Hasta La Gadget!

As handheld vacuums get better and better, there’s less need to keep a broom at the ready. Which is too bad, because this cleverly re-designed dustpan makes it easier to dump your sweepings into a garbage can, no matter how tiny it may be.

Read more…

After months of waiting, Nokia (the part now owned by Microsoft) has begun rolling out its Windows Phone 8.1 update to Lumia handsets. Dubbed “Cyan,” this software refresh delivers a plethora of new features to existing Nokia devices, including…

Rumor has it, Activision has a new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game up its sleeve, which wouldn’t be surprising given the upcoming movie launch. The game has cropped up online, where details can be ascertained from its cover and achievements list, hinting at what gamers can expect. It seems the latest TMNT game is going to be an Xbox 360 … Continue reading

Over the past few years government officials, from the president down to local school boards, have been discussing ways to improve education.

These discussions typically start with the belief that American schools are failing. Reformers use this belief to argue for any number of changes.

Even though unions represent only 38% of America’s teachers, many say unions are ruining education. Even though charter schools are not necessarily cheaper to run and don’t produce better outcomes, some argue for more charter schools. And even though there is no data to suggest the Common Core standards are better than the current standards, most states are making the change.

But the most peculiar talking point that reformers discuss is money in education.

You would be hard pressed to find data that shows less money in education leads to better results, but you can easily find people who complain that we spend too much on education. If you believe we spend too much on education, you are either willing to accept worse outcomes to fix our financial issues or you believe that spending less can somehow have a positive result.

Typically this argument manifests itself with something like “Detroit spends more per pupil yet gets some of the worst results.”

While both of these things may be true, this is a complete perversion of what people mean when they talk about money for education. For example if we really spent too much on education then why would any charter school ever spend more than a public school?

Does anyone believe that the amount of money a school spends on administrators has greater correlation to student achievement than the amount spent on teachers? Because by comparison, charter schools spend more on administrative staff and less on educators than public schools.

If the education spending by cities like Detroit was meant as a serious discussion piece in determining the value of money in education, it would require more in depth analysis than simply “spending high + outcomes bad = more money doesn’t work.”

If armchair education reformers looked at where the money goes, they would see that while Detroit Public Schools had the 32nd highest per pupil rate in Michigan they were at the bottom of the list when it comes to “Average Teacher Salary” and spending on “Basic Programs.” DPS spent around $4,500 per student or nearly 1/3 of their budget on “Added Needs” and another $2,100 per student on “Adult Education.”

Given that a good teacher can have a lifelong impact on a student and that data shows higher teacher salaries correlate to better educational outcomes, the fact that DPS teacher salaries rank at the bottom of all Michigan schools probably explains why the student achievement level is lower than other school districts.

The reality is, per pupil spending represents hundreds of different smaller budgetary decisions for each school district. Suggesting this data alone represents anything more than a surface level talking point is a massively uninformed position.

While cherry picking a few schools across the nation and ignoring the budgetary details is one popular method people offer as proof that more money doesn’t lead to better outcomes, another tactic is to suggest we spend more on education now than ever before.

The data shows that this trend has reversed itself recently but overall it is certainly true that the amount spent on education has been steadily increasing. The question then becomes: what is too much?

The data shows that over the past 20 years spending on education has risen by 25% over inflation.

Defense spending over that same time frame increased by 83% over inflation.

The price of gasoline has risen by around 105% over inflation the past two decades.

Health care costs have jumped by 79% over inflation during this 20 year period.

The cost of a college education has gone up by around 66% over inflation over the past 20 years.

CEO pay has increased by as much as 725% over inflation the last 30 years by some estimates.

To some extent those who argue for cuts to education have largely ignored or argued against cuts to these numbers, which have grown at a much higher rate. What makes education spending so different?

Unfortunately, to the diehard reformer, none of this makes any difference. They believe in their hearts that education is broken and needs to be fixed.

The good news for these people is that data shows there is a simple solution that has the potential to make the U.S. No. 1 in the world in education. All the government needs to do is reduce the poverty rate in America, because if you equalize results based on poverty rates, America is already the world leader in education.

That so many people insist on improving education using methods that don’t actually improve education suggests there is indeed a problem.

It’s just not with the public school system.

Previously published in the Detroit News

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Derek Jeter was an elite shortstop winning World Series championships not long after many of baseball’s current greats were born.

With the captain of the New York Yankees set to retire after the season, Jeter’s 14th All-Star game will be his last. His first one as a starter in 2000 was special, as was the 2008 version at Yankee Stadium. So don’t expect him to declare his final appearance his favorite, or an experience he’ll find himself savoring any more than usual. “This is a game that I’ve truly always looked forward to. I’ve appreciate the time that I’ve had here. So it’s kind of difficult to say that I’ll try to enjoy it more,” Jeter said on Monday amid a predictably large crowd of cameras and reporters during the media interview session for the American League players.

Though the Yankees have been hovering around the .500 mark, Jeter has said many times he’s only focused on chasing another championship, not gathering farewell gifts or reflecting nostalgically on his exceptional career. That part has been left up to everyone else around the game.

Tampa Bay Rays pitcher David Price said Jeter’s final presence was what excited him the most about this year’s event.

“I know the All-Star game isn’t about a certain player or a certain team, but I feel like it is. This is about Derek Jeter. And the National League guys, they understand that as well,” Price said.

For Minnesota Twins closer Glen Perkins, Jeter has been one of those “guys you can tell your grandkids about” pitching to.

St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Adam Wainwright, who’ll start the All-Star game for the National League on Tuesday night at Target Field, will throw his first pitch to Jeter when the 40-year-old steps to the plate as the AL leadoff man.

“I’m very excited about it, just to say I faced the best,” Wainwright said. “And he is undoubtedly one of the best to ever play his position.”

To Jeter’s left will be second baseman Robinson Cano, who left the Yankees in the offseason and signed with the Seattle Mariners.

“I’m really happy that I’ll be able to be a part of his final All-Star game and be on the same team. It’s pretty amazing,” Cano said. “He’s one of the biggest parts of my career. He was one of those guys when I first came up who was there on and off the field.”

To Jeter’s right will be third baseman Josh Donaldson, who recalled a double he hit for the Oakland Athletics in his first time playing against Jeter and the Yankees in 2012.

“He was like, ‘Hey, good swing, kid,'” Donaldson said. “I was like, ‘Thanks, Mr. Jeter.'”

Jeter was that wide-eyed youngster in 1998 when he appeared in his first All-Star game, in Denver.

“Cal was there and I was afraid to say anything, because it’s Cal Ripken,” Jeter said. “Even though I’d played against him, I barely had a chance to talk to him.”

Then there was 1999, in Boston.

“They had all the great players come on the field. I got a tap on my shoulder, and it was Hank Aaron, and he said he was looking for me because he wanted to meet me. He wanted to meet me. That’s something that stands out. That’s one of the best moments I’ve had on the baseball field,” Jeter said.

That kind of humility, instilled in him by his parents as he grew up in Kalamazoo, Michigan, has compelled Jeter to strike up such conversations with his peers around the game. He spoke Monday about being happy for the players getting their first taste this week of the All-Star experience, like Yankees reliever Dellin Betances.

“You try to carry yourself the right way. I’ve always tried to do that,” Jeter said. “Then again, at the same time, I am who I am. I don’t try to be any different. If people respect you for the way that you carry yourself, it means a lot to me and it means a lot to my family. It makes you feel good.”