinvent myself -- I have been 3 different people already this morning; it is that the direction of reinvention is troubling. 

The Zoom model is forcing a major change in the approach to teaching. That might be OK on its own, but it doesn’t stop there. The method now becomes the driving force behind the choice of content instead of being a medium through which desired content is delivered. We have to tailor what we teach, not just how we teach it, to accommodate this new mode. That de-emphasizes current curriculum.

I get a weekly summary of education articles written up by Kim Marshall (The Marshall Memo – if you are in education, get it). This week there was this quote (and I include the Memo’s citation): 

                “I have taken good online classes and bad online classes. What determines their quality has little to do with the format itself and everything to do with the teacher’s pedagogy, their grasp of the technology, and their ability to design a course around that.” -- Shalon van Tine (University of Maryland) in “The Bias Against Online Teaching” in The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 10, 2020 (Vol. 66, #33, p. 14)

To my eyes what this is saying is that the “good course” according to the writer is tied into how a class is designed to accommodate the delivery method. Now, on one hand, sure, this makes sense. If I know I’m lecturing, I have to select content that will survive and be vital via lecture. But I also know that I have the option NOT to lecture. I can design a course, on a macro level, to work through many delivery models, supplementing that lecture with other delivery channels to ensure that the whole of the important information gets through. If the technology becomes the one and only, then the course design has to start (and, on some level, end) with that awareness. This then becomes really troubling as many teachers would agree to the proposition that designing a course around anything other than curricular goals in terms of content acquisition and skills performance is to subsume content to delivery. Reinvention, it seems, requires tearing down old curricula and rebuilding the entirety of the educational system, all driven by the new technology of delivery. It is now less important “what I have to teach” or “what the student has to be able to do” because neither of those (in the traditional sense) might be compatible with or demonstrable through the technology, and that technology is one thing I cannot change. And if I want to switch things up, I have to do so within the confines of that technology – third party apps etc. all have to work within the strictures of the distance model. I can’t mix and match to leverage the strengths of each. 

This is, as we say in the teacher world, scary. I mean, maybe other people say that, too, but so what? Teachers say it. 

As a complementary note, please recognize the position established about the potential for success in the Distance Classroom in another quote from the same issue of the Memo:

               “There’s a limit to how good a lesson can be when you’re trying to interact with your students through a keyhole in the door.” -- Doug Lemov, quoted in “The Worst Is Yet to Come” by Robert Pondiscio in Education Week, June 10, 2020.

This expert seems to be saying that no matter how “good” the class, the inherent limitations of the electronic forum will adversely affect the ultimate quality of the lesson. One would assume that the author of the former quote would advise the author of this latter one to design a different lesson recognizing that the technology affords a keyhole and he has to learn to deal with that. 

So let’s all go out there and reinvent who we are, how we deal with students, how we assess performance and how we decide on what we teach, keeping in mind a new set of limitations regarding the potential for success in how we will be able to teach which will drive an absolute upheaval and revolution in the entire educational system in this country. August is a few scant weeks away and we have no option of getting this wrong. 

Should make for an interesting summer.

The speech I would give if I were president

My fellow Americans,

We are currently in a battle with an unseen foe, an enemy who is small yet formidable and who has already caused serious damage to our way of life, our livlihood and our lives. This enemy is a virus -- the COVID 19 virus. We have been beaten and bloodied but we are not out of it yet. We can fight back and recover. But this wil include accepting some hard truths. You can choose to believe them or not -- no one can convince you if you want to see that this whole pandemic is the conspiracy of some shadowy group. To people who feel that way, there is nothing I can say other than that I wish you health, on all levels.

Things will never be back to normal. Even if we develop a vaccine, there will always be a cloud of fear. Vaccines are not all 100% effective and sometimes bring in their own concerns, breeding their own potentials for harm. But they are our best hope for resuming some semblance of normalcy in our daily practices. Many eminent researchers continue to work towards that goal of a shot, pill or spray which will help our bodies fight off the coronavirus. This will not eliminate the disease. Mutations and variant strains will make this a constant battle, like the one our scientists wage against the flu, year in, year out. We cannot win, but we will not lose. If we battle to a draw in every encounter, lives will be saved. We can hope for treatments, not just for each symptom but for the effects of the virus as it ravages the bodies of our citizens. I'm no doctor but I try to surround myself with experts who can give me an unvarnished view of the impact COVID is having on us and the impact we can have on it in return. ANd, yes, the reports are mixed. We learn more daily and are, no doubt, making errors along the way -- errors that we won't realize until we learn something new down the line. Meanwhile, we have to trust in our experts and do the best we can.

We cannot shut down society and lock everyone in his or her house for a month, waiting for all traces of the disease to run their course and, lacking any new victims, to die out. This is impractical and would destroy our and every other country. People need to go out -- essential workers in many fields need to go to places of work, to help others, to continue to make the products that are what keep this country going. Shutting down in-place is a lovely fantasy but an absolute impossibility. So we rely on common sense and we make sacrifices, daily, because we see a greater good.

That this virus exists and has a substantial negative impact on the human body is known. That some can fight it off, and in some, it appears as little more than a bad cold is also true, but, and I speak with all candor here, I don't know in what category I fall. Do I carry antibodies, and will I continue to do so? And do they stop infection or reinfection? Am I one who can power through two days of coughing and some chills, or am I one who will end up on a ventilator? Am I one who will show no symptoms, or am I incredibly sensitive to infection? I also don't know in what category my children fall, or my aunts and uncles. Or my friends of all ages. And the possibility is that I pose more harm to others than to myself. So common sense dictates that I should adopt tha attitude William Shakespeare put in the mouth of Laertes in his play, Hamlet: "Best safety lies in fear."

Fear does not mean that we cower in the corner. Fear does not mean that we live our lives in solitary. Fear is what heekps us from running onto the highway with our eyes closed. Fear is why reminds us to buckle up tightly before the roller coaster starts. Fear can't make us stay inside, but it can help us control our behaviors outside. And yes, we should fear -- a healthy, life protecting fear. But we don't have to carry epipens or pepper spray because we fear COVID. We don't have to wear sunscreen and floppy hats or reflecting strips. Our fear won't push us to boil our water or wear a disguise. All our fear should do is respect that a simple piece of cloth over the nose and mouth (like a scarf that we wear in the face of the blustery cold) and a little bit of space can make a huge impact on reducing cases of coronavirus. Is it fool proof? Of course not. But it is one of the few things that is actually under our direct control. If you choose to wear a mask you WILL make a positive difference. And if you choose not to social distance, you are making a statement about putting your sensibility above that of everyone around you. You are deciding their fate for them and speaking not as the president, but as a regular citizen, that's selfish and unfair of you. For shame.

There is much more to be studied and, no doubt, we will discover more about this disease and future ones which will no doubt, continue to emerge, but for right now, discretion is the better part of valor. Some people have no choice but to continue going to work so they must follow guidelines, but for the rest of us, the choice to stay in a bit more, uncomfortable and boring as it sounds, or to eat at home, or buy only necessities, stifling as that will be, is a choice to stop the virus. The choice to wear a mask, to stay a few feet away, to wash your hands is a choice to be part of a battle that we must win. And make no mistake -- if you insist on doing otherwise, you are also making a choice, one which could have dire consequences on people you don't even know but who have every right to live their lives in health, not in the wake of your selfish infection. Please, make the right choice, for you, your family and everyone around you.

God bless you and may God bless the United States of America

Hearts of Stone

4AM thoughts.

I was watching the Zoom of my mom's funeral. That's not so much a thought as a fact but just hear me out. I was watching and also looking at the surrounding graves. I noticed on a stone a heart made of rocks.

"Weird," I thought. "I know my kids (and nieces and nephews) had made a heart of stones on the tombstone after my dad passed -- is that his stone? Wouldn't they have moved the stone to put mom in?" Befuddled I was. That comes after a-fuddled and then there is c-fuddled. But I'm the middle child, so b-fuddled it is.

Then I saw that the name on the stone was not my dad's. "Even weirder," thought I. "I'm pretty sure I remember my dad's name, and upon last visit, there were no other hearts made from stones on other graves." My fuddlement jumped exponentially (which, literally means "like Montreal"). Next, the camera panned back and I saw my dad's stone which had, indeed been removed. It was standing up, slouching really, on the side, leaning against a wall, waiting to be acknowledged, like me at a party.

Initially, I was annoyed.

The fact that "I" is my brother's initial makes that sentence funny. To me. At 4AM. After watching a funeral.

Anyhoo, I was miffed you might say. The heart thing was a Rosen bit! I have the pictures to prove it. How dare someone else co-opt our show of stone-play based affection!

But then I played it out.

Maybe someone came by and saw the heart on my dad's tomb stone. Maybe that person was inspired to demonstrate love and care in similar fashion. Maybe, the love that that person felt hadn't known how to be expressed and maybe, just maybe, it was the act of people in my family, driven by and inspired by my parents and their love, which gave someone else the idea to show how he or she felt. Maybe, my parents are still helping increase love in the world and helping people show that they care. And that's not something to be annoyed, miffed, or even befuddled by.

That's something to be proud of.

Idol thoughts

Today's wandering wondering has to do with the topic of idolatry. I mean, why is it such a forbidden thing? I'm not saying that I have a current hankering for some bow down action, but what is it about idolatry that is so bad? Then I run into a news article which states that the state of Virginia will be removing the statues of General Robert E. Lee (the "E." is included so as not to confuse him with other Robert Lees who were in SAG). Many people are against this removal because Lee was, in their eyes, a great man. And I think that if you discussed his record with a bunch of people who were versed in the art of strategery many would praise his thinking and approach to the craft of warfare. Qua general, he might have been incredible. He probably was also nice to his mother. He might be worthy of admiration for his loyalty to a cause and his service to his government. There could be many ways in which his actions and behaviors could be applauded. He is a hero to many, in fact. That he aligned himself with a losing side, one which championed and defended an institution of slavery which subjugated an entire class of people, taints anything he could be adored for. And this is the problem. When we try to reduce complex people or ideas and put them above questioning because they are literally on a pedestal, we run the risk of ignoring deep flaws. Hero worship (heck, anything worship) limits its user's scope regarding the object of adoration to a particular dimension or aspect of existence. We can't see (and are trained not to look for) any problems when we idolize. We make the football player, the talk show host, the religious figurehead our hero until we can no longer ignore criminal activity. ANd then our world comes crashing down. Our judgment is suspect. Our cynicism flourishes. When God, then, forbids idolatry, God is forbidding our tendency to ignore what is bad. God is saying "don't ever stop investigating or asking questions." Why is idolatry so horrible? Because it puts blinders on us and strips us of rational thought, lowering us to the level of the animal who cannot think. It is scary not being able to rely absolutely on those we raise up. It is heart wrenching to know that anyone and everyone (from Mother Teresa to Oprah to Ron Darling, not of Peter Pan fame) has secrets, skeletons, and probably, secret skeletons, and with enough digging, will be found to be imperfect. Now, there's nothing wrong with being imperfect. Some of my best friends are imperfect, and we can recognize, leverage and rise above the imperfections we own and improve our world. But we can't idolize because that means forgetting about imperfection, and that's dangerous.

Snow more days

It is May and in the spring, a young man's fancy turns to thoughts of distance learning and its impact on the traditional school year. Also, the fact that some models are showing a snow storm in part of the northeast for this weekend has me thinking about stuff like snow.

Some journalist said what 50 people before him had said (just without the millions of followers), that with the advent of widespread distance learning, there will no longer be any need for snow days. I'd like to take this opportunity to head this little foolishness off at the pass and destroy it so that no one else mentions it, even as a joke. I'll focus on high school education, but I won;t limit myself to any particular texture of snow.

1. If it snows so much that we can't drive, then there will be much shoveling to be done and we rely on roving bands of young people to save that particular day. Force them into classes and then it gets dark, stuff freezes up and my back hurts. Why are you trying to make my back hurt?

2. A snow storm brings with it the chance for black outs. Covering required information when there are students who lack the personal technological infrastructure at every drop of a hat will cause knowledge and achievement gaps.

3. A snow day or two is a welcome break. It is a celebration of childhood and freedom. To co-opt it and jam education down its fun little throat is mean spirited and cruel. Even administrators and teachers want to eat marshmallows, build a snowman and daydrink. Don't take that away from us.

4. This is the real one -- the logistics and administration of the day, coupled with inherent curricular obstacles make the notion of effective distance education unlikely even when the implementation is anticipated by weeks and there is planning. Without that, as in the case of a storm, education is impossible via technology.

I'll discuss #4 (as I think the others are self-explanatory) by creating a scenario.

Monday and Tuesday during the first week in February were routine enough. The second semester was well underway -- long term assignments had been assigned and classes had jelled to the point that the teacher knew a lot about every student. But by Tuesday, students checking weather apps knew that something was brewing. They kept asking "Do you think we'll have school tomorrow" as weather forecasts drew from 10 different models and predicted everything from a coating to up to 2 feet of wind driven snow. The most popular guess was 12-14 inches, with heaviest snow beginning at 7AM. The principal of the private HS, as was his practice, didn't sleep overnight. At the close of Tuesday's school day, he reminded students to take books home "just in case" but there was so much uncertainty and students sprinted for the buses more concerned with getting home now than worry about getting to school tomorrow. So he didn't sleep. He watched the weather channel, the news channel, ESPN, and then the weather again. He drank soda to stay awake and started looking for closure guidance by 3 AM. At 4, with no snow falling but in an abundance of caution, the superintendent called a snow day so the principal followed suit. He started making phone calls and the contingency plan was sprung into action.

Teachers were called, the emergency "snow day schedule" was invoked (it had taken hours, but a class schedule had been prefigured to ensure that classes that should meet, met, at a time that was responsible and for a length that was reasonable) so students received emails, texts and direct messages across a variety of social platforms.

At 9:30, as per the schedule, the principal's office sent out an email announcing a school-wide online meeting (the money spent for a business account on the platform, to allow so many sub-accounts, such large meetings and other perks seemed well worth the sizable investment). Seventy-five percent of the student body showed up for announcements and reminders. Class sessions begin shortly thereafter.

In each class, most students showed up mostly on time. Technological and personal glitches (wi-fi problems, hardware problems, home space availability, ambient distractions, family commitments) abounded. Teachers could not just pick up what they had been doing on Monday and Tuesday -- curricula had been designed for and implemented in person so the lectures, discussions, group presentations, review sessions and such didn't all translate directly onto the digital model. Tests could not be given. Homework could not be collected nor could it be assigned. Stand-alone, discrete content was covered but students didn't feel accountable. Teachers noted a lack of involvement and attention and traditional classroom management methods were ineffective. Classes that had been in the middle of group work, Socratic circles and other student-centered lessons turned into simple lectures so that teachers could present foundational information. Students who didn't take home books or material had to find on-line equivalents or hope that they could catch up upon returning to the building. Teachers had been advised to have extra classes prepared to be inserted at any moment but that meant that the content couldn't be based in the curriculum -- how could any teacher design a class that could work in November or March equally seamlessly? Some teachers broke out the bells and whistles and used third party apps to mix up class presentation and while most worked admirably, they served more to entertain than to enforce curricular lessons. The day was one more of warehousing and of discrete, extra-curricular discussions and content. There was some review which ended up being monopolized by the couple of students who wanted to take advantage of the chance to ask questions. Classes were shorter than traditional ones and students didn't necessarily show up on time for a variety of reasons ranging from the reasonable to the ridiculous.

By the time Thursday rolled around and most students were able to get to school (those in northern and western suburbs stayed home as their districts still canceled) Wednesday's classes were forgotten. Teacher's reviewed the Tuesday work and moved forward. There was no time in the schedule to add in assessments to make sure that the Wednesday work was done, let alone done well. What was left was resentment -- by teachers who spent their day trying to be something different from what they were trained to be and by students who felt that they were subject to busy-work. Administratively, all of the impact of a missed day had to be accounted for -- rescheduling of events and tests still had to be done and teachers had to figure out how to cover the actual curricular content with fewer days, and they hadn't had a day off to rework their plans. Sure, the school could brag that it had a plan in place and it could tell parents that it made the most of every class day, but was it really effective education? Was it worth the headache? No one on the front line seemed to think so.

My assessment? Distance education cannot be slapped on a traditional structure. Even on its own it is (IMHO) suspect, but this isn't on its own. This is changing horses midstream and the new horse isn't even a horse. It is swarm of angry bees and you owe it $20. Leave snow days alone. Account for them when designing the calendar (even in May) and let's focus our money, attention and effort on real issues in education.

Twenty-one and over and over

So most of another week has gone by and online learning chugs ahead. Three plus weeks and I have learned so much about why they are going to learn so little. Here are some notes as this chunk of time comes mercifully to a close.

So far we have been told to reduce the workload on students (after initially being told to ramp it up) and to abandon the notion of traditional assessments and grades (after initially being told that grades and assessments would continue). Now we are all about engagement and connection, so the student who sits quietly, or who turns his video or audio off runs the risk of being penalized for being himself. Grading based on involvement (even tacit engagement) is not only flawed, but inconsistent with the grades earned over the balance of the year. And trying to assess if a student should change placements is even more difficult.

Loud classes get louder as all volume is normalized -- there are no whispered conversations and I can't yell over people. Encouraging a classroom debate is difficult because people have trouble hearing each other, or if there is any lag, they step on each other and points don't get across. Forcing a mute can crush the spirits of students; there are no subtle methods of correcting over-exuberance.
Distracted classes get more distracted as the requirement to look at at least one screen is a real stumbling block, but even moreso, being surrounded by the trappings on one's home field, including family, is too much temptation. We can't make them sit at a desk in a secluded, quiet room. They don't all have that capacity.
Quiet classes get quieter. This puts more pressure on me to fill the space with talking and this leads to more lecturing. Then the cycle increases -- the more I am willing to talk and not abide empty spaces, the less likely a quiet class is to interject and pick up the conversation. Part of this is compounded by the call for "flipped" classrooms, in which the students are given a video to watch during off hours (something we may or may not be supposed to be doing) so that class time can be used for practice or demonstration of something or discussing. But this just ends up becoming an asynchronous lecture during which students can't ask questions. And if the practice is online, questions are equally difficult to ask so the entire process gets thrown back markedly.

Lecture during synchronous meetings ends up winning the day because silence cannot be supplemented by body language or physical proximity. There can be no "side conversations." A teacher must continually prove that he is watching all students or else they try stuff and it is tougher to be that hawk, knowing what every kid is up to at all times (a skill necessary for managing a live classroom).

Presentations are harder to give feedback on, and can't command other students' attention in the same way. They take more time and are more prone to tech issues. They also don't assess understanding in the same way as traditional assessments. I haven't tried "break out rooms" because, for one thing, I'm not sure that I can maintain a view of all other students when I'm sequestered with one small group.

How much time am I spending? Ultimately, more but that might be because I'm in a happy rut. I have to create new assessments and retool how I schedule and implement each class. Plus, the use of multiple formative assessments means more grading and a different mode of feedback. Turning every half conversation into an email or text-based message increases lag time and makes it harder for a student to revise and review and then resubmit. If I can stand over a student, point out a mistake, and then have the student fix it in writing in a matter of seconds and have me look again, then that is much faster than reviewing an email submission, trying to communicate an idea in writing, send that back, then have the student rework something in my absence and send it back. Repeat. A much longer process.

It is harder to monitor their secondary screen practices. They are gaming and interacting with others and there is very little way I can check. I am, effectively, taking attendance repeatedly, seeing who is leaving, coming back in (wrestling with technology vs. not really caring), turning video or audio off and on. Trying to maintain a flow is really tough.

Don't get me wrong -- through it all, I'm getting the hang of this, at least a little. My students are getting work, doing work, and engaging with me. But it is different, and as much as I think I am making it work in a limited fashion, I am not being as effective as I could be in a traditional classroom and I don't think I ever could be.