We Must Win

Too right for Fulham. A Lose and any points by Birmingham/Bolton/Reading means mathematical relegation.

More Soccer Funny Truisms, Triumphs and Heartaches.

Fathers, sons and soccer--the game is important to lots of people.

Emerging from the Wilderness Years (1919-2008) has prompted a bewildering range of emotions about the central role these perennial long shots have played in my life, particularly in my relationship with my father, who passed away last August.

Legendary Scottish soccer coach Bill Shankly (on whom Mr. Duvall's character was modelled) was once quoted as saying: "Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I don't like that attitude. I can assure them it is much more serious than that."

For Shanks this was a truism -- he was once outraged at having been accused of taking his wife to see an unglamorous Lancashire side, Rochdale, for their anniversary. "Of course, not. It was her birthday. Would I have got married in the football season? Anyway, it was Rochdale reserves," he grouched.

In some respects this was true of my father, a man who took his future wife to a minor English soccer match on their second date, the first having been to a wrestling bout.

Despite the funny aspects, the writer goes on to point out the pivotal role that a long-shot Scottish team (Queen of hte South) has made it to the Scottish Cup final the year his father passed away.

I'm left to conclude he was something of a jinx on the Queens. He passed away last August and they have been virtually unbeatable ever since. When they won the quarter-final game I found his e-mail address on my Black-Berry -- I've been unable to delete it -- and sent him a note to let him know we made it. I think he got it -- at any rate, it didn't bounce back as undeliverable.

Maybe it's just as well he wasn't around to watch the semi-final against Aberdeen last Saturday. He had a notoriously nervous stomach and this was a white knuckle ride. Three times Queens led against their more illustrious opponents, three times Aberdeen equalized. Then, with half an hour to go, Queens scored a fourth and Aberdeen had nothing left to give.

So we're off to the final in Glasgow next month, my six-year-old son James and I. We'll both be wearing our Queens' jerseys with pride, just as I did half-a-lifetime ago when I first went to see them with my own Dad. It's only a game but as any sports fan knows, in many ways, it's much more important than that.

People often scoff at soccer, but substitute Boston Red Sox or Chicago Cubs for Queen of the South and you get how people feel about soccer around the world--with as much passion and as much heart as any american fan.

Fox Soccer Channel's Bobby McMahon on North American Sports

I thought this jab by McMahon was just laugh out funny:

The North American disease strikes again. The hockey play-offs are on and the great North American tradition of rioting when you win gets underway. Surely this must lead to a European ban for all NHL clubs? If you ask me this is why hockey/baseball/basketball/gridiron football will never catch on in the rest of the world. If you can’t even get your reason for wanton destruction right, how can you ever expect normal thugs and hooligans to relate?

No self-respecting English football hooligan would riot when his team WINS--that is just plain wasteful of a good riot--eventually his club will lose thanks to cheating/bad refs/name-your-conspriacy-theory. that is when you riot.

The Teacher Led School--The Law Firm Model

I find myself caught up in this subject and to a certain extent riffing off the writing of Marc Dean Millot.

My last post on this subject toward the end discussed a comment on one of Millot's posts dealing with how a teacher led school would look and to a certain extent operate. The commenter thought that a teacher led school, managed by "professional teachers" educated, trained, licensed and regulated like a legally recognized profession such as law or medicine, would look either like an in-house legal department at a corporation or like a private law firm.

The comment immediately got me thinking about a trend in law firm management of hiring a non-lawyer manager answering to a committee of partners rather than the traditional model of a "managing partner." The reasons for the trend include ideas that managing a large entity takes specialized skills, skills that a law firm partner may not have. But running a law firm is a business that does not necessarily require a law degree or actually practicing law, thus a move toward professional managers.

But the idea of a school managed by a committee of teachers with a "director of operations" in intriguing. Having spent some time examining this idea in the context of a law firm, here is what such a school would look like and operate--and it can be done without a full-blown move to a full professional standing for teachers--but it could help the move in that direction.

For those unfamiliar with law firm structures, in general, over a certain size, most firms look and operate pretty much alike. The culture may be different but it works pretty much the same. At the top are the senior partners. These individuals have years, even decades of experience both as practitioners and as "draws" for clients. Next step down are junior partners/senior associates. The different between the two is largely based upon their compensation, partners get a share of the firms profits, senior associates get a salary. But functionally, they operate as the front line, day to day lawyers in the firm, generating a lot of billing, business and work product for the firm. At the bottom are junior associates, usually within 3-4 years of graduating law school. Their job, in addition to doing a lot of the grunt work of lawyering, the research, drafting, calendaring and general scut work that has to be done by lawyers, is to learn the legal trade, usually under the guidance of everyone above them. Finally a law firm has non-lawyer staff, paralegals, secretaries, IT staff, accounting, HR, etc. These non-lawyer professionals run the day to day affairs of a firm in order to allow the lawyers to lawyer.

A teacher run school, in this model would have a similar breakdown.

The method by which this could be accomplished is by using a state's charter law. A group of teachers could apply for a charter with a school along a law firm model. In the model, there would be senior teachers on a managing committee, say 8-12 in total. Each of these senior teachers would have three roles, not unlike senior partners. First would be management of the school. Whether this is delegated to a staff person or handled by committee, they would be ultimately responsible for the schools bottom line--fiscally and educationally. While there may be other senior teachers at the school, this small committee is responsible, just like the management committee of a law firm, for the overall success of the school.

Second each managing teacher would probably be a "department head" responsible for a discreet area of the school's mission. Be that math, science, history, English, Literature, what have you. Most law firms have lawyers who head a "practice group" a groups of lawyers practicing in the same general field. There is often overlap in the membership of these groups, just like having a teacher who teaches both Physics and calculus. Ultimately, these practice group heads are responsible for the success of the practice groups, accountable to the management committee.

Third, each senior teacher is a classroom teacher. Most senior partners at a law firm are among the most successful lawyers in the firm in terms legal experience and at bringing in business. To attract students, these senior teachers need to be the "rainmakers," enticing parents and students with their skill in the classroom and their ability to deliver. They would have the autonomy, judgment and ability to get students to perform to teh best of their ability and to develop other teachers to do the same.

Skilled senior lawyers also know that their success depends on the quality of junior lawyers (the associates) in their firm. Senior teacher will also have to collectively ensure that their junior teachers receive the additional training, practice, supervision and development to continue to build on the school's success. As such, a senior teacher may not spend their entire day as the front line classroom teacher, this would be left to the mid level teachers who would carry the brunt of the teaching duties, so that senior teachers are working to develop the junior teachers as professionals.

At an operations level, I would envision say 20 or so well-known, well-respected teachers in an area banding together to build such a school. They would have some "name draw" and also understand the mechanics of developing curricula, programs and other needs of the school. They would identify/recruit mid-level teachers for day to day teaching and start recruiting junior teachers to flesh out the school's teaching staff. As a charter school, they have a stake in the schools's success, which while not financial, is predicated upon the school's ability to teach successfully.

Finally, as in a lawyerly model, the teachers at this school would develop a code of professional conduct by which to evaluate the reasonableness of their own and their colleagues work. More on that in a different post.

Wal-Mart unit limits rice purchases

Wal-Mart unit limits rice purchases on large 20 poiund bags of imported long grain rices, which have been hit by price spikes.

Smaller bags are unaffected according to the company.

The Professionalization of Teachers, Part V

The issue of the professionalization of teaching has come across my radar again, thanks to Marc Dean Millot, who writes at Edbizbuzz, a blog associated with Education week. Two weeks ago, Millot posted this item on the professionalization of teachers, meaning the movement away from a labor union model to a legal, medical or accounting model where teachers have a legally recognized, self-regulatory body.

I have long thought this to be a much more sensible approach to treating teachers like professionals. However a self-regulatory body that governs the right of teachers to teach in a given state is a difficult step to take and would require significant changes in how teachers are trained, retained, managed and compensated. Millot makes this point:

As a matter of law, professional work involves three key attributes. By these criteria, teaching is no profession, but should be.

The first two are joined at the hip. Members of legally recognized professions owe a special duty of care to their clients – based on their specialized knowledge and expertise. They are personally liable for their decisions, and so enjoy the autonomy necessary to exercise their professional judgment.

Public school teachers have no specific duty to their students beyond assuring their safety. They are not legally responsible for providing their students with what each needs to know and be able to do at grade level (see here). They have a very restricted range of discretion in what they can do for any student, and requirements to follow state, local and school policies that might even make it harder for a kid to learn.

The third attribute is self-regulation. Society makes the practice of many trades a privilege rather than a right via some kind of licensing and/or testing requirement. Barbers, real estate brokers and teachers are licensed based on a test. Lawyers, doctors and accountants are as well, but their exams are devised, administered and scored by a governing body elected by members of that profession. The privilege to practice law, medicine and accounting is granted by these bodies, and only these bodies can withdraw the privilege.

For his error in surgery, a Doctor may be fired from his hospital practice, thrown onto the street by his partners, sued in civil court for malpractice and tried for murder under criminal law. But only his professional body can take away his privilege to practice medicine. This is not true of teachers. They do not control their own licensure or professional discipline.

However, what is interesting is that development of the idea and its impetus will not come from the current crop of teachers nor the teachers making their way through education schools. No, I see the change being driven from without the education establishment, from groups like Teach for America, whose corps members are not beholden to the education establishments myths and beliefs. Whether that comes to pass is another story.

Millot wonders if teacher would be willing to trade automony for an accountability that could be uncomfortable--i.e. professional malpractice. Millot's second question cannot be answered by teachers so easily. To be honest, teaching is not nearly as under paid as one would be led to believe, at least in some parts of the country. (See a post I did over here, about teachers in my home county of Frederick Maryland.) However, with the legally recognized professions, such a medicine and the law, there is potential to make serious funds. But to be real, most lawyers and doctors don't make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year right out of law/medical school. Some do, a lot do, but in reality, most don't. (I don't as an attorney). I think that if teaching became a profession where teachers are able to exercise independent judgment about their students and be capable of providing that student with what they need to succeed, then the compensation will follow.

There was this comment, which I thought to be a brilliant couple of observation:

This is an interesting comment. My sense is that in the end some of the strongest resistance to the idea of teachers as professionals will come from school administrators and governing boards.

Given current school structures, teachers would be more analogous in-house legal staff than to lawyers in a private firm -- though you could imagine teacher-run schools that were similar in structure to private law firms.

First, there will be intense opposition by administrators most directly. I think governing boards, i.e. school boards far less so. But the biggest resistance will come from the very entity designed to "protect" teachers--the unions. Generally professionals are considered independent workers, even if they work at a firm. As such, they are not subjec to the same rules under the National Labor Relations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act and unable to unionize. (Some lawyers and doctors can unionize, but their working conditions do not grant them a great deal of autonomy outside of the defined field. Thus doctors on staff at a hospital could unionize, but most don't). So if teachers became a recognized profession, they would have to forgo the collective bargaining rights they currently enjoy and exercised through the union. The power of the union would be greatly diminished and that is unacceptable to the union, despite the fact that teachers as a group might support the idea.

The second observation about the difference between in-house and firm attorneys is interesting. I would like to tackle the "firm" analogy. I think teacher run schools could be very effective or they could be disaster, it all depends on the teachers themselves. There is a lot more to running a school than might appear at first glance. What would be necessary is to hire a professional to run the administrative side of the school. Whether you call that person a principal or a director of operations doesn't matter.

One of the more interesting developments in the legal world of late is the rise of the non-lawyer manager. In the past, law firms were managed by a "managing partner" who often spent more time running the business of the law firm (particularly at larger firms) than being a lawyer. The problem of course is that lawyers are generally not trained to be businessmen. In recent years, there has been a trend amoung some big firms to hire a professional business manager to allow the firms lawyers to actually lawyer as opposed to run the business side. The business manager still answers to the partners or a committee of partners of the firm, but it puts people in management for whom management is their profession rather than their "second hat."

A teacher run school could look the same way, assuming the teachers were professionals. You would have a management committee made up of senior teachers, who among other things manage the schools over all goals, mentor younger teachers, ensure staff developement etc. A business manager or director of operations would see to day to day management matters, i.e. getting the bills paid, getting the lunch, maintenance, security, safety and logistical matters addressed, allowing teachers to actually do their job--teach.

The idea intrigues me a great deal.

Food Shortages and Prices

Colin Carter and Henry Miller writing in the Orange County Register are discussin rising food prices and how they affect poorer countries more than more prosperous countries.

Price hikes at the supermarket are an inconvenience to consumers in rich countries who are faced with spending more for their milk, eggs, meat and breakfast cereal, but few actually go hungry or are malnourished. In poor countries, however, the doubling of grain prices that has led to an increase in food prices of 60 percent to 70 percent during the past year has been cataclysmic. If a family's income in Africa is a few dollars per day, a grain price shock results in skipped meals and children going hungry.

Food prices have risen relatively faster in poor countries because their populations eat a simpler diet rich in staples – that is, they consume more grains directly, so there are few links in the food-supply chain that can absorb price increases.

So what has cause them, well the United States and Europe have caused a fair share of the damage.

Skyrocketing grain prices are partly due to wrong-headed policy choices in the United States and Europe, where irrational exuberance about biofuels has led to the diversion of vast amounts of cropland from growing food into inefficient fuel production. In December 2007, the U.S. government passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which raised the mandated volume of renewable fuels (mostly corn-based ethanol) for 2008 from 5.4 billion to 9 billion gallons, a huge increase over a short time. Because the law of supply and demand trumps anything the Congress can produce, we should not be surprised that the price of corn has risen by about 50 percent since December.

A whole bushel of corn yields 2.8 gallons of ethanol, so that to meet the congressional mandates, this year the United States will need to devote more than a quarter of its corn crop to ethanol production. Generous government subsidies for ethanol and mandatory minimum use of so-called "renewable" fuels have removed from the world marketplace a quarter of U.S. corn, which is by far the largest source of this commodity in world markets. Moreover, the price increases caused by politicians' intoxication with corn-derived ethanol has spilled over to wheat and other crops that can substitute for corn.

This is sort of a basic economics question.

There is a finite amount of grains, including corn, wheat, rice, etc., that can be grown in a given year. Therefore the question is really about the allocation of resources amount its particular uses. A bushel of corn can be used to feed people or feed a machine to make ethanol, but not both things. When the allocation of resources is governed by market forces, generally the allocation will be the best balance. But when the govenrment gets involved, by, for example, mandating a certain amount of bio-fuel production, there is a fall-out and that usually means higher prices for someone and there are substantial portions of the world population cannot absorb those prices.

Conflict is inevitable in these conditions, one only hopes that bio-fuel happy governments will come to their senses sooner or later.

I Always Thought Conservation Was a Good Thing

Particularly when conserving water during periods of drought, but apparently not in Atlanta. What do residents get when the conserved water in teh recent drought? The thanks of the local water utility who now seek a 15% increase in fees because they lost money by people conserving water.

How stupid is that?

Fun Education Type News

Popular Mechanics has a story about a high school robotics competition.

These devices are impressive and the student-designers/engineers have a very bright future.

Lampard: Chelsea Deserved Tie

I am not so sure that is accurate.

The Blues were heading for a 1-0 defeat thanks to Dirk Kuyt's 43rd-minute goal but John Arne Riise nodded a Salomon Kalou cross into his own net in the 95th minute.

'I think we deserved definitely to get the draw at the end,' Lampard said on ITV1.

'They had chances, we had chances.

'It was a battle and we carried on to the end.'

Goalkeeper Petr Cech, who kept his side in the tie with a number of vital saves agreed, claiming the goal made up for bad luck he believes Chelsea have suffered in their two previous semi-finals at Anfield.

Battle May Be Hurting Democrats

You think?

A Look Inside HIllary's Campaign

I have always thought her campaign to be poorly run and consultant heavy. Michelle Cottle supports my view:

Rife with big egos and competing centers of influence--veterans of Hillary's First Lady days, relative newbies from her Senate office, Bill's '92 people, Bill's '96 people--Team Hillary has never been a comfortably cohesive group. In happier times, discipline was easier to maintain. But, as this race has grown longer and rougher, the staff's nerves and relations have been badly strained by persistent financial troubles and constant turf wars, not to mention one increasingly unmanageable ex-president. Some days, it's hard to remember that, just six months ago, the campaign was regarded as a highly disciplined machine. More and more, it resembles an unruly rock band plagued by dysfunction and public infighting. From Williams's arrival to Solis Doyle's demise to Penn's ascent, fall, and return, the ebb and flow of power in Hillaryland over the past few months has left multiple people acting like they are in charge--and no one really in control.

Cottle points a big finger at Mark Penn who not only lacks interpersonal skills, but the inability to maintain a cohesive strategy. Cottle concludes:

And so the jockeying and layering and squabbling grinds on, even as Hillary's chances of capturing the nomination grow ever more remote. From the outside, the struggle for control of a campaign that likely won't be around much longer may appear absurd. In Ballston, however, the sense of looming loss seems only to feed the fury, as advisers grab for what may be their last chance to right the ship. Whether driven on by dedication, desperation, or delusion, some of Hillary's not-so-happy warriors find themselves unable to give up the fight--not just against Barack Obama, but also against each other.

With any demise of Hillary Clinton's presdintial campaign, if it occurs will be the inability of any of these people to ever work together again. More bad news for the Democrats because some of these people are smart operatives who might do very well with the right candidates but probably won't be given the opportunity.

A Promotion for Gen. Petraeus

Could happen to a better man.

A Good Question from Rick Moran

Rick Moran asks a really good question: Hillary Clinton received 62% of the white vote. Barack Obama received 89% of the African American vote. The question facing superdelegates is: how can they run a candidate who loses the white vote by almost 2-1 in a state they absolutely must carry to win the election?

The battle rages on and the Superdelegates have an ever tougher job.

Pajamas Media » Blog Archive » Hillary Stays Alive

Wal-Mart's PAC Mentality

The Center for Public Integrity takes on Wal-Mart's PAC matching program.

The PAC match program is nothing new and really doesn't seem all that wrong. But CPI just wants to raise a question. The FEC has routinely ruled that such PAC match programs are permitted.

The Carnival Of Education: Week 168

Now open at the Ed Wonks.

Also open is the Carnival of Homeschooling.

Ouch!! Injury Time Own Goal Saves Chelsea

In the first leg of the Chelsea-Liverpool Champion's League semi-final, Liverpool's Norwegian defender John Arne Riise headed a cross into his own net, giving Chelsea a goal to even up the series.

Teh unbelievable turn of events puts Chelsea into the driver's seat heading to the second leg at Stamford Bridge, where Chelsea has not lost a match in 100 games. Liverpool will need a win and at least a 2-2 draw to advance. A 1-1 draw will force extra time and possibly penalties.

Soccer by Ives has video of the disaster.

Does Riise have security protection now?

Own goals happen but this one could cost Liverpool a spot in the Champion's League final.

My Latest Watchblog Post Is Up

Over here. It is an updated version of this post.

Check out all the writing at Watchblog, it is worth a look no matter what your political persuasion might be.

Report on Davis v. FEC

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has a report on the Davis v. FEC case heard at the Supreme Court yesterday. As Denniston puts it, the Justices seemed to be unable to muster sympathy for either side, the self-funded candidates or the Congressional effort.

In fact, so much doubt had been expressed about the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment” that the Justices seriously explored what, if any parts, of it could be salvaged.

The part of the law that seemed most in jeopardy gives opponents of self-financing candidates a chance to call on a political party for a lot more financial support — even though that is denied to the wealtheir candidates themselves. Also, a provision compelling self-financed candidates to make repeated public disclosures about their spending seemed to be in some trouble, too.

The reason for the pervasive skepticism during the hour-long argument in Davis v. Federal Election Commission (07-320) was that several of the Justices voiced concern that Congress might have been trying to influence the content of the political messages that get conveyed during a congressional campaign — a potential First Amendment problem. A move by Congress to “level the playing field” appeared to be interpreted as a reach to control those messages. Most tellingly, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., questioned whether Congress in enacting the Amendment genuinely intended to stop the corrupting influence of money in politics — the only rationale the Court has accepted for campaign finance regulation.

To be honest, I had not considered the increases party spending matter. Under the campaign finance laws, a candidate can only get a limited amount of coordinated party expenditures (although the party can make unlimited independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate). An opponent of a self-funded candidate can get more party suppport, which means that outside agents (the parties themselves) are subject to different rules--a sort of equal protection argument by proxy.

The public disclosure rules are probably toast--it is the most clear cut equal protection argument out there. Whether other provisions get struck down is a little bit more of an open question. As I noted before, the whole Amendment, can be attacked on equal protection grounds, but also on the grounds that if Congress' goal is to limit the influence of so-called "special interest" money in politics, increasing the contribution limits for one candidate seems like an illogical method of accomplishing that goal.

Prof. Hasen thinks that the Court will strike some parts of the law and uphold others.

The Center for Competitive Politics report notes suprise in Justice Kennedy's line of questioning regarding the party coordinated expenditures as well as the fact that the Court seemed to dismiss what many commentators thought was Davis' weak standing argument. But if the Justices are pre-disposed to consider the increased disclosures as the injury, such a move to ignore the standing issue is not surprising.

Bob Bauer doesn't have any post-argument comments up yet, but his pre-argument post which included this comment:

Here is irony: if the Amendment can be traced to soft money at all—and if soft money is broadly defined to mean all money raised and spent beyond the law’s established limits—then the Amendment legalized a form of "soft money." Now a candidate with a millionaire opponent could qualify for a special limit, elevated well above the one within which other candidates have to operate. This is the only other choice on hand for describing of this law: either it has nothing to do with soft money, or if it does, it authorized for certain candidates, with certain opponents, access to a freshly created class of soft money donations.

Bauer presented this in context of commenting on this article.

A transcript of the hearing is here.