http://www.freep.com/article/20120426/NEWS06/204260582/Western-Michigan-University-s-first-4-year-grad-leads-way-for-former-foster-youth

GREAT example of how we could structure private / public partnerships that will make economic sense and is just the right thing to do.

Start with someone having a good idea, solicit private dollars from a community of people who care about the outcomes, then if the idea is solid ramp it up with investments from targeted government programs so it can scale.

In this example some big-hearted folks wanted to see a few former foster kids graduate from college, so they made it happen. Now the Department of Human Services is giving $600k to ramp up the program at five more colleges. This is a smart investment, as 1 in 20 foster care kids usually go to college, and will result in kids graduating, paying more in taxes, possibly starting companies and hiring people, etc. It’s a win-win.

This story is representative of a bunch of recent stories and also of a cultural meme that there are “good schools” and it’s expensive to live around them:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/want-to-live-near-a-good-school-it-will-cost-an-extra-205000/2012/04/20/gIQAaDBUVT_blog.html

From the article:

“Not surprisingly, Rothwell also finds that middle- and high-income students are far more likely to attend good schools than low-income students are.”

There’s a reason for that… it’s not that there are “good schools” and then rich people come live around them and bid up the price of housing. It’s that wherever well-educated people live they’re going to setup good schools. They’re going to make sure the buildings are in good repair, there is money for sports and arts, the kids have iPads, and being products of higher education and realizing how important this has become for a middle class life they will make sure their kids do homework and hire tutors if necessary. In short, they will demand excellence from their schools and in most cases will get it. And this in turn will draw the better teachers. It’s a virtuous cycle.

Parents play a bigger role in the whole education discussion than what we’ve thought. “Good schools” means there’s a community of parents who care about the quality of schools, not that out of nowhere this great group of teachers sprung up and the surrounding community just got lucky.

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/12/10131666-deplorable-us-defense-chief-condemns-urinating-marines-video

Soldiers are good at going in and kicking ass and winning wars… that’s their job. When we shirk our diplomatic duties and rely on the military for everything these kinds of things happen… soldiers were never meant to “keep the peace”, they’re meant for “make the war”. That’s why we should have pulled out a while back. We need to have a more muscular State Dept, not military. Because soldiers are great at fighting, but diplomacy: not so much.

Been reading a lot lately about integrating technology into the classroom. Here are some good articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/03/the-frontier-of-classroom-technology/a-misguided-use-of-money

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/technology/idaho-teachers-fight-a-reliance-on-computers.html?_r=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html?pagewanted=all

Being a developer, I’m bullish on technology in general and think some of these devices are damn near indispensable.

But they won’t make kids learn. Good teachers do that. I can show a kid how to use an iPad or iPhone in 15 minutes. Schools shouldn’t be spending millions to do this. It will be obsolete next year when the next new thing comes out. We should be spending the money on good teachers.

And do I even have to mention the corporate angle? Obviously there is an interest on the technology companies’ part to selling lots and lots of this stuff to schools. Lobbying ain’t only in Washington, honey child.

Chalkboards and books were good enough for Einstein. They’re good enough for your kid too.