So the ning business is finally going to morph into a real business and stop allowing people to use their goodies without paying for them.

Wow, brings up a whole host of stuff when it comes to writing in the online world.

Is the sale of ad space really expected to power the entire forward progress of the whole world wide web? I don’t think so. Then again, if ning doesn’t give it away free first and foremost, do they grow into the company they now are? And if they now start to charge, how many nings fold up and think, “Well, it was good while it lasted”?

Is this what the next stage of the internet looks like? People give away items at no charge until they become apparently worth something, and then they start to charge for their services and people fold up their tents and drift off to the next latest and greatest thing. (You know, the one that people can use free of charge until enough people start using it to make these folks see “gold in dem dar hills” whereby the model changes to a fee based-structure… and everyone then flees again… and on and on and on?)

Jim Burke said… People need to wake up to the idea that they cannot expect companies to be non-profits. We have grown increasingly addicted to the idea that everything should be free, that we should have to pay for nothing. That is not sustainable.

Indeed. But as soon as Twitter starts charging me per tweet, I think I am gone.

And I think they know this… which is why they do not charge me for tweeting. Which is why so many millions of folks do tweet.

But charge even one dollar a month and, “Nah, I am not so sure it’s worth it” creeps into my consciousness. I mean there are so many other free things I can do on the web, with mobile technology and so on, that, on second thought, Nah, I just don’t think so.

The fact is, most human beings pretty much do not like paying for things that were once free. We feel ripped off. (Even if they are actually worth the money.)

If once upon a time you charged me, and you raised the price, then hey, I get that. But if was free and now you want money for it… that doesn’t really compute so well. I mean “I think I only wanted it because it was free anyway,” is what I tell myself. Then I move on.

And on the flip side, people tend to more highly value that which actually costs them more. Look at the diamond industry. DeBeers is absolutely brilliant in the way that they make us believe diamonds are precious stones worth X amount of dollars. And by controlling 85% of all the diamonds on the planet (they have vaults and vaults and vaults of them locked away so that they can manage world wide inventory and empower all these diamond dealers to say, “but they are rare and precious”) they create the illusion of high value – and the reality of high price – in the mind of buyers.

And we buy it.

Engagement rings, earrings, and so on. “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend.”

Hook, line and sinker, we drank the Kool-Aid on that one.

But NY Times news? I think the cat is outta the bag on that one. Sure, some will buy it – older folks who grew up indoctrinated into the “fine journalism” being offered will stay the course. (They also have more disposable income.) But now, news and commentary are free… and if the NY Times wants to start charging for what they originally gave away online, heck, I’ll go to the Wash Post or L.A. Times or BBC and so on.

Heck, the Huffington Post will go out and scavenge the free news for me. And they are not alone.

And if they all decide to charge at the same time, they are gambling with their very existence… cause there is no guarantee to say enough people will pay to keep them afloat.

Are they willing to risk bankruptcy? Do they really want to know if they call our bluff and insist on charging us that we are actually going to pony up cash for their goods versus simply seeking another source for our news and bail out on them?

TIME magazine charges. Newsweek doesn’t. Is there enough of a difference that I buy TIME? Right now, not really.

The Hollywood Reporter and Daily Variety, Hollywood’s Trade Magazines, got it right. They charged for content right away (after giving away small teasers.) People were used to paying for print, they immediately got used to paying for online from the get-go and now, they more or less, seamlessly transitioned to the online journalism world.

Right now, newspapers don’t really have the guts to pull the “free” plug because they know if they do, we might not come back to them and prove them obsolete. (It’s any business’s darkest fear – to recognize that the world can get along just fine without them and have the world recognize that.

Of course, all of the newspapers are hoping Apple and the Kindle will help to save their butts… but ESPN.com does sports for me and the AP wire still provides news and Joe down the block blogs about the tree root situation plaguing the local sidewalks on my street and the idea of one-stop news shopping is something that is already dead to many of us anyway. (Like textbooks providing one-size-fits-all curriculum – that ship has SAILED!)

I get my news from 15 sources, not one and until all 15 charge, I can live with only 14.

So, I won’t get to read Friedman. But if enough people stop reading Friedman, he’s going to try and deliver content to his audience another way… or else he stops being Friedman and someone else’s voice will rise up to replace his. Books still make sense. (I want to read the writing of the folks I want to read: Stephanie Meyers, Stephen King, they could publish on toilet paper and people would read it by the roll.) Newspapers don’t. Magazines… they seem to be on an edge. Can’t call it one way or the other yet.

Ultimately, I am completely at a loss for how this will all work out but I do feel that it sure would be hard to get people to start paying for my blog now that I have been giving it away at no charge for a year and a half.

Most of them would probably say, “Hasta la Vista… it was good while it lasted but I am onto other things.”

Real businesses know customers value what they pay for much more than they value what is free.

Like the dot.com bubble, so is the Free bubble.

The book FREE proposed that free was the way of the business future – at least to get a foot in the door. Actually, I think the real way of the business future is to 1) provide something excellent and 2) charge for it right out of the gate.

People will always pay for quality and if you are giving it away at no charge, how much is it really worth anyway?

Nings seem to have blown it if they want to charge. Someone else is gonna fill their void if they do because most people will not pay for the same thing they used to get at no charge. They will pay for something new, better, enhanced and so on.

Nings aren’t proposing that. There is no Ning II that’s a platinum version they will be selling. Ning just wants money now… and I am not sure how many folks are gonna roll with that.

However, I would chip in a buck to keep this ning alive. And if we all did, maybe the ning folks would let us keep rolling, huh?

Diary of a Wimpy Kid is about to absolutely rock the Hollywood box office this weekend. And it has been a rip-roaring success in the world of book publishing. As a teacher, when I see this I know that I can leverage the power of an author who has found a way to reach real kids into classroom success for me and my kids.

Here’s how I do it.

First of all, I know that the state has hired me to teach the content standards. (They clearly say so.) And when they assess my student performance, the material they test is not text specific but rather, standards-based. This means that they are not going to be testing my kids on Kafka, Twain, and Joyce but rather on denotation vs. connotation, theme, tone and so on.

And hey, Diary of a Wimpy Kid uses all of the literary elements of denotation vs. connotation, theme, tone and so on. So why not use Diary of a Wimpy Kid as a text to teach the standards in my classroom?

I do.

Now before I get crucified as being someone that does not revere the GREAT BOOKS of human civilization – a canon blaster, if you will — please take a few things into consideration.

California is a state with 6.4 million students. And 1.6 million of them are English Language Learners. This means that I need to differentiate, accommodate and be responsive to the real literary needs of the students that are sitting in my class — all while still teaching the appropriate grade level content standards.

I am not sure if there is a more accessible book for English Language Learners out there right now than Diary of a Wimpy Kid.

-It’s funny. (And kids will wrestle with text when the reward is material that will make them laugh).
-There’s a lot of white space on the page. (Check the research on the value of that to a student with low literacy skills – especially when English is not their first language).
-It’s relevant and kids relate. (The bumbling, fumbling shenanigans of Greg allow students to see their own lives reflected directly in the text.)

And Diary of a Wimpy Kid (for those who want to take a moment to jump off their high horse of that books in school absolutely must be dense, erudite art) is a good read. Personally, I greatly enjoyed it because it’s an energetic, funny and page turner.

Plus, guess what? There’s a theme. (A few of them, in fact: 1) We learn from our mistakes. 2) Self-image is very important. 3) No one escapes problems in their life. 4) You’ve got to show initiative if you are going to get anywhere in this world.)

And there are examples of denotation vs. connotation.

And the text provides me examples of tone, perspective, hyperbole and on and on.

The same stuff that the standards ask me to teach.

Should Diary of a Wimpy Kid replace Mark Twain? Nope, not even close. But can it be used as a bridge to build capacity? Can it be used as a text to illuminate literary devices?

Can it be used as a vehicle to get 100% of your class to do ALL the assigned reading? (And how often do our classes do that? I mean “faking it” through books has become so ingrained in our culture that there’s a multi-million dollar industry to provide resources as to how to better fake it — Cliff’s Notes, Spark Notes, Pink Monkey and so on.)

Yes, I read Diary of a Wimpy Kid with my classes. And guess what? It was a home-run success and a great teaching tool.

And guess what else?

We had FUN!

Since when are fun and and learning mutually exclusive to one another?

But, don’t worry — keep using those 20th century tools to reach today’s 21rst century kids. After all I am sure Hollywood is going to race right out and make a movie of your classroom textbook any day this week.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid… it certainly can have it’s place in a classroom where students are achieving.

In the third part of this series, I am going to chat about Why the “best” teachers are needed to teach our “most challenged” students.

NOTE: This was the question raised in Part I: which students deserve our school’s best teachers?
(I have already made the case in Part II as to why our “best” students deserve our “best” teachers and coming soon, an argument for Part IV: Why the “best” teachers are needed to be teaching the “middle level” students… as well as Part V: A review of the discussion and a exploration of what I think I’d be forced to do if I were a principal trying to figure out which teachers to assigned to which classes.)

Why the “best” teachers need to teach the “most challenged” students.

Let’s be honest, our “most challenged” students are all-too-often getting the short end of the stick. They are almost always being taught by either our most inexperienced teachers or our tenured “Lemon” teachers in schools today and this creates an almost, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg” syndrome when it comes to identifying the cause of their perpetual, continued low academic performance.

So which did come first, the student with low skills even after more than 5 years in the same school system or the student continuing to have low skills even after more than 5 years in the same school system because they have been under the direction of the Lemon level or newbie educators for most of their career? (NOTE: Newbies, please do not take offense — I only intend to disparage the Lemon teachers. We were all new once and trust me, I wish I could go back and apologize for all that I did not know, wasn’t able to accomplish and so on, to my first two year’s worth of kids — but often what newbies lack in experience they make up for in gusto and effort so while there are certain things about riding a bike you just can’t learn until you have been on the bike for a little bit, there is no fault to be found in people who are just learning to ride their bike — especially when they are often busting their butts to do so. Therefore, when you read the chart below consider that newbies deserve an * which means they get to remain uncategorized until year 4 in the classroom — my own arbitrary number based on my own idea that it takes at least 3 years to get a real grip on this job.)

For point of reference to clarify this all (in case you are just joining), I have divided school educators into 3 categories:

• Best teachers
• Average teachers.
• L’s (the L can stand for “Low” or “Lemons” – fill in your own mental blank).

*Newbies And I have divided students into 3 broad categories:

• AP/Honors/Best
• Middle Level/Average
• Challenged/Low

Obviously, political correctness got tossed out the window so that I could open a “real” discussion. Additionally, I am speaking in generalizations — it’s the only way I can proceed without hyper-qualifying this commentary to death.)

Okay, back to the main point…

Come on, folks, don’t you think we could greatly increase the achievement in our lowest performing students if we set our nation’s “best” teachers to the task in a front and center type of way? The answer seems self-evident.

And really, don’t the kids who are currently behind the academic eight ball deserve a chance to have their classrooms provide for them the best shot it can in order to get these kids on the right track so that the rest of their life doesn’t suffer from the tainted glow of being poorly educated in this society?

As for the top students (who most frequently get a school’s best teachers), could it also not be argued that they are already “gettin’ theirs” in a host of other places anyway?

Yet can the same really be said of the “lowest kids” on our campus? They usually have the least amount of support at home, the most obstacles in front of them at school and the greatest need for top flight professionals to come in and work some magic with them.

But what really happens most frequently across our nation is that the “lowest” kids come to school and get… the “lowest on the totem pole” teachers.

It’s like the game is rigged. The lowest performing students are being overwhelmingly matched with the L teachers… and administrators all over are closing their eyes and hoping that some kind of miracle is going to sweep over the “bottom tier” landscape while their best teachers are off running well-oiled classrooms that prime the top students for an AP curriculum.

Look, we’ve all seen what miracles can be done by great teachers. We’ve all seen the mountains that can be moved. Maybe some of us have even been the beneficiaries of being on the receiving end of a terrific educator’s efforts and gone from, “Ya know, I never got math until poof! Mr. Jaime Escalante was my teacher.”

“Or English until Ms. G. showed some belief in me.”

(BTW, Hollywood certainly seems to believe that our “low” kids can blossom into amazing young adults if only a “best” educator in the school gets to be in the front of their classroom.)

Now let’s take a sec to examine the idea of having a new, first year educator teach the “challenged/low level kids”. It’s their first year on campus, first year as an educator, they are bright-eyed, bushy tailed and then thrown into the most challenging circumstances in any of the classrooms on campus (even though they still do not know where all the bathrooms are located on campus). They get kids with academic skills years below grade level, students with both diagnosed and undiagnosed learning disorders, unstable emotional lives, far-from-ideal home lives, a personal history of shame and belittlement in the realm of academics, and classroom behavior that ranges from the merely disruptive to virtually felonious.

Oh, and let’s not forget the English Language learners or special needs kid that get mainstreamed into their class as well.

Sound like this is a success story waiting to happen for a first year teacher? Of course not. However, we see it all the time. “They” get “those” kids.

And we wonder why our new teacher attrition rates are so high. Ha! It’s because we are utilizing a trial by fire approach with the furnace set to “Roar!” to welcome them into this profession.

Look, “challenged” students make for tough classes. No one will argue this. And what it takes is a skilled educator to reach these kids. It takes a pro, a person with a tool chest full of ideas, experience, know-how and self-confidence. It takes a teacher that knows how to be patient, demanding, light-hearted and a task-master all at the same time.

Plus, it takes intestinal fortitude to want to even tackle this type of challenge in the first place for an entire school year. (It’s a long haul; even if you are a top-flight pro teacher, that doesn’t mean working in these classrooms becomes any easier. You’re just better at it.) Furthermore, it takes an amazing amount of resiliency to know that often when you teach kids at this level it can often be “one step forward, two steps back” for a heck of a long time.

Emotionally that’s draining.

And in the realm of NCLB, it’s almost entirely thankless as well because a teacher who works in a 9th grade classroom with kids that have skills that are at the 4rth or 5th grade level gets virtually no credit on these tests when they elevate their students to a 7th or 8th grade level in one mere academic year — because NCLB measurements aren’t based on growth.

You either make “the cut” or you get “labeled” negatively without any tip of the hat for the productive achievement or positive progress.

Huh? It’s as if the teacher was sitting there reading the newspaper all year. The tests are all or nothing.

Look, let’s be honest — being that the “low” kids are often the most demanding group of students to teach on campus, many, many teachers shy away from the job. It’s hard work, it’s taxing work, it can also feel like unappreciated work. (It also begs the question as to why one is required to have the temperament of Mother Teresa to thrive in this profession, but that’s for another conversation.)

Yet really, has this current system not created a self-fulfilling prophesy with negative implications for all of us? I mean how in the world are the kids with the highest needs ever going to break out of their rut if they are not being given the best chance to do so by having our school’s “best” teachers work in their classrooms.

If we really want to elevate learning and test scores in our schools we need to raise the bottom percentiles. They are the weight dragging all scores down. If, as the cliche goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease than the lowest performing students should be getting more grease (i.e. the “best” teachers).

Would they not benefit? Of course they would.
Is it not sensible? Of course it is.
Could real strides not be attained? Of course they will.

And if we could increase the academic achievement of our lowest performing students could we not, perhaps, also make a dent in poverty. (The link is quite clear between level of education and poverty.)

And if we could increase the academic achievement of our lowest performing students could we not, perhaps, also make a dent in crime. (The link is quite clear between level of education and crime.)

And would it not be in the best interests of our society as a whole to both decrease the level of poverty and crime in our country?

Are we doing what’s most comfortable for the teachers or what’s best for the kids?

Clearly, our most challenged students deserve our “best” teachers.

So Roman Polanski was snagged in Swiss territory and now there’s a whole lotta hullabaloo over the nerve to extradite him to face charges.

And why, because he is an “artist”? As an artist myself — a term that I never, ever apply, btw, but hey, if he can hide under the umbrella, then I can take some shelter as well — I call HOGWASH!

I mean would we see international film superstars lobbying for Burger King fry cook in a similar situation? I doubt it. Of course, we all know justice is supposed to be blind, and we all know that though it purports to be blind but much, much data is out there to suggest that it isn’t — yet at the end of the day, why do “celebrities” think that the law doesn’t apply to them? That’s what irls me about all of this.

I mean why do the likes of Scorcese, Woody Allen, Harvey Weinstein and the such think that just because the Mr. Polanski is a irrefutable cinematic giant feel that he should get a free pass on the accusation of “drugging and raping a 13-year-old child”?

(For those of you that do not know, Roman Polanski is accused of feeding a 13 year old girl a qualude and some champagne then filming himself having lewd sex acts with her while she’s in a stupor? Owch, right?)

And how does going on the lam for a few decades lessen the crime/guilt? I mean why don’t these filmakers encourage all people accused of like crimes to become fugitives? Especially if they can win an Academy Award. Then they should get off on little stuff like this, right? (Note: last sentence = dripping with sarcasm).

I mean I don’t even see the other side of the coin. It’s not like anyone is making the argument he was railroaded. It’s not like anyone is claiming he didn’t, as an adult, get a 13 girl drunk and have sex with her. And he did flee as oppose to face the courts in this country, regardless of the supposedly spotlight seeking actions of the judge.

But now that he is finally in custody — like over 30 years after the incident — the industry of Hollywood wants him to be set free. Why? Part of their statement/petition about this matter says, “The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance … opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects,” said the signatories, who also included actresses Monica Bellucci and Tilda Swinton and directors David Lynch, Jonathan Demme, John Landis, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Wim Wenders.

What kind of actions? And are they worse actions than feeding a 13 year old a qualude and champagne then filming lewd sex acts with her while she’s in a stupor? (Allegedly.)

I just don’t get it. If Polanski washed cars for a living and it was one the 13 old daughters of one of these Hollywood establishment people, they’d be the first to sign a petition saying a man like this should be extradited regardless of our international agreements.

And if it was a teacher, forget it.

Teaching kids who are not motivated to learn wears on you. Sure, Hollywood movies make it all seem as if being in a job where a large amount of kids who are not motivated to participate in their own education simply requires one simple “epiphany” (either by the teacher or the students) in order to right the ship and send everyone off into a bright, bold and bountiful future… but the reality of it is much different.

Much.

It challenges you. It frustrates you. It makes you call into question why you even bother to do this kind of work. And anyone who does not pay heed to these ideas doesn’t know what it means to be on the front lines, what it means to be working in a school with an outrageous dropout rate… what it means to try and care more about a kid’s education more than the kid (or the parent of the kid) does themself.

To take liberties with an old cliche’, “You can lead a student to knowledge, but you can’t make them think.”

Indeed there are days where I feel like the Pied Piper, where no matter what I do with a class of students, they are on the bus, all in, eager, excited and fired up to go push our boundaries into a whole host of new, exciting intellectual directions.

But there are scores of kids who just don’t play ball floating through our American schools. Their attendance is horrible, their homework is non-existent and their sense of actually wanting to take an active role in their own education is horrifically low. And then, when they show up at the end of the year, having missed 8 of the 14 prior days of class, without even attempting to give a half-hearted effort at turning in a final project, what do you do?

It wears on you.

I’ve already spent so many of the arrows in my quiver. I’ve yelled. I’ve cajoled. I’ve been soft and cut slack and I’ve been firm and drawn lines in the sand. I’ve tried to get other people at school to join forces, I’ve made attempts to work with parents… what more is there to do? 7 days of school left and there is no way for this kid not to get an F… and I am sure that my class is not the only one like this for this student.

And then NCLB comes in and paints me and my school district as if it’s our fault that these kids are under-performing.

Is it the dentist’s fault when a patient gets a cavity?

I work hard NEVER to give up on a kid. NEVER. But my school sports about a 45% dropout rate and sometimes it makes me bananas when I have students who are so clearly on the wrong path… and refuse to help themselves before their lives derail and they end up leaving this institution without a degree.

It’ll make a teacher go loony.

Let’s call her Debbie. (Trust me, her name’s NOT Debbie.) Smart. Social. Outgoing. Vibrant. Missed an entire week of school last week, 4 of the previous 11 days prior to that and comes into class today without even bothering to offer up an excuse as to why she was out. Nor does she approach me to ask for make-up work. Just sits down, bombs on an assignment and knows she’s lost but also knows that school is like whatever to her. She’s lying to herself, telling herself she’s trying but everyone in her life knows she’s not.

I’ve tried being nice, being blunt, talking with calm and common sense, and flipping out — nothing gets through to this student. She is SO CLEARLY on her way out… and she’s only 14 years old. A freshman.

And while she says she cares, her actions show that she does not. I’ve called her house (no answer; no return call) spoken to the guidance counselor, conferred with other teachers — no one can get through. If Debbie is here at the start of her Junior year, I’ll be amazed.

And the thing is, I have so many other kids to teach, so many other students that want to learn, so many other folks who need what I do, want what I have to offer, willingly embrace the things I am trying to teach them that the question enters my head, “At what point is Debbie someone I can no longer deeply toil over?”

On one hand, there is the school of thought that says, “You can’t give up on this kid.” However, for people who do not actually teach for a living in an urban school, that sentiment is MUCH HARDER than you think. I mean how do you make a horse drink once you lead it to water?

Having said that, if I give up on Debbie, it’s a slippery slope. Cause then I’ll give up on Max and Tom and Cindy and Jennie at some point, too, right? Giving up is Pandora’s box and once it’s opened… well, we know how that story goes.

So Debbie fails, Debbie won’t buy in, Debbie seems to be having a heck of a fun life (though deep down, it’s obvious she’s sad, self-destructive and could probably use counseling — but funds for that dried up eons ago and America’s willingness to finance public education and all its various components to the extent America ought to is self-evident).

So what does a teacher like me do? If this were Hollywood, the miracle solution to all this kid’s ills would pop into my head, the music would swell and we’d cut to an inspirational montage of Debbie doing her homework, Debbie in the library, Debbie high-fiving me as she shows me an A on her math exam. (Because, of course, once I get through, she’ll improve in ALL of her classes and not just mine.)

But this ain’t Hollywood. This is what I face. I can’t give up on Debbie but I don’t seem to be getting through. And like I said, I have to move on because there are scores of other kids to teach.

Oh yeah, bubble tests that measure the effectiveness of our school are coming up soon. Hmm, I wonder how Debbie is gonna do?