2+2=5

Sometimes this country's education system really boggles my mind. I know there's no easy fix and that, presumably, people are doing the best they can to make it work, but a lot of the policies seem counter-intuitive. Take my job for example. The students I tutor receive the help for free thanks to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and increased Title I funding to the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). In other words, the government is paying for the tutoring the children receive.
Under NCLB, each state sets their own academic standards and determines the level at which each child should perform. There is no national standard set. So far, so good. All this testing and goal setting is, of course, put in place to make the states and their districts more accountable for the help the kids get. The government wants to make sure their money gets put to good use and the students are improving at a rate that is satisfactory. Fine. That makes sense.

Where things start to break down is in the lack of leeway educators are given in choosing and creating curriculum for their students. Like everything else about the program, it is strictly regulated by LAUSD, the state government, and the federal government. It is my job, as a tutor, to assess the students' abilities against state standards, to do all I can to make sure they reach those standards and give the student a post-assessment to see if they reached their goal. The big problem here is that test assessment covers a wider range of subjects than the government sanctioned curriculum covers. It's like the government asking students to be proficient in 10 categories, but only giving them help is three and forbidding any outside assistance.

At one point my company had an account to an online service that allowed educators to access supplemental worksheets; extra lessons to be used in addition to the main curriculum. That account is no longer available because it does not fall under the category of acceptable education material set by the state. Now I have to look elsewhere and find material on my own that may or may not pertain to the sanctioned curriculum. It's not that I mind looking for the material, it's that the state is asking for higher scores in subjects they are unwilling to provide material for.

I have a student who needs help in spelling. The lesson plans in the district approved workbook I am supposed to use do not cover spelling. It is meant as a reader. I asked my boss if they had any spelling material and she said no. I can only use what's in the workbooks and maybe adapt some of the reading lessons into something for spelling. Well, my student does not need the type of help given in the workbook. He needs something far more specific.

I understand the need for quality control and assurance, but limiting the resources of the educator creates two problems: The student will receive limited help in their given subject of need and/or the educator will go out on their own and find their own material to teach, standards be damned. Either way, the students are the ones losing out. They are not getting the help they need and the post-assessment test will show that. The government will either throw more money at the problem and hope it helps or stop funding because they think the status quo is ineffective. If the government approved curriculum matched the subjects being tested a lot of the program's deficiencies would disappear. I know that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one writing and passing the legislation. But still, honestly people, it's a simple game of matching things up. Test four subjects. Give help in four subjects. It's so easy a first grader could do it.

Carl's Jr.: How Loathsome Can You Go?

There has been a lot of buzz on the interwebs lately over the new Carl's Jr. commercial featuring "Hills" cast member, Audrina Patridge. In the commercial Audrina is lounging on the beach in a bikini while eating a burger. Its pretty standard stuff for Carl's Jr. whose previous commercials have included Padma Lakshmi and Paris Hilton. This new commercial, though, this one really puts my fries in a twist.

The commercial is intolerable for two reasons, the first of which is Audrina's voice work. Her voice is sleepier than her eyes. At no time does she sound the least bit sexy or at all enthused about the burger. Stephen Hawking whispering into my ear is more arousing than listening to Audrina.

The most infuriating thing about the commercial, though, is the use of Rilo Kiley's song, "Moneymaker." This isn't Carl's Jr.'s fault, it's Rilo Kiley's. I'm of the school of thought that believes bands shouldn't license out their music to corporations. Beyond that, I never thought Rilo Kiley was the kind of band to do such a thing. They are indie darlings who have four albums worth of solid song craft. Added to that, many of their songs are about, in some way or another, female struggle and empowerment. They take an honest look at life as a female. Their artistic integrity and message are completely at odds with the imagery and message of the commercial. Not least of all, Jenny and many if not all of the other band members are vegetarian/vegan. Why would a band of vegetarians agree to release their song to a fast food corporation? Are they really that desperate for money? Are there really that many bills to pay? My only explanation is that Rilo Kiley doesn't hold rights to the song and it was sold to Carl's Jr. by their record label. And that, my friends, is shitty.

Although, it's a whole other discussion, a record label's job is to represent and promote a band in the best way possible. Not everything is about the bottom line. Part of representation means ensuring the integrity of the band's image and message. Selling songs to a fast food corporation is not how I would define the preservation of artistic integrity.


The abomination can be seen here: