The changing dynamics of education…

Recently a cartoon depicting the change of attitudes among parents, students, and teachers has been making the rounds of Facebook. In 1969, the poor grades a student would have was mostly the fault of the student in the eyes of the parents. In 2009, it was the opposite. The poor grades a student would have was mostly the fault of the teacher in the eyes of a parents.

The change of attitudes have coincided with the changing dynamics of the parent-teacher relationships. A long time ago, most parents worked with teachers to help educate their kids. Parents trusted the teachers to provide their kids with the best education possible, and when the kids were not learning properly, they focused their wrath on the kids and would maybe try to work harder with the kids to improve their grades. But there have been changes to that trust. The pressure of gaining scholarships, the increasing revelations of adult relations between kids and teachers (in real life and in Hollywood), the helicoptering parent attitudes around their kids, the pressure schools face in order to not lose government funding, the increase of social issues creeping into schools, and other factors have contributed to such an erosion of trust between parents and teachers that now the parents blame the teachers for the kids poor grades.

Ironically, many of today’s teachers and school administrators were students not that long ago. And let’s be honest: some of those once-students were not the best of the best students. Many of the once-elite students went off to work in Wall Street, at multi-billion dollar companies, become lawyers or politicians that now dictate rules to schools instead of supporting schools, or work for places that would provide more salary to them than teaching. Teachers are over-worked, underpaid, and underappreciated. So why would a once elite student want to go through their adult lives barely living from paycheck to paycheck, deal with regulations that their predecessors did not, and deal with angry students and parents who think they know better than the teachers on what the teachers should teach? Wouldn’t the elite student feel better off going somewhere else making money and not have to deal with hundreds of parents more concerned with their little Johnny or Susie getting an A?

Parents of today also don’t always pay attention to everything going on with their kids. Many parents have two jobs to work in order to afford the best for their kids and can’t always give their kids the love and support they need. They want everything: money, fame, and smart kids who get scholarships. They feel money and things will buy the kids happiness and help them learn to always get A’s. The kids are unhappy and feel they need attention one way or another. So in some situations, the kids invent the issue to help get them attention.

In short, parents and kids contribute to the problems of today. But there are also teachers who cause problems as well. The pressures of being a teacher today (money, hours, support) sometimes get the better of teachers. Some turn to alcoholism, drug use, and, in some cases, having sexual relations with their students. These extreme examples help further erode the trust parents and teachers once have. Even without extreme examples, teachers are human, too. They can possibly show favoritism in some situations to kids of friends, only helping out those who may or may not need the help, while neglecting those who really need help to learn.

So how do we solve the problems? There is no easy answer, unfortunately. It will take years, maybe even generations of hard work to regain that trust, if it can ever be regained. And it has to be hard work on all sides: from parents who take time to help their kids learn, from teachers getting the support from administrators and who avoid the temptations of the world, and from kids willing to do what it takes to become the best they can be. Maybe we never had a perfect world between students and teachers and maybe we never will, but we won’t know if we don’t try.

Is the GOP deliberately trying to lose in 2012?

As we have finished up the last of the pre-Iowa caucus debates which will begin to determine who will face President Obama on the GOP side in the Fall 2012 Presidential election, a disturbing thought has entered my head… is the GOP trying to lose in 2012 to set up regaining the White House in 2016 with a huge majorities in both houses of Congress?  It’s possible, especially when you consider how weak the GOP field is this time around.  Outside of Mitt Romney, it has largely been the C and D-list GOPers who have been vying for the nomination.  Rick Santorum was last seen getting tossed out of the Senate by an alledged pro-life Democrat.  Michelle Bachmann spends more time demanding apologies from late-night band leaders than campaigning.  Rick Perry is making George W. Bush look smart.  Herman Cain was the leading guy for 10 seconds before sexual misconduct allegations ended his run.  Ron Paul is… well, Ron Paul.  John Huntsman could probably beat Obama… if the guy could get just any love from the GOP and Tea Party folks.  And Newt?  He’s got more baggage on him than an airport claim area, and it keeps growing.

Look at who sat out the 2012 GOP Primary.  Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Rudy Guliani, and Mike Huckabee all decided to take a pass in this year’s primary-all better candidates than most of the current 2012 choices.  And there are other Governors who were just elected on the GOP side who are very green, but who could make a run in 2016.  Perhaps the GOP wants a Tea Party candidate who would fail against Obama to break the strong will of the Tea Party to a point in 2016 where the Tea Party might be more willing to accept a moderated selection.

Meanwhile, if Obama goes on to win re-election next year, the list of Democratic candidates in 2016 will be thin.  Vice President Biden has indicated he would take a run at President, but he will be older than Reagan when Reagan ran in 1980.  Hillary has indicated she is through running for President.  And there aren’t too many other experienced Democrats who could be a worthy successor to President Obama.  Devall Patrick of Massachusetts is a possibility, but Democrats from Massachusetts haven’t done well since Kennedy.  Martin O’ Malley might have the resources to make a run, but would a liberal from Maryland who needs 75% of Democrats in the Legislature to get anything done in Maryland work on the National Level?  Perhaps Andrew Cuomo of New York may be the ideal choice to run on top of the Democrat ticket in 2016, but they may have to deal with an Occupy group that will force the Democrats to be more liberal than they would.

At this point, the GOP seems content to let Obama win re-election so they can strengthen their position for 2016.  With an aging Democratic leadership in Congress, the Republicans knew the list of likely Presidential options will be so thin that they can focus on taking down just a few people to easily win in 2016.  Is it too difficult to imagine such a scenario?

Predicting Penn State’s fate using the past…

The Penn State University scandal is dominating the Sports World as many people have weighed in.  So far, the scandal has forced the firing of the University President, a legendary Football Coach, the school AD and a VP.  And none of them are involved in the worst of the accusations, which involves a former Assistant Football Coach who was once rumored to be the heir apparent to Joe Paterno.  Jerry Sandusky’s mysterious departure in 1999 now appears to be related to allegations of child molestation, and attempts to hide the situation only made it worse when more allegations of child abuse surfaced after Sandusky left but the program, but was still associated with the program.

Joe Paterno’s firing was consistent with past scandals.  Even when a scandal ultimately turned out to be nothing (as in the case of the Duke Lacrosse team in 2006), the head coach is usually fired in the process.  But this scandal is far worse than the scandals of the past 25 years.  In fact the only scandal that seems to come close in terms of disgust was the Baylor Basketball scandal of 2003, where one player murdered another and the head coach tried to cover up the murder by pinning drugs on the victim.  In the end, the Baylor basketball team was dealt a severe blow for many years, and only the Drew family of Valparaiso, Indiana could restore Baylor to National prominence.

Another far lesser scandal led to the near termination of a Football Power.  In the 1980s, SMU’s team was delivered a severe blow as allegations of repeated paying of football players left the NCAA no choice but to issue a termination of the program for at least a year.  The “death penalty” left the SMU program is such disarray that SMU has not been competitive since.  The NCAA, as a result, has been hesitant to issue another death penalty to any other school since.

A friend of mine, John Brown, suggested that Penn State’s football program should be terminated.  While extreme, the move would not be without precedence.  In the late 1930s, the University of Chicago decided to terminate its football program to prevent the program from descending into the levels that other fellow Big Ten programs and other School had at the time to win National Titles.  It would be nearly 30 years before the University of Chicago would field another Varsity Football Team, and now it operates at the much lower Division III level, never to compete at the National levels it once had.

Still, the NCAA has a chance to do the right thing here.  If the allegations against Jerry Sandusky are proven true, then Penn State is guilty of lack of institutional control, a major violation that should be grounds for the death penalty—if the NCAA had the courage to execute it again.  This may be the best hope for anyone looking for justice in this scandal.  A year or two away from college football may risk Penn State being non-competitive for 30 years, but in the long run, it may be a chance to prove that no school is bigger than the NCAA, and, in the process, it may begin to restore some integrity to college football.

What is needed now is a Kennesaw Landis type of personality to come down hard on Penn State and force the big school into potential reforms to prevent this kind of scandal (or anything else close to it) from ever happening again.  But will we ever see that happen?  We can only hope.

Recap of 4G World

For the last 5 years, I have had the honor of attending one of the most important conferences in the Wireless Communications Industry.  This conference has focused on the present and future of the Wireless Industry, presented by the Yankee Group of Boston.  In 2007 and 2008, the conference was known as WiMAX World, as the conference focused on the future of Computer communications.  WiMAX at that time appeared to have major backing among startups and some incumbants like Sprint.  In 2009, the Conference changed it’s name to 4G World, recognizing the importance of LTE and HSPA+ in the world of communications.  And since that time, the growth of LTE has made the most die-hard WiMAX providers plan to switch over to LTE.

At this year’s conference, WiMAX was not talked about much.  It is clear that LTE has won the ‘4G’ Wars.  The discussions rather focused on how to address the problem of capacity in networks.  It is clear that smartphones, led by the iPhone have been successful—too successful.  The fact that people are using their phones for more than just phone calls and texting has become apparent in the rise of mobile data being used for things such as Web browsing, Social Media, and Streaming video.  In fact, making a phone call on a mobile phone has become only the 4th most used application of a phone.

But this use of Mobile Data on Smartphones has led to a problem.  The networks are being strained.  Already, mobile data offloading to unsecure WiFi mesh networks are occurring in places such as New York and San Francisco.  And the problem is getting worse.  Within 2 years, it is expected that we will have the first smartphone meltdown.  This meltdown will make the Blackberry’s issues last month look like a Sunday picnic.

So, what are Mobile companies planning to do about it?  Aside from data throttling where they could restrict users to a hard cap of data usage, the options are few and not guaranteed to work.  The big idea involves creating heterogeneous networks (or HetNets), where a large macro-cell will be supplemented in its coverage areas by smaller metro-cell (including lightRadio Cubes in neighborhoods and femtocells in homes and businesses).  These smaller cells will increase the capacity of cell coverage areas, while not interfering with the larger macro-cell.  To ensure these smaller metro-cells are connected to the network, backhaul will need to be provided.  The backhaul will either be fiber or microwave in nature.

Obviously, unlimited data plans are also being scrapped.  Contrary to what Sprint says, they announced at the conference that they were eliminating unlimited mobile data in their dongels and hot spots.  They are trying to maintain unlimited data in their phones, but the writing is on the wall that unlimited data will soon end on their phones, particularly as the iPhone makes it’s appearance on the Sprint network.

Speaking of Sprint, in early October they announced that they were going to develop their LTE network at the expense of terminating their Nextel customers and ultimately ending their selling of WiMAX gear.  They also hinted they would end their relationship with Clearwire and be willing to let Clearwire go bankrupt.  At the conference, however, they suggested that they would maintain their relationship with Clearwire’s WiMAX network for as long as possible.  Very few people believed that statement, however, leading to speculation that Verizon or AT&T maybe interested in purchasing some of Clearwire’s valuable spectrum, openly in front of Sprint’s executives.

This conference was a great showcase of what is to come and the dangers that the wireless networks face.  The coming years will show how wireless companies can handle the oncoming Mobile data storm.

Sprint’s hypocritical attempt to destroy a wireless company…

On Oct. 7, Sprint finally announced their future intentions regarding “4G technology”.  While there was no surprise that Sprint has decided to drop WiMAX in favor of LTE (probably the best part of the announcement), Sprint’s plans will result in the termination of it’s Nextel PTT unit and effectively try to bankrupt Clearwire so Sprint can pick up the pieces on the cheap.  Meanwhile, Sprint is suing to block the AT&T-T-Mobile merger, stating that the merger would leave 2 giant wireless companies with Sprint a distant third.  As I’ve said before on this blog, Sprint’s problems aren’t because AT&T and Verizon have an unfair advantage; it’s because Sprint is just incompetent.  I have corroborating information from others in the wireless world.  And this plan of Sprint's shows just how bad their incompetence is.

I’m going to ignore Sprint’s iPhone deal, which suggests that even under optimal conditions, Sprint will not turn a profit on the iPhone until 2014—even if they meet their expectations on the contract.  But, as an aside, Steve Jobs' likely final business decision was a stroke of genius at the expense of Sprint’s CEO, Dan Hesse.  Apple will never get a deal that good ever again.

So let’s sum up Sprint’s LTE plans… They plan to deploy LTE in their 1900-MHz band currently occupied by their CDMA network.  This is far higher in the spectrum range than AT&T and Verizon, which deploy their LTE networks in the 700 MHz band (AT&T will also deploy LTE in the AWS bandwidths of 1.7/2.1 GHz, similar to where Sprint’s network will be).  Translation:  Sprint will need more towers than AT&T and Verizon does to cover the same areas.  Sprint will likely deploy 5x5 MHz LTE Spectrum, far lower than the 10x10 MHz spectrum Verizon and AT&T (in some areas) has for LTE.  Translation:  Sprint’s LTE rate will be slower than Verizon and AT&T, and it may even be slower than its current WiMAX network, which goes up to 10 MHz as well.

As a result of Sprint’s LTE deployment, their CDMA network will move to 800 MHz, which effectively means the end of its Nextel iDEN network.  They will likely sell the iDEN equipment to somewhere else in the world, but all the Nextel PTT users will either be eliminated or forced to join Sprint’s PCS network.

As for Sprint’s WiMAX network it shares with Clearwire, after 2012, Sprint will stop selling WiMAX handsets.  My hunch is that Sprint will stop supporting WiMAX at that time, leaving its WiMAX users out in the dark.  It’s ironic, considering Sprint owns 54 percent of Clear, but Sprint and Clear in recent years has mixed together about as well as oil and water.  Clear is planning to deploy LTE on it’s network, but it needs money and Sprint has no intention of supporting Clear after their current contract with Clear is over in 2012.  In fact, Sprint is hoping Clear goes bankrupt to scoop up the spectrum Clear owns.  Because without Clear’s spectrum, it’s a near guarantee Sprint would be forced to end it’s unlimited data packages, given the limited amount of spectrum they would have minus Clear.

Clear owns spectrum in the 2.6 GHz range, which isn’t ideal for deployment of LTE, but it has huge advantages.  The 2.6 GHz Spectrum was bought by Clear and Worldcom in 2001.  When Worldcom went bankrupt in 2002, Nextel picked up the spectrum for a song ($144 million) and Sprint inherited the Spectrum when they merged with Nextel.  Sprint gave the spectrum to Clearwire in 2008 as part of gaining 54% of the Craig McCaw founded company.  Now Sprint is hoping that a Clear bankruptcy would enable Sprint to reclaim their spectrum and add Clear’s spectrum.  The idea would be that Sprint would claim a huge amount of spectrum with which they could deploy an larger and faster LTE network on the cheap.

But the 2.6 GHz spectrum Clear owns has become the most prized wireless spectrum in the US, and it’s unlikely Sprint would be allowed to take it without a fight.  For one thing, the amount of Spectrum Clear owns is huge (about 120 MHz, maybe even more).  If any major Wireless Company gets a hold of that spectrum, it would alleviate any spectrum crunches those companies would have for a long time.  Second, the 2.6 GHz spectrum has seen many LTE deployments in the world already and could easily be a world LTE standard, making roaming a likely possibility.  So, it Clear goes bankrupt, expect a fight between AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint over the spectrum.  And, even if Sprint won the whole spectrum, I would expect it to pay a huge price for it (certainly above the $144 million Nextel paid for it—I estimate it would cost at least $25 billion for the whole spectrum).  And you don’t think AT&T would love to pay Sprint back for their attempts to block AT&T’s attempt to buy T-Mobile to acquire more spectrum.  With Sprint needing cash, it’s unlikely Sprint would be able to hold on to the entire spectrum without court victories.

Even if Sprint gets everything it wants, the hypocrisy they are showing over the AT&T-T-Mobile merger while they try to snuff out Clear is blatant.  Also, there is no guarantee that Sprint will be able to do anything with that spectrum due to financial issues.  And even if they do, Sprint’s reputation suggests they will deploy an inferior product.  It’s time for the FCC and the DoJ to call Sprint on their hypocrisy and tell Sprint to try and succeed on their own.  Maybe Sprint will survive and maybe they won’t.  But it’s time for Sprint to prove their value in the consumer world and not in the courts.

Liberty for all vs. Justice for all…

Our great nation has forever been divided into two camps since the moment we first declared independence with a third camp that will support the winner in the struggle.  Patriots vs. Loyalists gave way to Federalists vs. Democrat-Republicans which gave away to North vs. South and later Democrats vs. Republicans.  Since the Vietnam War, we have been divided into camps of Conservatives vs. Liberals, but even now these sides have evolved into a new phase that is growing up right before our eyes.  One side is the Tea Party.  The other is a yet to named Party that is now occupying Wall Street.  There is a better way to describe the Two Sides and that description is found in the last five words of our Pledge of Allegiance:  “Liberty For All” vs. “Justice For All”.

The “Liberty for All” side is the Tea Party.  Their belief focuses on that Government is not a solution to the problem; rather, Government is the problem.  Their historical guide is the American Revolution.  They believe individuals have the right to choose their own fate and live their own lives.  Many are successful from the standpoint that they own their own homes and they may even own their own businesses.  Liberty, itself, is viewed as freedom with responsibility in their eyes.  Everyone has the ability to live their own way, and their success and failure is based on their willingness to do what it takes to succeed (usually hard work, although some choose to take short cuts to get ahead).  It is Darwinian in nature, which is ironic considering many on this side also believe in Christianity.

The “Justice for All” side is manifested in the form of those currently occupying Wall Street.  Their belief focuses on that humanity’s elite is corrupt and only a strong force (not necessarily Government, but if Government is the only way to accomplish the goals, that they will push the Government to act) can bring the elite to Justice.  Their historical guide is the French Revolution.  Many in the movement have been hurt by those who they feel have committed crimes or taken short cuts to get ahead at their expense.  Justice doesn’t necessarily focus only on resolving legal conflicts to their satisfaction, but it can also extend to social causes (equal rights, providing for the needs of all, caring for the environment, and making everyone more equal).  Everyone is protected to some degree from humanity’s worst instincts, aka, The “Seven Deadly Sins”, but it is most often at the cost of higher achievement.  These people use the early Christian church as a guide, which is ironic since many on this side shun the Christian faith.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages.  The Liberty for All’s weak spot is apparent lack of compassion (see a recent GOP debate about health care), while the Justice for All’s weak spot is that they are susceptible to a small group of powerful leaders among them that would corrupt the justice into their favor (i.e. Robespierre).  Both sides are genuine in their beliefs and the fact that the media chooses to belittle or ignore many parts of their causes only strengths each group’s passion.

The third side in this debate are those who believe in a little of both.  They realize both sides’ strengths and weaknesses, but are leery of either side gaining too much control in the nation.  In case one side gets too powerful, they throw their weight to the other side to prevent a further erosion of either liberty or justice.  This side faces extraordinary pressure from both sides to make a choice.  Both sides' argue “You’re either with us or against us”, and this third side is beginning to erode away in the face of the withering assaults.

All people need to understand, however, the closing words of the Pledge of Allegiance are “Liberty AND Justice for all”, not emphasis on one or the other.  The Liberty side needs to understand that without a EQUAL balance of Justice, Liberty becomes corrupted.  And the Justice side needs to understand without a EQUAL balance of Liberty, Justice itself becomes vulnerable to those who can corrupt the power of Justice.  And the third side needs to remind both sides of the balance as well as learn the lessons of that balance itself.  Without both an equal amount of Liberty and Justice, this nation will not be the Shining Beacon on a Hill we always have strived for.

Michael Moore Stereotyping Hypocrisy…

Normally, I try to steer away from people making political statements.  It is everyone’s right to state their opinions, even if I don’t agree with them.  But when you call for a boycott of my home state and, in the process, paint the entire state as racist when your home area has had a poor record on race, I’m going to say something about it.

In case you missed it (and given the lack of attention about it, a lot of people probably missed the story), filmmaker Michael Moore called for “all Americans with a conscience to shun anything and everything to do with the murderous state of Georgia”—a response to the execution of Troy Davis.  He has even gone so far as to demand his publisher pull his book, “Here Comes Trouble”, from every bookstore in the state.  If not, then he will “donate every dime of every royalty my book makes in Georgia to help defeat the racists and killers who run that state.”  Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal’s office has responded with the following statement:  “We think it is cute he thinks anyone in Georgia would buy his book, but if any Georgian does, I'm happy to double the royalties and buy a pack of gum for a charity of Michael Moore's choice.”  Ouch!

First of all, Mr. Moore might be confused about whether he is talking about Georgia or his hometown of Flint, MI.  Yes, Georgia has a bad history of racism, but Flint, in case you didn’t know, also has a long history of racism in it as well—like many areas north of the Mason-Dixon line which you never hear about (and anyone who challenges my assumption about that, maybe they should recall Indiana’s history with the Klan or that Boston, MA is still today considered a largely segregated city).  And Flint’s crime rate makes Detroit look like paradise.  Sounds like the pot calling the kettle…never mind.  But painting the entire state of Georgia as racist… do you have any clue, Mr. Moore?  How many of my friends who herald from the Peach State are progressive in their views?  This state brought the nation Jimmy Carter, Ted Turner, and John Lewis—none of them I would consider conservatives.  It also was the adult home of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—the man most responsible for leading the Civil Rights movement.  What has Flint produced to help the cause of civil rights?

Oh, and I would suggest to keep an eye out on Mr. Moore.  If he donates any money to the Carter Center or King Memorial, he’s a hypocrite.  Also, if you see him drinking a Coke product, eating at Chick-Fil-A, flying Delta, or shopping at Home Depot, that’s showing he doesn’t practice what he preaches.  It’s easy to call for a boycott on South Carolina, which happened many years ago.  But Georgia?  Shows me Mr. Moore wasn’t thinking at all when he opened his mouth to stereotype an entire state while ignoring his problems at home.