# data[].attributes.body
Its carson's website again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Back in 2010, after being transferred to teach at Houston's High School Ahead Academy, educator Rickey Polidore was under pressure. Confronted with a student population enrolled as middle school students but who were actually one or two grades behind, Polidore had neither the budget nor the staff support required to effectively teach these students what they were required to master in order to move on to high school. The students were in real danger of giving up on school and themselves.

He knew arts in the classroom would not only compel students to improve their behavior and show up to class, but also help them understand abstract concepts. Being an artist and musician, Polidore envisioned an arts-integrated approach to teaching; a methodology incorporating the arts with the core curriculum and the specific needs of at-risk students. He also knew he couldn't so it alone.

Polidore reached out to Houston's arts community for help, specifically Houston Arts Partners operating under Young Audiences of Houston.

In collaboration with Houston Arts Partners director Mary Mettenbrink, as well as organizations including the International House of Blues Foundation, Musiqa, Writers In the Schools, and The Menil Collection, arts-integrated lessons designed to support a core curriculum of English, Math and Social Studies were created for HSAA students. The Hobby Center, Museum of Fine Arts Houston and Houston Ballet were also tapped to help create arts-integrated experiences.

Two hundred students were chosen to participate. Half received arts-integrated lessons including choir singing, creative writing and hand drumming, and experienced off-site field trips. The other half received no arts-integrated lessons. Over several weeks, Polidore and other HSAA staff monitored and recorded the participating students' disciplinary incidents, in-school and out-of-school suspensions and attendance. Polidore also paid close attention to his students' sense of self worth, which, while harder to quantify as hard "data," is nevertheless something any teacher or parent can detect in the eyes of a child.

Creative Learning

"I am not bored any more...I am more focused and am passing with A's and B's ." - High School Ahead Academy student testimony

YAH artists traveled to HSAA to present lessons correlated to more abstract concepts in the core curriculum. "Ratio and proportion," says Polidore, as an example. "When a student sees that in a textbook, it's a little confusing. But if you tell them: 'Today we're going mix one-part white paint, three parts blue to get a light blue,' you teach the value system using ratio and proportion. Then, when they go to their math class, they can understand - it's real to them now. 3 to 1 is 33 per cent."

So in classes with drummer Joseph Dixon, HSAA students not only played drums but also learned how to identify the main idea, sequential order and antagonist and protagonist of a story or a song. Under the direction of Musiqa's Karol Bennett, students sang and explored how certain styles of music influence and shape American culture.

Some students developed their creative expression and a career skill by learning how to silk screen T-shirts. Others, with the help of Writers in the Schools, improved their English language skills by analyzing stories and scenarios and applying what they learned to their own creative writing.

A visit to the Museum of Fine Arts Houston to see the Carlos Cruz-Diez: Color in Space and Time exhibit helped to address scientific theory and color spectrums. A tour of Civil Rights era photography on display at the Menil Collection supported the in-school lessons that featured written texts from that time period. At the end of the second school semester, 60 HSAA students gave a well-received public performance of singing, poetry, and drumming at the House of Blues.

Results

At the end of the 2010-11 school year in May, data was analyzed to see if the project had a quantifiable impact, be it positive or negative, on student achievement. Polidore and Mettenbrink recently presented this data from their collaboration to "The Second Annual Summer Program Evaluation and Research Series," a half-day conference for teachers and school administrators who have conducted research in the Houston Independent School District.

Comparing the second semester to the first, among the 100 students who received arts-integrated lessons, there was a 21% decrease in weekly incidents of acting out, fighting and other inappropriate outbursts. There were significant decreases of in-school and out-of-school suspensions. Polidore credits the decreases to the simple fact that if a student were suspended, he or she would be unable to participate in the arts-integrated lessons. The arts gave the students something to look forward to.

"I'd do the same routine over and over..." one student explains, describing the first semester. "Do my work, finish first, people would copy (it), I'd get a fair grade, and wait to go to the next class. It was so boring. Then after months and months of waiting for something exciting to happen, it did!"

Drumming, poetry, silk screening, and singing are all activities that can play a crucial role in a child's behavioral development.

Figures for improvement in TAKS scores and other barometers of classroom learning were inconclusive and the program's organizers acknowledge more study is needed over a longer time than a single semester.

Imagine if the arts-integrated classes were in place for not just one but two semesters. Or for all four years of high school. And made available not just to 100 students, but to 1,000. Or 10,000.

Awareness

" About 60 per cent of our kids in the Texas public schools qualify for free or reduced lunch. And so we're going to tighten the belt and the people who are going to get squeezed are the least among us. I mean, let's face it, that's who's going to get hit. " - Louis Malfaro, secretary-treasurer of the Texas chapter of the American Federation of Teachers.

So what happens now? A new school year has started. Cuts to education and the arts continue. The youngest members of our ethnically and economically diverse community are bearing the brunt of our state's deficit. But collaborations like that of Houston Arts Partners with High School Ahead Academy show what is possible in the current economic and political climate. Awareness of what is possible is key.

"We would like to replicate (the collaboration) with a wider participation from other HISD students and schools," Mettenbrink says. "HSAA was the perfect school for us to begin with since it has so many challenges to begin with, teachers all new, principal new, no teacher resources, challenges with every student at-risk of failing and dropping out."

YAH and Polidore's mission now is to make people aware of their experiment and to consider it as a template for the future.

Polidore is now teaching art at Lovett Elementary. He is enthusiastic about his new position, and will continue to advocate for having the arts in all schools, especially those where resources are limited or non-existent.

"The (student) population that I've been with since I've been in education, the at-risk, low socio-economic students who are in danger of dropping out or who have lots of things working against them in their educational lives...it's really tearing me apart to have to leave...but even though I'm at Lovett, I'll still have my hands in the population I'm used to working with," he says.

The full Houston Arts Partners report "The Effect of Creative Learning on Student Achievement" is available at www.HoustonArtsPartners.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arts in the classroom improves student behavior and boosts creative learning, new study says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Back in 2010, after being transferred to teach at Houston's High School Ahead Academy, educator Rickey Polidore was under pressure. Confronted with a student population enrolled as middle school students but who were actually one or two grades behind, Polidore had neither the budget nor the staff support required to effectively teach these students what they were required to master in order to move on to high school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I recently attended a conference where I heard a very intelligent attorney contradict himself over the course of an afternoon. His diametrically opposed opinions are ones I think are not uncommon amongst college football fans. Early on in the day, he admonished college athletic departments for relying on direct institutional support and state government subsidies in order to operate in the black. Later that afternoon, he made the case for why college athletes should be paid.

I'm not sure you can have it both ways.

The first question I ask people when they say college athletes should be paid is: where is the money going to come from? If you're unaware, the NCAA released data showing that only 14 programs are turning a profit without having to rely on institutional support (like student fees or a check cut directly from the university coffers).

Although the NCAA did not list the 14 schools turning a net profit, Notre Dame is one of them. Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick has revealed that Notre Dame actually pours money back into the college's coffers, to the tune of about $10 million in 2009. LSU tells me they are also one of the 14, having sent about $8 million back to the university last year.

Other schools that have been confirmed to be among the 14: Alabama, University of Missouri, University of Texas, University of Florida, University of Tennessee and Ohio State University, and Nebraska. BYU's athletic director also recently confirmed that BYU has operated in the black for the past three years.

I recently revealed Ohio State's line item budget. It showed that OSU needs over $22 million from the booster club, interest off their endowment and royalty fees in order to balance the budget. Could they get more from these sources of income and find the money to pay players? Of course.

But what about a school like Western Kentucky? They already spend $5.6 million on grants-in-aid, and it takes $8.2 million from the University to balance their budget. How do they afford to pay players?

I use Western Kentucky as an example because I have their budget in front of me, but there are plenty of programs in AQ conferences who rely on assistance. Virginia, for example, relies on over $12 million in student fees to balance their budget. Florida State? $6.9 million. How do those programs afford to pay players? And if they can't find a way to afford it, how do they recruit against the programs who can?

So, where is the money supposed to come from to pay these athletes?

Even if we could get past this issue, I see a number of other problems. Here are some of my questions:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Problems With Paying College Athletes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I recently attended a conference where I heard a very intelligent attorney contradict himself over the course of an afternoon. His diametrically opposed opinions are ones I think are not uncommon amongst college football fans. Early on in the day, he admonished college athletic departments for relying on direct institutional [...]

# data[].attributes.body
Joey - Why video games dont cause violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week in my music of video games course at Queen's University, we examined first-person shooter (FPS) games. As might be expected, the discussion turned to the subject of violence in video games, but also about what it really means to be "immersed."

My students pointed out that immersion involves both emotional and imaginative components, but they also said an important part of immersion for them was that it generated a sense of "escapism and freedom from reality."

Opponents to violence in video games believe players are more violent than non-players. They believe that because players replicate violent actions in a game they will do so in real life. For example, the U.S. governor of Kentucky, Matt Bevin, said this last week:

"I'm a big believer in the First Amendment and right to free speech, but there are certain things that are so graphic as it relates to violence ...There is zero upside to any of this being in the public domain, let alone in the minds and hands and homes of our young people... (These games) celebrate the slaughtering of people. There are games that literally replicate and give people the ability to score points for doing the very same thing that these students are doing inside of schools, where you get extra points for finishing someone off who's lying there begging for their life."

While many of these games could be seen as being in poor taste, studies on whether violent games cause real-life violence have had mixed results at best.

What is the immersive fallacy?

How can video games be confused for reality when its players view them as escapism and freedom from reality? In their book Rules of Play, scholars Katie Salen Tekinbaş and Eric Zimmerman argue that there are significant flaws in our understanding of video games and what exactly constitutes immersion.

The idea video game players can reach a state where they forget they are playing a game is a common misconception. Salen and Zimmerman call this the "immersive fallacy." That is, the idea that players believe their gaming "reality is so complete...that the player truly believes that he or she is part of an imaginary world" is false.

Instead Salen and Zimmerman say players are "well-aware of the artificiality of the play situation." In fact, this artificiality is one of the things that makes games so entertaining.

Let's take an example.

In this scene from Battlefield 1 (2016), a first-person shooter is set during the First World War and player action and interaction shifts between several roles. Players start by driving a tank and firing at enemies, but when the tank gets stuck in mud an enemy attack at close quarters quickly follows.

Ominous, indistinct music begins as the player is trapped in the tank, but the sounds of gunshots overwhelm the action. Soon, however, the character is deafened by a gunshot. Ambient noise of weapon fire is silenced to reveal underlying music featuring trumpet and trombone flares, giving it a militaristic feel.

The player releases a messenger pigeon, and a shift of character occurs. Keenly aware of this shift because the style of gameplay completely changes, the player's role is now to fly the pigeon to its destination, seeing the world literally from a bird's-eye view.

The style of the music also shifts significantly, morphing from a claustrophobic, dark atmosphere (in the tank) with percussive gun hammering and low-register brass and strings to a calm, serene piano melody for the bird flight.

The bird is oblivious to anything but its destination. The clear, simple harmonies of the music during flight suggest it is revelling in its freedom. Once again, the atmosphere is in stark contrast to the men trapped below. When the bird lands, the music returns to its previous ominous brass swells and more chaotic rhythm.

Battlefield 1 is often called an immersive game by its players, but an understanding of immersion that relies on players believing that the game is reality would imply that players identify as First World War-era soldiers. In such a situation, the shift to a bird's eye view would be jarring and would break the gamer's sense of immersion.

My students observed the dramatic shift of music immediately upon becoming the bird, an observation also made by players online. This musical contrast - the softer, more tonal music and the shift to a brighter sky - heightens the sense of peace during flight. The contrast with the dark tank environment further reinforces the sense of otherness that being the bird entails.

Salen and Zimmerman explain that "players always know that they are playing," and are therefore free to move among the different roles. Players embrace this flexibility and can come in and out " of moments of immersion, breaking the player and character frames. "

In other words, players are completely aware that they're playing within a fictional world, and that this fiction can provide experiences and viewpoints not possible in real life. The shift of viewpoint and complete unexpectedness of playing as a bird in the middle of a wargame is a flexibility that makes the pigeon scene extremely effective, creating the dramatic contrasts that boost our emotional response to this part of the game.

(Screenshot/Bethseda)

Players know their games are not reality

It's not surprising the general public is confused about immersion. Even gamers don't really have a consistent understanding of what "immersion" means, partly because they use the word in two different ways.

Anecdotally, gamers often use the term to refer to the depth and level of detail of the game world, but colloquially it's also used to refer to how addicting a game is. This ambiguity is also brought up in a 2008 study in the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies that examines how exactly to measure immersion.

Players might describe how they were "totally immersed" in a rousing game of Tetris, but this hardly means they believe they exist in a universe where four-unit blocks might crush them at any point while accompanied by a Russian folk song, for example.

Gamers talk about Skyrim as having an immersive game world, with its own politics, religions and even literature (reading the books you find in Skyrim is surprisingly entertaining). But part of the appeal of Skyrim are the unique features of that game world: The ability to cast spells, treasure hunt and play as non-human races.

The players' questing is made easier by the text menus that they regularly access to complete most actions in the game. The constant visual presence of the menus on the screen is a clear and regular reminder that this definitely isn't reality.

As my students and I have been exploring the interaction of game plot, visuals and music over the last few weeks, I've become increasingly convinced that it's actually the escape from reality that creates effective gameplay. And as Salen and Zimmerman argue: "The many-layered state of mind that occurs during play is something to be celebrated, not repressed...."

Much like a good book or movie provides the framework for a world to give the audience a unique viewpoint, games provide a frame for the imagination, while still remaining firmly fictional.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why violence in video games isn't really a problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week in my music of video games course at Queen's University, we examined first-person shooter (FPS) games. As might be expected, the discussion turned to the subject of violence in video games, but also about what it really means to be "immersed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In his popular TED talk, Ken Robinson made the powerful point that most of the students doing work in your classrooms today will be entering a job force that none of you can visualize. That talk is from almost ten years ago, so we already know he was right and can only assume he'll continue to be so in the years to come.

Learning a specific skill set doesn't have the value in today's world that it once did. Learning how to be more creative (and thus adaptable) - now that's what prepares students for life beyond the classroom.

Schools and businesses throughout the world are latching onto this idea. Academia has started to embrace providing courses in creativity. Many of the biggest and most successful businesses in the world now practice the 20% rule - the commitment to allowing employees to devote 20% of their work time to thinking creatively and exploring new ideas.

But this trend toward valuing creativity goes beyond the big tech companies that have long treated "innovation" as a buzzword. A 2010 survey of over 1,500 executives found that creativity is valued as the most important business skill in the modern world[K1] . "Creative" is one of the most commonly used terms on LinkedIn year after year.

Creativity is no longer seen as just being for artists and musicians (not that that view was ever accurate). It's a crucial skill for everybody to master.

5 Ways to Bring More Creativity Into the Classroom

Introducing more creativity into your classroom and assignments doesn't have to make your job harder. It can actually make it a lot more interesting. Having to go home to a stack of dull papers to grade was never anyone's favorite part of teaching. Giving assignments that require more creativity will likely result in more engaging work for your students, and a more entertaining grading process for you.

1. Don't limit assignments to one format

You can provide them the subject to cover, but give them some freedom in how they complete it. Some students will get more out of creating a video or drawing a comic strip than writing a paper.

Even better, have them mix and match formats. Weda Bory wrote on our site about the impressive (and creative) work she received from students by combining iPhone photos with creative writing in her assignments. Your students could analyze a relevant film by creating a podcast about it. They could collect famous images that represent important themes and make a short video that discusses their common relevance.

When you start allowing more formats in the way students create and learn, they'll have more opportunities to engage with the work they do and will become more invested in it.

2. Set time aside for creativity

Take a cue from the 20% rule practiced by businesses. Work a "genius hour" into the school day. The amount of time is really up to you, but deciding to devote time to encouraging your students to explore new ideas and be creative can pay off.

You can provide them with some tools to enable their creativity - crayons, clay, notebooks, iPads, or even just access to the library or internet (within reason). They can choose to create, or they can choose to do some digging into a subject of interest to them.

Encourage collaboration in these times, but don't force it. Allowing students the chance to follow their own interests and passions is the whole point and they should be given some leeway in what that looks like.

3. Use tech to broaden your idea of assignments

Tech literacy is almost as important to succeeding in the world today as creativity. And conveniently the two go hand in hand. Just using Google tools alone, we've already covered five creative assignments teachers can give.

You can teach students about geography alongside history, literature, or any number of other subjects by having them map out a road trip in Google Maps.

You can teach students how to make new contacts, conduct interviews, and turn what they learn from their interviews into a well-researched paper by making use of Google Hangouts or Skype.

Students can take more ownership over their work by keeping a blog or making their own educational videos on their smartphones. And they can work more collaboratively with the help of social media.

While all of these ideas teach students skills that will benefit them in finding jobs later in life, that's far from all they accomplish. They make them better learners, better thinkers, and give them more incentive to care about the work they do.

4. Introduce unconventional learning materials into class

Have you ever seen a student excited when you assigned a chapter in a textbook? How about if you assigned TED Talks instead? Or educational (and entertaining) podcasts like Radiolab and StarTalk? Or comics like The Oatmeal or xkcd, both of which sometimes touch on educational topics?

Many of the people creating a lot of the entertaining pop culture out there have embraced the geekiness that pop culture used to shun. As a result, teachers have a ton of options for bringing more interesting and cool explorations of educational subjects into their classrooms.

5. Encourage discussion.

Debates get kids involved and actively engaged with the topics they're discussing. The Socratic seminar method provides a lot of different benefits:

It gets students thinking more critically about the material.

It helps them learn to better communicate their ideas and opinions.

It challenges them to listen to other students' opinions and think critically about their contributions and ideas.

It gives them the opportunity to challenge each other intelligently and build off of each other's ideas.

The ability to communicate your ideas clearly and respectfully is something that will benefit students in all areas of their life - and something a lot of people grow up never learning how to do well.

Obviously, finding ways to get your students to be more creative requires some creativity on your part too. We've got a lot of resources that can provide you with some starter ideas, but we know educators and students can come up with many more. If you've had some success with activities in your classroom that inspire creativity, please share.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Creativity in the Classroom Matters More Than Ever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In his popular TED talk, Ken Robinson made the powerful point that most of the students doing work in your classrooms today will be entering a job force that none of you can visualize. That talk is from almost ten years ago, so we already know he was right and can only assume he'll continue to be so in the years to come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In response to the Opinion page articles entitled ''Ending Required Gym: 2 Views'' (July 9): I believe that both views presented missed the point. Has economics become the yardstick by which we measure whether we cancel gym class? If so, our children and our future may be in serious trouble.

If 51 percent of all adults in the United States drop dead of some sort of cardiovascular-related disease, shouldn't we take a serious look at this problem? Especially because more and more data suggest that children as early as age 2 (and younger) are developing fatty streaks in their aortas and suffer from high levels of cholesterol.

Gym class is not just mandatory sport activities. It is physical education. If not in physical education class, where will children learn about positive lifelong physical fitness, nutrition, stress control and other ''risk factors'' they can directly influence? How will they benefit from the added time for academics and leisure if they are becoming sedentary, obese, bored and stressed out? What will they do to vent their frustrations if there is no solid positive foundation in their lives?

I am outraged and vehemently disagree with the Governor's proposal. The notion of voluntary gym or mandatory two and a half hours a week is ludicrous. For school-age children, physical education is a necessity, not a frill. It should be at the top of the priority list, not the first cut.

Ending required gym is a bad idea. Yes, gym class should be mandatory; however, there should be flexibility. The children should be able to select and participate voluntarily in the lifelong activities they choose in addition to the required curriculum. Coercion or persuasion need not be used if we stick to the basic premise of ''education.'' That is, after all, what the school system is all about, isn't it?

Physical education has the ability to take a child and arouseand maintain positive self-interest.

It can instill self-worth and self-esteem. It allows the child to set goals and realize positive instant gratification.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In response to the Opinion page articles entitled ''Ending Required Gym: 2 Views'' (July 9): I believe that both views presented missed the point. Has economics become the yardstick by which we measure whether we cancel gym class? If so, our children and our future may be in serious trouble.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Report%3A School is the best place for kids to be physically active because they spend so many hours there

Elementary school children should spend at least 30 minutes a day in PE class

Middle school and high school students should get an average of 45 minutes a day in PE

Kids need to break a sweat at school.

Students should be doing at least 60 minutes of vigorous or moderate-intensity physical activity at school, with more than half of the activity occurring during regular educational hours and the remaining amount before and after school, says a report released Thursday by the Institute of Medicine.

Estimates suggest that only about half of U.S. kids meet the government's physical-activity guideline of doing at least 60 minutes of vigorous or moderate-intensity physical activity every day, the report says. School is the best place for kids to be physically active because they spend so much time there, it says.

Among the recommendations from the expert committee convened by the institute:

* Elementary school children should spend at least 30 minutes a day in PE class; middle school and high school students should get an average of 45 minutes a day in PE. That's 150 minutes a week for elementary kids and 225 minutes for middle and high school students.

* At least half of the PE class time should be spent doing vigorous to moderate-intensity physical activity.

* Students should do additional vigorous or moderate-intensity activity throughout the day, including during recess, during classroom breaks that are physically active or in other active-learning opportunities.

* There should be other options to be physically active before and after school, including intramural and extramural sports, active before- and after-school programs and walking/biking/skateboarding to and from school.

"This is a whole-of-school approach. It's not just physical education. It's everything that occurs during school as well as around the school day," says Harold Kohl III, professor of epidemiology and kinesiology at the University of Texas School of Public Health and chair of the committee that did the report.

In many schools, physical-education classes and recess have been squeezed out because of increasing educational demands and tough financial times. Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, 44% of school administrators report cutting significant time from PE and recess so there's more time for subjects such as reading and math, the report says.

Mark Terry, president of the National Association of Elementary School Principals and a principal at Eubanks Intermediate School in Southlake, Texas, says, "We all want healthy kids. It's a great goal, but a difficult one.

"You have to look at the unintended consequences of things like this. They are well-meaning, and they are good for kids, but you have to alter the amount of time you have for other subjects," he says.

"The problem is, what are you going to do less of? Are you going to do away with art or cut back on music or cut back on the minutes you have in the classroom?"

Having programs before and after school sounds like a good idea, but the question is who is going to run them and who is going to pay for them, Terry says.

Kohl responds: "We tried to be realistic in these recommendations, and there are creative ways to work these things without sacrificing other subject matter."

Currently, a third of children in the USA are overweight or obese, putting them at greater risk of developing a host of debilitating and costly diseases, including type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

Physical activity improves kids' fitness, lowers their risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes and helps build strong bones and muscles. Children who are more active have greater attention spans and better academic performance, the report says.

The report recommends that the Department of Education designate physical education as a core subject like math and reading. "It is as important because it affects kids' health, cognitive function and overall development," Kohl says.

The report urges state legislatures and departments of education to adopt and/or strengthen physical education and recess policies, as well as before- and after-school policies, to meet the goals the report outlines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Report: More PE, activity programs needed in schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Report%3A School is the best place for kids to be physically active because they spend so many hours there Elementary school children should spend at least 30 minutes a day in PE class Middle school and high school students should get an average of 45 minutes a day in PE Kids need to break a sweat at school.

# data[].attributes.headline
Watch thi vid if u are doin the vid game 1

# data[].attributes.subject
Watch thi vid if u are doin the vid game 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What parents should know about the online survival game Fortnite

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's quality Physical Education. And we have compelling research showing all the benefits of PE. Read below to learn about the best kept secret in America, Physical Education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Physical Education / Physical Education Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article is distributed by: American Heart Association / American Stoke Association "Heart Disease and Stroke. You're the Cure. Teaching America's Kids a Healthy Lifestyle Healthy Bodies Healthy Minds American Heart Association Advocacy Department 1150Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 785-7900 Fax: (202) 785-7950

# data[].attributes.headline
Brandon Spohn - do not use unless you are really desperate

# data[].attributes.subject
Brandon Spohn - do not use unless you are really desperate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Video Games Cause Violence? 9 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say playing violent video games causes more aggression. Opponents say the games are a convenient scapegoat for real-life violence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Will - Why P.E. Class Should Be Mandatory

# data[].attributes.subject
Will - Why P.E. Class Should Be Mandatory

# data[].attributes.headline
Cal Pirozzi - Why student athletes should be paid

# data[].attributes.subject
Cal Pirozzi - Why student athletes should be paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Now, before anyone automatically comes on here and says, "Hey Joe, you suck!" I'd like for you to hear me out on this concern.

In this article, I won't be discussing student athletes being paid like pros or anything, but rather, how they should see more money than they currently do to help stop violations. They should be treated fairly, keep this in mind. So enjoy the article.

If you look at the list of schools and people who have violated rules or ones who have been investigated, it's a who's who among popular schools/players.

This list includes: USC, Auburn, Ohio State, Miami and many, many more. Then add in people such as Cam Newton, Jim Tressel and the list goes on.

The biggest controversy today is focused on The U, a team known for violating rules more than once and sweeping them under the rug. I invite anyone who believes this to be untrue to watch the Miami 30 for 30 DVD. One of the best 30 for 30s as voted on by the fans.

Now, Miami is just one of the few schools being investigated and some are talking death penalty. Even though the NCAA is hesitant to pull such a trigger after what happened with SMU, it's widely seen to many as the biggest downfall in sports history.

Every single violation involving players seems to involve money. The schools seem to get looped in because of what the players do. And sometimes they even offer moola just to make sure they can bring in a certain athlete.

To be fair, most of these athletes are being paid somewhat to play. They get full rides to go to school and play for their team. Every school does this with certain players, but the top schools are always the ones that are investigated seemingly because, when a school has so much success for so long, it's not really seen as "great coaching."

The top universities in football, basketball, etc. always seem to have some sort of issue with recruiting. Or an issue with money going to athletes.

It seems that they realize guys or girls now seem to come from a life where they don't see much. They need money and they want to take care of their families. And any time they have an opportunity to make cash, they take it because it's just a common, human reaction.

Athletes always want to "get out" by their sport, so they'll take any form of a scholarship given to them. Any time they are offered any sort of way to make money, they take it.

Mom and Dad just want them to have a better life, and when they see their son/daughter is going to a top University to get a good education, they obviously let them go. The kids obviously want to do well so they can make money to get their family out of the circumstances they are in.

Then comes the kid that has little family, but is offered a scholarship for a sport. He/she takes it because they realize it comes with a better life. When money then comes into play, for those who have little, they know taking money is a good thing because money means something better than what they have.

Even the privileged athlete who grew up in the big house with the great parents and great environment, who gets a big-time scholarship, is also not stupid and likes the ability to have money in hand.

It seems impossible for athletes to get and hold a job (even in the offseason) due to commitments they have involving their team and school. So, you take the ability to make cash from them and then expect them to live off of a few hundred dollars?

Think about it, they can't make their own money with a job so they have to use the little bit of money they are given by the school. They can't have a life because most of the money goes into food.

Many university officials say that the low amount of money should be higher.

Athletes are subject to the university they are attending. And there is a never-ending rule book the NCAA has involving them and the school. I'm not sure anyone actually could name every rule. It always seems to grow with them, eh?

The issue in the long run is that athletes will always be given the right to a scholarship. This much should always be in place. But they don't realize the issues they get into. They want to play ball and many want to just get a good education. Ask most offensive lineman in the SEC.

But the university is making millions annually off you and your teammates, yet you see none of it?

How can anyone blame Pryor and the rest of the OSU players for selling memorabilia for money?

The university sells your jersey number and sometimes your name in their stores. They sell paintings with you in them, they even make money off of EA Sports using you in their video game. Yet you don't see one dime of that?

How can anyone take that lightly?

To me, there has to be set things that go down. I've made a list to show the many things universities can do to better help out the student athlete, and be fair to all of them:

Have signings in which the player keeps the money made for what they sign.

Push the amount of money for food and board to around $2,000 to $3,000 per month. O-Lineman will thank me for this one. You're welcome, guys!

Any "likeness" of a player should be outlawed and anything having to do with the player such as video games, jerseys, etc. should be cleared by them. Once it has been, they should be paid for what it's being used for.

Any player who doubles in a sport outside university lines should be able to remain a student athlete inside a university sanctioned sport. Such as the case with Olympic skier and Colorado wide-out Jeremy Bloom. (Bloom was seen as a "pro-skier" and the NCAA nixed his right to play for Colorado as an amateur student athlete, which forced him to leave.)

Mandatory financial classes should be taken by athletes, so they know how to better handle money they are given.

Only coaches should be involved in recruiting a student athlete. This nixes alumni and boosters for the program. If it's a set rule that NCAA enforces correctly, a law could be put in place to fine or jail those involved. If the university had no knowledge, they should not be punished, but the player will have to find another place to play.

Some may say, "If money is what comes about, it would simply be a bidding war for players instead of keeping the focus on the relationship between the players and the school/coach. However, this would not be much of an issue if all schools went about things the correct way.

If a school can offer $2,000 to $3,000 per month to scholarship athletes, which they can easily do seeing as they are making $100,000 at games alone, then most places have no worries.

This can also be taken back if a drug test failure or suspension comes about. Same as if they are seen as academically unable to compete.

Signings are easy to do. Have a set amount of them in the offseason per year with all players on the team. Everything they sign, they get revenue from instead of the university.

Every school has a business section to it, so obviously making kids take finance classes isn't a bad thing. It's not as if they are paying for it, right?

I can't tell you how many violations have been done because of a booster or alumnus. If this is nixed off from the beginning where they know these offenses are punishable to them, it may stop issues before the kid even arrives to school.

Also, I feel that anything an athlete does outside of the university sport-wise should have nothing to do with the NCAA or their school. If they want to be an Olympian, they should have the right. This is just something that should be allowed simply because if they have such a big opportunity, they should never turn it away simply to remain a member of a team that's not even the same sport.

When it's all said and done, the NCAA has a ton to think about.

This is the 21st Century and certain rules and regulations need to be looked at or added.

With economic issues also being something to think about, there is no way it's fair to punish players for simply doing what they can to gain a little cash. Why do you think some leave school early in the first place?

Whatever way you look at it, whether you agree athletes should be paid or not, everyone and their mother seems to agree things need to change. Therefore, why not do it, NCAA?

The old excuse that they are being paid with a free education is growing tired. What about when they are trying to get said education? Think about that one.

Some will call this a rant, some will call it an analysis. I simply will call it food for thought.

What do you think?

Is there anything you would put into place to help student athletes?

Or do you think they should be paid like the pros and be done with it?

In the long run, really, these are kids and they really need to be treated with some fairness and not treated as if they don't matter at all. How is it fair where the university sees a ton of profit, while a kid can barely buy a good dinner for less than $30?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA Football Analysis: Why College Athletes Should Be Paid to Play

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Now, before anyone automatically comes on here and says, "Hey Joe, you suck!" I'd like for you to hear me out on this concern. In this article, I won't be discussing student athletes being paid like pros or anything, but rather, how they should see more money than they currently do to help stop violations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The president suggested there is a link between video games and gun violence.

President Trump will meet with representatives of the video-game industry at the White House next week to discuss the violent content of some games.

Press Secretary Sarah Sanders announced the meeting Thursday, although some major video-game executives have said they received no such invitation. The Entertainment Software Association, which represents video-game companies, said on Thursday they have heard nothing about a meeting.

The president met with lawmakers Wednesday to discuss school safety after the Parkland school shooting that killed 17 on Valentine's Day. During the discussion he referenced the violence in some video games, suggesting it may be linked to violent criminal behavior committed by young people such as the Parkland shooter.

Trump mentioned his 11-year-old son Barron in the meeting with Democratic and Republican congressmen.

"The video games, the movies, the internet stuff is so violent, it's so incredible," he said."I have a young, very young son, and I look at some of the things he's watching and I say, 'How is that possible?' And this is what kids are watching."

President Obama tried unsuccessfully in 2013 to get Congress to set aside $10 million for research on any link between violence in media and gun violence.

Although Trump was known to toe the line for the NRA on gun-control policy, he broke with the gun lobby this week by expressing support for an assault-weapons ban and raising the age for buying an assault rifle from 18 to 21, among other policies.

"Some of you are petrified of the NRA," Trump told lawmakers, assuring them the organization wants to do "the right thing."

After Trump's meeting with the National Rifle Association on Thursday, however, the White House softened on support for gun control measures. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump knows there is "not a lot of broad support" for raising the age to buy an assault rifle from 18 to 21.

"I think he thinks it would probably have more potential in the states than it would at the federal level," Sanders told reporters.

She added that the president might not support universal background checks but "certainly improving the background check system." The press secretary promised Trump will "continue to support the Second Amendment."

Mairead McArdle - Mairead McArdle is a news writer for National Review Online and a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College. @johnsonhildy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Will Meet With Video-Game Executives to Discuss Violence | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The president suggested there is a link between video games and gun violence. President Trump will meet with representatives of the video-game industry at the White House next week to discuss the violent content of some games. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders announced the meeting Thursday, although some major video-game executives have said they received no such invitation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Caleb Miller- Should Athletes be Paid to Play?

# data[].attributes.subject
Caleb Miller- Should Athletes be Paid to Play?

# data[].attributes.headline
Cal Pirozzi - Why College Athletes Should be paid

# data[].attributes.subject
Cal Pirozzi - Why College Athletes Should be paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Q&A with Ed O'Bannon on student-athlete experience

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an interview ahead of the publication of his new book, Court Justice, Ed O'Bannon discusses the reality of the student-athlete experience, why college athletes should be able to earn money and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | The Real Problem With Video Games (Published 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It’s not the violent content. It’s the toxic culture.

# data[].attributes.body
Davis Crall - Why college athletes should be paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jul 18, 2011

Michael WilbonPardon the Interruption co-host

Close
Michael Wilbon is a featured columnist for ESPN.com and ESPNChicago.com. He is the longtime co-host of "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN and appears on the "NBA Sunday Countdown" pregame show on ABC, in addition to ESPN. You can follow him on Twitter: @RealMikeWilbon

I used to argue vehemently against paying college athletes. Tuition, room, board and books were compensation enough. And even if, increasingly, it wasn't enough and virtually every kid who accepted a scholarship was in the red before Christmas of his freshman year, the notion of pay-for-play was at best a logistical nightmare. Where exactly would the money come from? How could you pay college football players but not baseball players or members of the women's field hockey team? And how in the world would you pay men in a way that wouldn't violate Title IX?

So you know what caused me to do a 180 on the issue? That $11 billion deal -- OK, it's $10.8 billion to be exact -- between the NCAA and CBS/Turner Sports for March Madness between 2011 and 2024. We're talking $11 billion for three weekends of television per year. On top of that, there's a new four-year deal with ESPN that pays the BCS $500 million. So, if those two deals were worth, say, a combined $10 billion instead of $11.3 billion, would the games not be televised? Would the quality of the broadcasts or the coverage or the staging of the events be somehow diminished? What if people in the business of money took $1.3 billion off the top, invested it, sheltered it and made it available to provide a stipend to college athletes, how could anybody stand on principal and argue against paying the people who make the events possible in the first place?

Let me declare up front I wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in distributing the funds equitably or even paying every college athlete. I'm interested in seeing the people who produce the revenue share a teeny, tiny slice of it. That's right, football and men's basketball players get paid; lacrosse, field hockey, softball, baseball, soccer players get nothing. You know what that's called? Capitalism. Not everything is equal, not everything is fair. The most distinguished professor at the University of Alabama won't make $5.9 million in his entire tenure in Tuscaloosa; Nick Saban will make that this year. So I don't want to hear that it's "unfair" to pay the quarterback of Alabama more than all the sociology students in the undergraduate college.

Using the inability to distribute the funds equally as an impediment is an excuse, a rather intellectually lazy one at that. Nothing about the way hundreds of millions of dollars is distributed is equitable or even fair. The BCS' new deal with ESPN was based, in part, on paying more money to schools/conferences with regard to what has been called "population centers." Of the $174 million distributed from five bowl games, 83.4 percent went to six conferences in 2011. In question right now is whether the BCS even conducts its business dealings in a manner consistent with principles expressed in federal anti-trust laws. So, the equitable-application excuse for not paying athletes doesn't hold water; at the very least there's a level of hypocrisy here that ought to make the opponents of paying athletes uncomfortable.

Don't get me wrong, paying players out of individual athletic department budgets is beyond impractical; it's probably not feasible. Because so many athletic departments run at a deficit, it's difficult to make the case that schools should pay regular salaries to athletes, even football players who produce more income than anybody. But it's another thing entirely for the students who play for revenue-producing teams (at UConn and the University of Tennessee, this would include the women's basketball teams) to be somehow compensated from the lucrative television/radio/Internet rights fees they make wholly possible.

It's commendable that the NCAA has paid millions into a fund for in-need athletes to cover clothing purchases, emergency travel and medical expenses. There's also a special assistance fund and a student-athlete opportunity fund. Why can't hundreds of millions of dollars be directed into those, and in turn make money much more accessible to athletes for the kinds of regular day-to-day expenses regular college students pay by working jobs that are off-limits to intercollegiate athletes?

In the meantime, if they cannot be paid outright, surely the scholarship athletes should be able to engage in entrepreneurial pursuits that currently leads to costly NCAA investigations that have proven to be mostly a waste of time since, one, such activities historically haven't been checked and, two, the kids who commit the "infractions" aren't effectively punished. Their revelations, short of Heisman Trophy winners having to return their statues, wind up penalizing only the kids and coaches who remain on the team and in the vast majority of cases have done nothing to merit a penalty themselves.

If somebody is willing to give A.J. Green $750 or $1,000 or even $2,500 for his Georgia Bulldogs jersey, fine, good. If one of his teammates, a tackle, can fetch only $50 for his jersey, then it'll be a good marketing lesson for both of them. It's called supply and demand, and if both men are fortunate enough to reach the NFL it'll be a lesson worth learning because that dynamic will exist their entire careers. If a soccer player can't get a dime for his jersey, well, there's a realization in that, too.

The question from the opponents of paying college athletes inevitably comes back, "What would stop a star player from agreeing to shake hands at a local car dealership for $50,000?" The answer is, nothing. If a car dealer wants to strike that deal then good for the player in question. If a music student goes out in the summer and earns 50 grand, who objects? Who even knows? The student-musician is no less a college student because he struck a lucrative deal. Neither is the student-journalist who spends his nights writing freelance stories and picking up as much money along the way as he can.

If the student as athlete can find a way, he/she should be able to endorse products, to have paid-speaking gigs, to sell memorabilia, as Allen Sack, the author and professor at the college of business at the University of New Haven has suggested in recent years. The best college athletes in the two revenue-producing sports have always been worth much more than tuition, room, board and books. The best football and basketball players in the Big Ten have produced to the degree that a television network has become the model for every conference in America, a network worth at least tens of millions of dollars to the member institutions. Yet, no player can benefit from that work. The players have become employees of the universities and conferences as much as students -- employees with no compensation, which not only violates common decency but perhaps even the law.
Michael Wilbon is a featured columnist for ESPN.com and ESPNChicago.com. He is the longtime co-host of "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN and appears on the "NBA Sunday Countdown" pregame show on ABC in addition to ESPN. Wilbon joined ESPN.com after three decades with The Washington Post, where he earned a reputation as one of the nation's most respected sports journalists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jul 18, 2011 Michael WilbonPardon the Interruption co-host Close Michael Wilbon is a featured columnist for ESPN.com and ESPNChicago.com. He is the longtime co-host of "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN and appears on the "NBA Sunday Countdown" pregame show on ABC, in addition to ESPN.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cal Pirozzi - College Athletes being paid

# data[].attributes.subject
Cal Pirozzi - College Athletes being paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The combination of bloated television contracts, increased exposure and injection of money from apparel deals into the fabric of college athletics has left one group out in the cold -- the athletes themselves.

Sure, college athletes get a full ride (including a scholarship) that allows them to work towards a prestigious degree with little-to-no debt while making lifetime connections that can be useful when their playing careers are over. They also receive professional training and other legal benefits that, from a monetary standpoint, are valued min the mid-six figure range.

But all of that is not enough any longer. Not when conferences are signing multi-billion dollar deals for broadcast rights, schools (and sometimes coaches) are making millions off apparel agreements and the life of a fired coach collecting his contractual buyout is the best life.

Amateurism has always been ingrained into the college athletics landscape, but based on a recent conversation the Associated Press had with NCAA president Mark Emmert, it appears that there's at least a little wiggle room in defining the term.

"There's a lot of discussion about the Olympic model, and [I] think it's well deserving of serious consideration inside the context of college sports," Emmert said.

So let's create that model within the context of college sports using three criteria:

Players should be allowed to earn money off their names and athletic ability

The integrity of the "student" aspect of "student-athlete" should be maintained

The ability for teams to use their visibility (earning power) as a recruiting tool should be limited

All of this is attainable with relative ease. Let players earn money throughout their careers through endorsement deals that are part of the existing apparel contract structure with a set limit and add in room for legitimate endorsement deals from local and regional businesses.

Of course, the risk of local businesses exploiting the system and paying the star quarterback, the backup long snapper and everybody in between the maximum allowed exists. But if the NCAA is allowing a somewhat-modified version of the Olympic model anyway, the legal endorsement transactions will be recorded and declared. If it's necessary to classify players by tier in terms of what they bring to the table based on performance or even GPA, do so. Those are all relatively simple solutions.

Use the current enforcement structure to make sure -- to the best of the NCAA's ability -- that schools, coaches and players are prevented from exploiting the system.

Will transgressions still happen? Of course. They happen now and would occur under this hypothetical system across all sports. Let's not act like MLB and the NFL have been without their fair share of both on- and off-field problems. Players, coaches and teams always look for an edge. That won't go away no matter what rule changes are made or what proposals are ignored.

Put the money earned by these players into a trust similar to a 401K if you must and make it accessible tax-free upon graduation. At that point, the player can convert it into an actual 401K, withdraw all of it without penalty or do anything else he or she wants. It's their money. Incentivizing academics -- specifically, earning a degree -- will keep the "student" part of the "student-athlete" intact and perhaps even enhance it in the age of one-and-done basketball players and football players who plan for three-and-out before even signing a National Letter of Intent.

If a player wants or needs to access the money before graduation, tax it just like the federal penalty that currently exists on 401K early withdrawals.

These trusts can be managed by any of the many financial partners with whom the NCAA currently has relationships, and it can be adjusted by the player based on their specific desires. If they want to go ultra-conservative and make it a retirement plan, they can. If they want to be more risky and try to take advantage of a strong economy, that's fine, too. Not only are those personal decisions, they're great personal finance lessons that can be used later in life regardless of the specific industry in which the student-athlete winds up working .

Solving this issue doesn't need to be difficult, and it really shouldn't be as divisive as it seems to be. Scholarships, training, connections and everything that goes along with being a student-athlete today are massive benefits that normal students don't receive. But that doesn't mean it's enough compensation considering what universities, athletic departments and coaches are raking in off their labor.

Letting the players earn money based on their value, regulating those funds, incentivizing education and teaching real-world lessons by blending the Olympic model within the NCAA's current definition of amateurism would be a great way to do it.

It's at least a start.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Want to pay college athletes? Start with allowing legitimate endorsement deals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The combination of bloated television contracts, increased exposure and injection of money from apparel deals into the fabric of college athletics has left one group out in the cold -- the athletes themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Science Finds Once Again That Violent Video Games Don't Turn People Into Rage Monsters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new study published this week in Nature journal Molecular Psychology provides a well-timed rebuttal to the weary trope- occasionally alluded to by President Trump and others in the wake of mass shootings-that violent video games are causing real-life mayhem. German researchers recruited three groups of typically non-gaming, healthy volunteers, 77 in total, for their study.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cal Pirozzi - College Athletes Deserve More Compensation.

# data[].attributes.subject
Cal Pirozzi - College Athletes Deserve More Compensation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jul 18, 2011

Michael WilbonPardon the Interruption co-host

Close
Michael Wilbon is a featured columnist for ESPN.com and ESPNChicago.com. He is the longtime co-host of "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN and appears on the "NBA Sunday Countdown" pregame show on ABC, in addition to ESPN. You can follow him on Twitter: @RealMikeWilbon

I used to argue vehemently against paying college athletes. Tuition, room, board and books were compensation enough. And even if, increasingly, it wasn't enough and virtually every kid who accepted a scholarship was in the red before Christmas of his freshman year, the notion of pay-for-play was at best a logistical nightmare. Where exactly would the money come from? How could you pay college football players but not baseball players or members of the women's field hockey team? And how in the world would you pay men in a way that wouldn't violate Title IX?

So you know what caused me to do a 180 on the issue? That $11 billion deal -- OK, it's $10.8 billion to be exact -- between the NCAA and CBS/Turner Sports for March Madness between 2011 and 2024. We're talking $11 billion for three weekends of television per year. On top of that, there's a new four-year deal with ESPN that pays the BCS $500 million. So, if those two deals were worth, say, a combined $10 billion instead of $11.3 billion, would the games not be televised? Would the quality of the broadcasts or the coverage or the staging of the events be somehow diminished? What if people in the business of money took $1.3 billion off the top, invested it, sheltered it and made it available to provide a stipend to college athletes, how could anybody stand on principal and argue against paying the people who make the events possible in the first place?

Let me declare up front I wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in distributing the funds equitably or even paying every college athlete. I'm interested in seeing the people who produce the revenue share a teeny, tiny slice of it. That's right, football and men's basketball players get paid; lacrosse, field hockey, softball, baseball, soccer players get nothing. You know what that's called? Capitalism. Not everything is equal, not everything is fair. The most distinguished professor at the University of Alabama won't make $5.9 million in his entire tenure in Tuscaloosa; Nick Saban will make that this year. So I don't want to hear that it's "unfair" to pay the quarterback of Alabama more than all the sociology students in the undergraduate college.

Using the inability to distribute the funds equally as an impediment is an excuse, a rather intellectually lazy one at that. Nothing about the way hundreds of millions of dollars is distributed is equitable or even fair. The BCS' new deal with ESPN was based, in part, on paying more money to schools/conferences with regard to what has been called "population centers." Of the $174 million distributed from five bowl games, 83.4 percent went to six conferences in 2011. In question right now is whether the BCS even conducts its business dealings in a manner consistent with principles expressed in federal anti-trust laws. So, the equitable-application excuse for not paying athletes doesn't hold water; at the very least there's a level of hypocrisy here that ought to make the opponents of paying athletes uncomfortable.

Don't get me wrong, paying players out of individual athletic department budgets is beyond impractical; it's probably not feasible. Because so many athletic departments run at a deficit, it's difficult to make the case that schools should pay regular salaries to athletes, even football players who produce more income than anybody. But it's another thing entirely for the students who play for revenue-producing teams (at UConn and the University of Tennessee, this would include the women's basketball teams) to be somehow compensated from the lucrative television/radio/Internet rights fees they make wholly possible.

It's commendable that the NCAA has paid millions into a fund for in-need athletes to cover clothing purchases, emergency travel and medical expenses. There's also a special assistance fund and a student-athlete opportunity fund. Why can't hundreds of millions of dollars be directed into those, and in turn make money much more accessible to athletes for the kinds of regular day-to-day expenses regular college students pay by working jobs that are off-limits to intercollegiate athletes?

In the meantime, if they cannot be paid outright, surely the scholarship athletes should be able to engage in entrepreneurial pursuits that currently leads to costly NCAA investigations that have proven to be mostly a waste of time since, one, such activities historically haven't been checked and, two, the kids who commit the "infractions" aren't effectively punished. Their revelations, short of Heisman Trophy winners having to return their statues, wind up penalizing only the kids and coaches who remain on the team and in the vast majority of cases have done nothing to merit a penalty themselves.

If somebody is willing to give A.J. Green $750 or $1,000 or even $2,500 for his Georgia Bulldogs jersey, fine, good. If one of his teammates, a tackle, can fetch only $50 for his jersey, then it'll be a good marketing lesson for both of them. It's called supply and demand, and if both men are fortunate enough to reach the NFL it'll be a lesson worth learning because that dynamic will exist their entire careers. If a soccer player can't get a dime for his jersey, well, there's a realization in that, too.

The question from the opponents of paying college athletes inevitably comes back, "What would stop a star player from agreeing to shake hands at a local car dealership for $50,000?" The answer is, nothing. If a car dealer wants to strike that deal then good for the player in question. If a music student goes out in the summer and earns 50 grand, who objects? Who even knows? The student-musician is no less a college student because he struck a lucrative deal. Neither is the student-journalist who spends his nights writing freelance stories and picking up as much money along the way as he can.

If the student as athlete can find a way, he/she should be able to endorse products, to have paid-speaking gigs, to sell memorabilia, as Allen Sack, the author and professor at the college of business at the University of New Haven has suggested in recent years. The best college athletes in the two revenue-producing sports have always been worth much more than tuition, room, board and books. The best football and basketball players in the Big Ten have produced to the degree that a television network has become the model for every conference in America, a network worth at least tens of millions of dollars to the member institutions. Yet, no player can benefit from that work. The players have become employees of the universities and conferences as much as students -- employees with no compensation, which not only violates common decency but perhaps even the law.
Michael Wilbon is a featured columnist for ESPN.com and ESPNChicago.com. He is the longtime co-host of "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN and appears on the "NBA Sunday Countdown" pregame show on ABC in addition to ESPN. Wilbon joined ESPN.com after three decades with The Washington Post, where he earned a reputation as one of the nation's most respected sports journalists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jul 18, 2011 Michael WilbonPardon the Interruption co-host Close Michael Wilbon is a featured columnist for ESPN.com and ESPNChicago.com. He is the longtime co-host of "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN and appears on the "NBA Sunday Countdown" pregame show on ABC, in addition to ESPN.

# data[].attributes.headline
Maximo Zappani-Do video games impact a player's behavior in real life.

# data[].attributes.subject
Maximo Zappani-Do video games impact a player's behavior in real life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - Violent video game play is linked to increased aggression in players but insufficient evidence exists about whether the link extends to criminal violence or delinquency, according to a new American Psychological Association task force report.

"The research demonstrates a consistent relation between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect, and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy and sensitivity to aggression," says the report of the APA Task Force on Violent Media. The task force's review is the first in this field to examine the breadth of studies included and to undertake multiple approaches to reviewing the literature.

"Scientists have investigated the use of violent video games for more than two decades but to date, there is very limited research addressing whether violent video games cause people to commit acts of criminal violence," said Mark Appelbaum, PhD, task force chair. "However, the link between violence in video games and increased aggression in players is one of the most studied and best established in the field."

"No single risk factor consistently leads a person to act aggressively or violently," the report states. "Rather, it is the accumulation of risk factors that tends to lead to aggressive or violent behavior. The research reviewed here demonstrates that violent video game use is one such risk factor."

In light of the task force's conclusions, APA has called on the industry to design video games that include increased parental control over the amount of violence the games contain. APA's Council of Representatives adopted a resolution at its meeting Aug. 7 in Toronto encouraging the Entertainment Software Rating Board to refine its video game rating system "to reflect the levels and characteristics of violence in games, in addition to the current global ratings." In addition, the resolution urges developers to design games that are appropriate to users' age and psychological development, and voices APA's support for more research to address gaps in the knowledge about the effects of violent video game use.

The resolution replaces a 2005 resolution on the same topic.

The task force identified a number of limitations in the research that require further study. These include a general failure to look for any differences in outcomes between boys and girls who play violent video games; a dearth of studies that have examined the effects of violent video game play on children younger than 10; and a lack of research that has examined the games' effects over the course of children's development.

"We know that there are numerous risk factors for aggressive behavior," Appelbaum said. "What researchers need to do now is conduct studies that look at the effects of video game play in people at risk for aggression or violence due to a combination of risk factors. For example, how do depression or delinquency interact with violent video game use?"

The task force conducted a comprehensive review of the research literature published between 2005 and 2013 focused on violent video game use. This included four meta-analyses that reviewed more than 150 research reports published before 2009. Task force members then conducted both a systematic evidence review and a quantitative review of the literature published between 2009 and 2013. (A systematic evidence review synthesizes all empirical evidence that meets pre-specified criteria to answer specific research questions - a standard approach to summarizing large bodies of research to explore a field of research.) This resulted in 170 articles, 31 of which met all of the most stringent screening criteria.

"While there is some variation among the individual studies, a strong and consistent general pattern has emerged from many years of research that provides confidence in our general conclusions," Appelbaum said. "As with most areas of science, the picture presented by this research is more complex than is usually included in news coverage and other information prepared for the general public."

In addition to Appelbaum, members of the APA Task Force on Violent Media were: Sandra Calvert, PhD; Kenneth Dodge, PhD; Sandra Graham, PhD; Gordon N. Hall, PhD; Sherry Hamby, PhD; and Larry Hedges, PhD.

See the report

(PDF, 413KB) and policy (PDF, 308KB) here.
The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA's membership includes more than 122,500 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
APA Review Confirms Link Between Playing Violent Video Games and Aggression

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - Violent video game play is linked to increased aggression in players but insufficient evidence exists about whether the link extends to criminal violence or delinquency, according to a new American Psychological Association task force report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Violent Video Games Spur Child Aggression: EBSCOhost

# data[].attributes.headline
Luke Egizio- Sporting Activities in Schools

# data[].attributes.subject
Luke Egizio- Sporting Activities in Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As we touched upon yesterday, after-school sports are on the chopping block for many schools and districts facing budget cuts. But after-school sports aren't the only endangered physical activity-physical education classes have also been trimmed due to budgetary concerns and an increased focus on test-based accountability.

The American Heart Association recommends a minimum of 150 minutes of physical activity a week for elementary students, and 225 minutes per week for middle school students.

Yet, according to the "2010 Shape of the Nation Report" by the National Association of Sport and Physical Education, only five U.S. states require physical education in every grade K-12 (Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Vermont). Only Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana require the recommended 150+ minutes of physical activity per week for elementary students, and only Alabama, Montana, and Utah require the recommended 225+ minutes per week for junior high and high school students.

Virginia is the latest state to consider making physical education mandatory. The state Senate voted 37-2 yesterday to pass a bill which would require schools to offer at least 150 minutes of physical education weekly for students in kindergarten through 8th grade. (The bill doesn't mandate high-school PE.)

Currently, according to the "2010 Shape of the Nation", Virginia mandates physical education in grades K-7 and requires daily recess in elementary school. Elementary students are required to receive 150 minutes per week of physical activity; however, this may be any combination of phys. ed. classes, extra-curricular athletics, or "other programs and physical activities deemed appropriate by the local school board."

While the health benefits of phys. ed. classes are unquestionable, the budgetary strains and liability concerns are often enough to make states stop short of the AHA's recommended requirements. This essay from the Journal of Law and Education, titled "School Liability: The Danger of Mandatory Physical Education Classes," speaks largely to the uncertainty that states face when considering mandatory physical education programs. (The author explains that a school's liability varies state to state, "depending on which standard of liability the state has adopted.")

UPDATE, 1/27: The Virginia House Education Committee advanced the mandatory phys. ed. bill yesterday, with a 13-4 vote to send the measure to the House floor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Schools Make Physical Education Mandatory?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As we touched upon yesterday, after-school sports are on the chopping block for many schools and districts facing budget cuts. But after-school sports aren't the only endangered physical activity-physical education classes have also been trimmed due to budgetary concerns and an increased focus on test-based accountability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Education in the arts is an integral part of the development of each human being. Those who have studied learning processes throughout the ages, beginning with Plato, have emphasized the importance of the arts in the education process. Arts education refers to education in the disciplines of music, dance, theatre, and visual arts. Study in the arts is integral to our society. They are a part of the cultural heritage of every American. The arts are what make us most human, most complete as people. The arts cannot be learned through occasional or random exposure any more than math or science can. Education and engagement in the fine arts are an essential part of the school curriculum and an important component in the educational program of every student in Katy ISD.

Sufficient data exists to overwhelmingly support the belief that study and participation in the fine arts is a key component in improving learning throughout all academic areas. Evidence of its effectiveness in reducing student dropout, raising student attendance, developing better team players, fostering a love for learning, improving greater student dignity, enhancing student creativity, and producing a more prepared citizen for the workplace for tomorrow can be found documented in studies held in many varied settings, from school campuses, to corporate America.

Evidence from brain research is only one of many reasons education and engagement in fine arts is beneficial to the educational process. The arts develop neural systems that produce a broad spectrum of benefits ranging from fine motor skills to creativity and improved emotional balance. One must realize that these systems often take months and even years to fine-tune. In a study conducted by Judith Burton, Columbia University, research evidenced that subjects such as mathematics, science, and language require complex cognitive and creative capacities "typical of arts learning" (Burton, Horowitz, & Abeles, 1999). "The arts enhance the process of learning. The systems they nourish, which include our integrated sensory, attentional, cognitive, emotional, and motor capacities, are, in fact, the driving forces behind all other learning" (Jensen, 2001).

The fine arts also provide learners with non-academic benefits such as promoting self-esteem, motivation, aesthetic awareness, cultural exposure, creativity, improved emotional expression, as well as social harmony and appreciation of diversity. These are the very fibers of the fabric known as our American culture.

The following are findings reported in Champions of Change: The Impact of the Arts on Learning (Fiske, 1999) that should be noted by every parent, teacher, and administrator:

The arts reach students not normally reached, in ways and methods not normally used. (This leads to better student attendance and lower dropout rates.)

It changes the learning environment to one of discovery. (This often re-ignites the love of learning in students tired of just being fed facts.)

Students connect with each other better. (This often results in fewer fights, greater understanding of diversity, and greater peer support.)

The arts provide challenges to students of all levels. (Each student can find his/her own level from basic to gifted.)

Students learn to become sustained, self-directed learners. (The student does not just become an outlet for stored facts from direct instruction, but seeks to extend instruction to higher levels of proficiency.)

The study of the fine arts positively impacts the learning of students of lower socioeconomic status as much or more than those of a higher socioeconomic status. (Twenty-one percent of students of low socioeconomic status who had studied music scored higher in math versus just eleven percent of those who had not. By the senior year, these figures grew to 33 percent and 16 percent, respectively, suggesting a cumulative value to music education.)

Is the study of fine arts important? They engage many areas of the brain and also have far-reaching effects on the learner's mind (Jensen, 2001). The arts promote the understanding and sharing of culture. They promote social skills that enhance the awareness and respect of others. The fine arts enhance perceptual and cognitive skills. The Burton study of more than 2000 children found that those in the arts curriculum were far superior in creative thinking, self-concept, problem-solving, self-expression, risk-taking, and cooperation than those who were not (Burton et al., 1999). The arts have the capacity to engage everyone. All levels of American society can and do participate in the fine arts. There are no barriers of race, religion, culture, geography, or socioeconomic levels.

Today's world is witness to the Information Age. The primary sources of content information are no longer teacher lectures or textbooks. Learning is not limited to what you know, but is dependent upon how to find information and how to use that information quickly, creatively, and cooperatively. "We are in the twilight of a society based on data. As information and intelligence become the domain of computers, society will place a new value on the one human ability that can't be automated: emotion (Jensen, 1999, p. 84)." Today's students are inundated with data but are starving for meaningful learning. Workplace demands are for students to understand how to solve problems, what makes arguments plausible, how to build teams and coalitions, and how to incorporate the concept of fairness into the everyday decisions. Students need to be thinkers, possess people skills, be problem-solvers, demonstrate creativity, and work as a member of a team. We need to offer more in-depth learning about the things that matter the most: order, integrity, thinking skills, a sense of wonder, truth, flexibility, fairness, dignity, contribution, justice, creativity and cooperation. The arts provide all of these.

Perhaps the most fundamental element to education one should consider is the manner in which we perceive and make sense of the world in which we live. An effective education in the fine arts helps students to see what they look at, hear what they listen to, and feel what they touch. Engagement in the fine arts helps students to stretch their minds beyond the boundaries of the printed text or the rules of what is provable. The arts free the mind from rigid certainty. Imagine the benefits of seeking, finding, and developing multiple solutions to the myriad of problems facing our society today! These processes, taught through the study of the arts, help to develop the tolerance for coping with the ambiguities and uncertainties present in the everyday affairs of human existence. There is a universal need for words, music, dance, and visual art to give expression to the innate urgings of the human spirit. (Eisner, 1987) The premier organizations in the corporate world today recognize that the human intellect "draws from many wells." Arts education gives access to the deepest of those wells.

-compiled by Bob Bryant

Sources:
Jensen, E. (2001). Arts with the brain in mind. Alexandria, Va., Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Eisner, E. (1987). Why the arts are basic. Instructor's 3R's Special Issue.34-35.

Chapman, R. (1998). Improving student performance through the arts. Principal. 20-26.

Kaagan, S. (1998). Arts education: Schooling with imagination. Principal. 16-19

Faison, H. (2000). Is anyone out there listening?. Foundation for Academic Excellence Symposium, Haskell, Ok.

Buka, S. (2000). Long term outcomes of music education: results of a thirty-five year longitudinal study. Foundation for Academic Excellence Symposium, Haskell, Ok.

Lehman, P. (2001). What students should learn in the arts. Content of the curriculum. Alexandria, Va. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1-22)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Education in the arts is an integral part of the development of each human being. Those who have studied learning processes throughout the ages, beginning with Plato, have emphasized the importance of the arts in the education process. Arts education refers to education in the disciplines of music, dance, theatre, and visual arts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Zoe Arzt- Should the Arts be allowed in school

# data[].attributes.subject
Zoe Arzt- Should the Arts be allowed in school

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Arts Benefit Your Children Academically and Behaviorally | PublicSchoolReview.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Often underfunded in the past, the arts are gaining a resurgence in support as research shows benefits for children academically, along with improvements in behavior and attendance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In response to the Opinion page articles entitled ''Ending Required Gym: 2 Views'' (July 9): I believe that both views presented missed the point. Has economics become the yardstick by which we measure whether we cancel gym class? If so, our children and our future may be in serious trouble.

If 51 percent of all adults in the United States drop dead of some sort of cardiovascular-related disease, shouldn't we take a serious look at this problem? Especially because more and more data suggest that children as early as age 2 (and younger) are developing fatty streaks in their aortas and suffer from high levels of cholesterol.

Gym class is not just mandatory sport activities. It is physical education. If not in physical education class, where will children learn about positive lifelong physical fitness, nutrition, stress control and other ''risk factors'' they can directly influence? How will they benefit from the added time for academics and leisure if they are becoming sedentary, obese, bored and stressed out? What will they do to vent their frustrations if there is no solid positive foundation in their lives?

I am outraged and vehemently disagree with the Governor's proposal. The notion of voluntary gym or mandatory two and a half hours a week is ludicrous. For school-age children, physical education is a necessity, not a frill. It should be at the top of the priority list, not the first cut.

Ending required gym is a bad idea. Yes, gym class should be mandatory; however, there should be flexibility. The children should be able to select and participate voluntarily in the lifelong activities they choose in addition to the required curriculum. Coercion or persuasion need not be used if we stick to the basic premise of ''education.'' That is, after all, what the school system is all about, isn't it?

Physical education has the ability to take a child and arouseand maintain positive self-interest.

It can instill self-worth and self-esteem. It allows the child to set goals and realize positive instant gratification.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In response to the Opinion page articles entitled ''Ending Required Gym: 2 Views'' (July 9): I believe that both views presented missed the point. Has economics become the yardstick by which we measure whether we cancel gym class? If so, our children and our future may be in serious trouble.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fortnite is an incredibly popular video game, so it's natural for the otherwise games-ambivalent mainstream media to want a piece of it. Enter stage right Australia's A Current Affair, which in addition to being a fairly sensationalist outlet, also occasionally runs stories comparing the best fake tans on the Australian market. So you know it's pretty good.

The video above (via Kotaku) shows how it panned out, with the outlet parroting the usual stuff about games being addictive and games being violent. "The latest video game craze is violent, addictive and free, and the kids love it," the video description reads. "So, when does harmless fun turn into unhealthy obsession?" (Good question!).

One highlight is when an 11-year-old Fortnite enthusiast explains the objective of the game. "You have to make sure no one kills you," the boy says.

"So you kill others?" The journalist asks, aghast.

"You just shoot them, and then they fall to the ground and die," he replies.

It's not the first time Australia's mainstream has flirted with Fortnite: NRL player Josh Dugan famously imitated the health replenishment / bandaging animation on field earlier this month - arguably a bigger deal than Drake appearing on a stream with Ninja, providing you're Australian.

Anyway, in the words of one canny Facebook user commenting on the A Current Affair program, perhaps bannings are the answer. "Parents SHOULD bans their kids... not because of the 'violence' but because they suck, they always wanna land at tilted & when they do they die straight away. do you know how hard it is to try and win a squad match as a solo? lol"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fortnite has raised the ire of an Australian current affairs program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fortnite is an incredibly popular video game, so it's natural for the otherwise games-ambivalent mainstream media to want a piece of it. Enter stage right Australia's A Current Affair, which in addition to being a fairly sensationalist outlet, also occasionally runs stories comparing the best fake tans on the Australian market.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Photoshopping, digital alteration, image manipulation, blah blah blah. Everyone talks about the fact that so many images of women are "perfected" with the help of technology, but we can't just toss it aside as a non-issue everyone already knows about. Whether or not a person is aware of the possibility of image alterations, not everyone realizes exactly HOW MUCH these images are changed to fit some seriously un-human and unrealistic ideals that we view over and over. And not everyone understands that it isn't just fashion magazine covers that feature drastically Photoshopped images. It's TV. It's video. It's your favorite brand online. It's everywhere.

While the vast majority of images of women are being digitally altered, so are our perceptions of normal, healthy, beautiful and attainable.

One of the main strategies used to reinforce and normalize a distorted idea of "average" is media's representation of women as extremely thin (meaning much thinner than the actual population or what is physically possible for the vast majority of women) - either by consistent use of models and actresses that are underweight or extremely thin, or by making the models and actresses fit their idea of ideal thinness and beauty through digital manipulation both on screen through computer-generated imagery (CGI - shown in the Britney Spears music video example) and in print media. Essentially, "the feminine ideal is tanned, healthy slenderness, with no unsightly bumps, bulges or cellulite, and bodily and facial perfection that results from hours of labor: exercise, makeup and hair care" (Coward, 1985) - and 30 years later, plastic surgery and Photoshop. This unrealistic form is consistently represented across almost all media forms, along with blemish-free, wrinkle-free, and even pore-free skin, thanks to the wonders of digital manipulation as an "industry standard" that is openly endorsed and defended by magazine editors and media makers the world over.

Though we hear about digital manipulation controversies all the time (check out our for tons of examples), media executives and producers continue to use it to an unbelievable extent and they violently defend it as a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Here are a couple interesting (and appalling) case studies from Photoshopping Phoniness Hall of Shame Seventeen and Self magazines to showcase this very issue:

The February 2014 cover of Seventeen featured "Pretty Little Liars" star Troian Bellisario, who opened up about her past problems with an eating disorder. The teen magazine decided to feature that as a teaser on the cover, right above a much larger headline for "Get an Insane Body - It's hard, but you'll look hot!" This juxtaposition of providing an outlet for a young actress to open up to young fans about a disorder that "ripped her life apart" next to a story promoting the thin ideals that drive many girls and women to such extremes in eating is appallingly irresponsible. Read more about our thoughts on Seventeen .

When superstar singer Kelly Clarkson was digitally slimmed down almost beyond recognition on Self's September 2009 cover, people noticed. Her appearance on "Good Morning America" within just days of the cover shoot proved that her body did not look anything like the very thin one that appeared on the cover. In a shockingly ironic twist, the issue she appeared on was titled "The Body Confidence Issue" and featured an interview inside where she explained how comfortable she felt with her body:

"My happy weight changes," Clarkson says in the September issue of SELF. "Sometimes I eat more; sometimes I play more. I'll be different sizes all the time. When people talk about my weight, I'm like, 'You seem to have a problem with it; I don't. I'm fine!' I've never felt uncomfortable on the red carpet or anything."

Rather than apologizing for the seriously unethical and extreme Photoshopping snafu, Self editor Lucy Danziger tried to defend her magazine's work to the death:

"Yes, of course we do post-production corrections on our images. Photoshopping is an industry standard," she stated. "Kelly Clarkson exudes confidence, and is a great role model for women of all sizes and stages of their life. She works out and is strong and healthy, and our picture shows her confidence and beauty. She literally glows from within. That is the feeling we'd all want to have. We love this cover and we love Kelly Clarkson."

Interestingly, Danziger wasn't satisfied with that statement and felt inspired to take to her personal blog to further rationalize away the Photoshopping hack job:

"Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best...But in the sense that Kelly is the picture of confidence, and she truly is, then I think this photo is the truest we have ever put out there on the newsstand."

It's hard to believe anyone's "personal best" is a fake representation of herself. They'll plaster "body confidence!" all over the magazine and quote Kelly talking about her own real body confidence, but they refuse to show us her actual body.

This is just one example that happened to generate enough media coverage that people were able to find out about the scary distortion of an active, 27-year-old superstar's body in media. Unfortunately, this case study is pretty representative of thousands more that appear in magazines, on billboards, in advertisements, in stores and everywhere else you can think of every single day. At Beauty Redefined, we've termed this phenomenon "the normalization of abnormal." Since we'll see millions more images of women in media than we'll ever see face-to-face, those images form a new standard for not just "beautiful," but also "average" and "healthy" in our minds. When women compare themselves to a standard of beautiful, average and healthy that simply doesn't exist in real life, the battle for healthy body image is already lost. Last year, the American Medical Association (AMA) announced they've adopted a policy against "false advertising:"

The AMA adopted a new policy to encourage advertising associations to work with public and private sector organizations concerned with child and adolescent health to develop guidelines for advertisements, especially those appearing in teen-oriented publications, that would discourage the altering of photographs in a manner that could promote unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image.

Dr. McAneny of the AMA states, " We must stop exposing impressionable children and teenagers to advertisements portraying models with body types only attainable with the help of photo editing software." And yet, in the last year, Photoshopping has reached an all-time high. It is inescapable.

From lost self-esteem, lost money and time spent fixing "flaws" and a well-documented preoccupation with losing weight (NEDA, 2010), the effects of these unreal ideals hurt everyone. We know that advertising - especially for fashion or beauty products - depends on two things: 1) girls and women," and removing signs of life like pores, gray hairs, and wrinkles aren't just casual decisions based on aesthetic preferences of a few editors - they are profit-driven decisions to create false ideals for females to seek after in hopes of someday attaining. These hopes are largely driven by desire to be found attractive, loved, appear healthy, and ultimately, happy. believing their happiness, health, and ability to be loved is dependent on their appearance, and 2) girls and women believing can achieve physical ideals by using certain products or services. Do we really understand that ALL media (with very few exceptions) depends on advertising dollars to operate? Because of that, the editorial content or programming has to uphold those same ideals or else advertisers aren't happy. Digitally slimming women's bodies, adding or exaggerating a "

One telling example from the '90s (found in Naomi Wolf's "The Beauty Myth") explains how a prominent women's magazine featured gray-haired models in a fashion spread (unheard of even today, right?). It was a success until one of their biggest advertisers, Clairol hair color company, pulled their entire campaign as a protest against the spread. The magazine, which depended on those advertising dollars, was forced to never again feature gray-haired women in a positive light. The same holds true for media today. Pay attention to what kind of companies are advertising in your favorite magazines or during your favorite TV shows. There's a very good chance they are selling beauty products, weight loss products or other appearance-related services, which means the female characters featured positively (like in relationships or pursued by men, complimented, not the butt of jokes, etc.) will likely resemble the idealized women in the advertising.

From media outlets like that go to great lengths to make unrealistic and unattainable beauty ideals look normal and within reach, to the diet and weight loss industry raking in an estimated $61 billion on Americans' quest for thinness in 2010 (Marketdata Enterprises, 2009), those with financial interests at stake in our beliefs about women's bodies are thriving unlike ever before. Simultaneously, women and families are losing. Losing self-esteem. Losing time and money spent on items, services and products meant to fix our never-ending list of "flaws." Losing real understandings of healthy, average and attainable. Sometimes even losing weight they didn't need to lose in dangerous ways in order to measure up (or down) to Photoshopped ideals we see every day as "normal."

While representations of women's bodies across the media spectrum have shrunk dramatically in the last three decades, rates of eating disorders have skyrocketed - tripling for college-age women from the late '80s to 1993 and rising since then to 4% suffering with bulimia (National Eating Disorder Association, 2010). Perhaps even more startling is the 119 percent increase in the number of children under age 12 hospitalized due to an eating disorder between 1999 and 2006, the vast majority of whom were girls (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2010). Though the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2000) reports that "no exact cause of eating disorders have yet been found," they do admit that some characteristics have been shown to influence the development of the illnesses, which include low self-esteem, fear of becoming fat and being in an environment where weight and thinness were emphasized - all of which are shown to be related to media depictions of idealized bodies, which is all but inescapable. Scholars have proposed that eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia are due, in part, to an extreme commitment to attaining the cultural body ideal as portrayed in media.

Photoshopping has taken these unreal ideals to a scary new level. Henry Farid, a Dartmouth professor of computer science who specializes in digital forensics and photo manipulation, agrees. "The more and more we use this editing, the higher and higher the bar goes. They're creating things that are physically impossible," he told ABC News in August 2009. "We're seeing really radical digital plastic surgery. It's moving towards the Barbie doll model of what a woman should look like - big breasts, tiny waist, ridiculously long legs, elongated neck. All the body fat is removed, all the wrinkles are removed, the skin is smoothed out."

What we see in media, and what we may be internalizing as normal or beautiful, is anything but normal or beautiful. It's fake. It's a profit-driven idea of normal and beautiful that women will spend their lives trying to achieve and men will spend their lives trying to find. But until we all learn to recognize and reject these harmful messages about what it means to look like a woman, we all lose. And I don't want to lose. Are you with us in taking back beauty for females everywhere?
Recognize that you are not just a body. Recognize that your body is not just an ornament or an object to be fixed and judged - it is an instrument to live and do and be. Reject messages that teach you otherwise. Cancel subscriptions, unfollow on social media, spend your money elsewhere, talk back to companies and speak up in your own circles of influence. Your reflection does not define your worth, and self-comparisons to unreal ideals get us absolutely nowhere. These ideals are unlikely to change anytime soon, so we have to change our perceptions of media and bodies with or without media.
Need more help developing body image resilience that can help you overcome your self-consciousness and be more powerful than ever before? Learn how to recognize harmful ideals, redefine beauty and health, and resist what holds you back from happiness, health, and real empowerment with the Beauty Redefined Body Image Program for girls and women 14+. It is an online, anonymous therapeutic tool that can change your life, designed by Lexie & Lindsay Kite, with PhDs in body image and media. For the largest and most detailed collection of Photoshopping Phoniness on the Web, see our Hall of Shame Gallery! And have you seen our new sticky notes to slap on magazines in the store aisle? They're soooo good. Find them here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Photoshopping: Altering Images and Our Minds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Photoshopping, digital alteration, image manipulation, blah blah blah. Everyone talks about the fact that so many images of women are "perfected" with the help of technology, but we can't just toss it aside as a non-issue everyone already knows about.

# data[].attributes.body
Davis Crall - Want to pay college athletes? Start with allowing legitimate endorsing deals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The combination of bloated television contracts, increased exposure and injection of money from apparel deals into the fabric of college athletics has left one group out in the cold -- the athletes themselves.

Sure, college athletes get a full ride (including a scholarship) that allows them to work towards a prestigious degree with little-to-no debt while making lifetime connections that can be useful when their playing careers are over. They also receive professional training and other legal benefits that, from a monetary standpoint, are valued min the mid-six figure range.

But all of that is not enough any longer. Not when conferences are signing multi-billion dollar deals for broadcast rights, schools (and sometimes coaches) are making millions off apparel agreements and the life of a fired coach collecting his contractual buyout is the best life.

Amateurism has always been ingrained into the college athletics landscape, but based on a recent conversation the Associated Press had with NCAA president Mark Emmert, it appears that there's at least a little wiggle room in defining the term.

"There's a lot of discussion about the Olympic model, and [I] think it's well deserving of serious consideration inside the context of college sports," Emmert said.

So let's create that model within the context of college sports using three criteria:

Players should be allowed to earn money off their names and athletic ability

The integrity of the "student" aspect of "student-athlete" should be maintained

The ability for teams to use their visibility (earning power) as a recruiting tool should be limited

All of this is attainable with relative ease. Let players earn money throughout their careers through endorsement deals that are part of the existing apparel contract structure with a set limit and add in room for legitimate endorsement deals from local and regional businesses.

Of course, the risk of local businesses exploiting the system and paying the star quarterback, the backup long snapper and everybody in between the maximum allowed exists. But if the NCAA is allowing a somewhat-modified version of the Olympic model anyway, the legal endorsement transactions will be recorded and declared. If it's necessary to classify players by tier in terms of what they bring to the table based on performance or even GPA, do so. Those are all relatively simple solutions.

Use the current enforcement structure to make sure -- to the best of the NCAA's ability -- that schools, coaches and players are prevented from exploiting the system.

Will transgressions still happen? Of course. They happen now and would occur under this hypothetical system across all sports. Let's not act like MLB and the NFL have been without their fair share of both on- and off-field problems. Players, coaches and teams always look for an edge. That won't go away no matter what rule changes are made or what proposals are ignored.

Put the money earned by these players into a trust similar to a 401K if you must and make it accessible tax-free upon graduation. At that point, the player can convert it into an actual 401K, withdraw all of it without penalty or do anything else he or she wants. It's their money. Incentivizing academics -- specifically, earning a degree -- will keep the "student" part of the "student-athlete" intact and perhaps even enhance it in the age of one-and-done basketball players and football players who plan for three-and-out before even signing a National Letter of Intent.

If a player wants or needs to access the money before graduation, tax it just like the federal penalty that currently exists on 401K early withdrawals.

These trusts can be managed by any of the many financial partners with whom the NCAA currently has relationships, and it can be adjusted by the player based on their specific desires. If they want to go ultra-conservative and make it a retirement plan, they can. If they want to be more risky and try to take advantage of a strong economy, that's fine, too. Not only are those personal decisions, they're great personal finance lessons that can be used later in life regardless of the specific industry in which the student-athlete winds up working .

Solving this issue doesn't need to be difficult, and it really shouldn't be as divisive as it seems to be. Scholarships, training, connections and everything that goes along with being a student-athlete today are massive benefits that normal students don't receive. But that doesn't mean it's enough compensation considering what universities, athletic departments and coaches are raking in off their labor.

Letting the players earn money based on their value, regulating those funds, incentivizing education and teaching real-world lessons by blending the Olympic model within the NCAA's current definition of amateurism would be a great way to do it.

It's at least a start.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Want to pay college athletes? Start with allowing legitimate endorsement deals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The combination of bloated television contracts, increased exposure and injection of money from apparel deals into the fabric of college athletics has left one group out in the cold -- the athletes themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Written by Joy Dora

Many public schools are decreasing or eliminating mandatory physical education programs from elementary, middle and high schools. A 2013 study by the Institute of Medicine cites several reasons for this, including lack of funding and school testing standards. However, this reduction may contribute to obesity and affect children's health. New solutions need to be implemented to ensure that students receive the exercise and nutrition information they need.

Budget Shortfalls

It is understandable that some schools may need to reduce or cut PE programs entirely. If the choice is to crowd even more children into classrooms or cut gym, many parents would prefer smaller class sizes. Public schools are having to adopt a "do more with less" philosophy. Something must be cut, and due to the rising importance of standardized test scores, administrators cannot risk cutting programs focusing on core studies such as English and math. By making gym classes optional, schools are trying to placate everyone.

Obesity Crisis

Unfortunately, Americans are gaining more and more weight every year, and part of the problem is that we aren't moving enough. PE programs give children some opportunity to exercise every day. In addition, many PE programs include a nutrition component. Learning about healthy food choices is important in a society where junk food is available and advertised constantly. By taking away these chances to exercise and learn, there is a greater chance of children becoming obese. Older students especially may not want to take PE classes, but pre-teens and teens are most at risk because they are less likely to engage in physical play outside of school hours.

ADHD and The Crisis of Boys

It is no secret that boys are falling behind in American education and diagnoses of Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder are on the rise. According to the Centers for Disease Control, there was a 21 percent increase in the number of children diagnosed with ADHD since 2007. According to "Time Magazine," one in five high school boys has been diagnosed with the disorder. Children with ADHD may benefit from physical activity because concentrating for longer periods of time can be difficult for them. Mandatory PE classes benefit kids not only physically, but mentally. Leaving this option up to the discretion of school administrators may deny some children a service that could help them succeed in the classroom.

Outside Credit

For teenagers, there is a workable solution to this problem. Many schools have started awarding school credit for outside participation in a sport or activity. According to Fairview Park City Schools in Fairview Park, Ohio, students can submit a credit flex plan to receive credit for physical activity outside of school. This can be beneficial for both schools and students because it allows students to take more academic classes while encouraging them to get regular exercise each day. It can also be less intimidating for less athletically inclined students. High schools can reduce the number of gym classes they offer, but elementary and middle school students still need mandatory physical activity in the school day to keep children active and engaged in class.

About the Author

Joy Dora has been writing since 2001 and has a master of fine arts in creative writing. She has worked as a copywriter for many prominent online brands, and has also taught college composition and high school English.

Photo Credits

Hemera Technologies/AbleStock.com/Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many public schools are decreasing or eliminating mandatory physical education programs from elementary, middle and high schools. A 2013 study by the Institute of Medicine cites several reasons for this, including lack of funding and school testing standards. However, this reduction may contribute to obesity and affect children's health.

# data[].attributes.headline
Caleb Miller- should Student Athletes be Paid?

# data[].attributes.subject
Caleb Miller- should Student Athletes be Paid?

# data[].attributes.body
-carson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the wake of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, President Trump resurfaced the ongoing debate over violent video games.

"The level of violence on video games is really shaping young people's thoughts," Trump said last week. On Thursday, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced an upcoming meeting with game industry executives.

The argument that violent video games cause gun violence is contradicted by one major piece of evidence: The same games are sold around the world, yet gun violence is far more prevalent in the United States.

On February 14, yet another school shooting happened in the United States.

At Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, a 19-year-old gunman killed 17 students and staff members with a legally purchased AR-15 rifle. Survivors of that tragedy have become activists, helping to rekindle and fuel an ongoing push for gun control.

And that push has spurred lawmakers to act.

President Trump has met with members of Congress since February 14 in an attempt to set an agenda on gun control legislation. Trump even stunned some Republican members of Congress in a recent meeting, pushing for Democrats and Republicans to work together on issues like restricting "military-style" weapons.

But Trump has also suggested that the influence of violent media is to blame for the ongoing issue of gun violence in the US. "The level of violence on video games is really shaping young people's thoughts," he said in a meeting last week. "And then you go the further step, and that's the movies."

Trump is suggesting that violent video games and films are at least partly responsible for the rise and persistence of gun violence in the US.

It's an argument that dates back to the Columbine High School shooting in 1999.

The two Columbine High School gunmen were active "Doom" players. Since the game primarily focuses on shooting a gun - at demons, in outer space - commentators suggested that the gunmen had trained for the real-life shooting by playing "Doom." The game featured a gun as the main point of interaction and perspective - the "first-person shooter" was a relatively new concept in video games back in 1999 - and thus arose suspicion.

If these teenage gunmen were playing this game, and capable of committing such a horrific act, what did that mean for all the other kids playing these games?

But there's a simple reason why that doesn't make much sense: "The same video games played in the US are played worldwide; however, the level of gun violence is exponentially higher in the US than in other countries."

That's according to the Entertainment Software Association, the group that represents major video game industry stakeholders like Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Activision, EA, and others. It's not surprising that the trade group representing the video game industry feels this way - but it's a hard point to argue.

Though first-person shooter games like "Call of Duty," "Battlefield," and "Halo" are popular with American video game players, they're also popular all over the world. The game industry is a global market, with platforms like the PlayStation 4 that serve territories with extremely restrictive gun laws and territories with relatively lax gun laws.

Even though these games are played all over the world, the United States is a standout statistically in terms of gun violence. If violent games were causing violent behavior, it stands to reason that the connection would be more consistent around the world.

Whether or not it's good for children to be exposed to graphical violence in games, or theatrical violence in movies, isn't clear. It probably isn't. What is clear is that playing violent games and watching violent movies doesn't directly cause violent behavior. We have the evidence to prove it, and it's staring us right in the face.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
One glaring piece of evidence refutes the claim that playing violent video games causes gun violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the wake of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, President Trump resurfaced the ongoing debate over violent video games. "The level of violence on video games is really shaping young people's thoughts," Trump said last week.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cal Pirozzi - Why Student Athletes Should be Paid? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Cal Pirozzi - Why Student Athletes Should be Paid? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College athletes deserve more compensation: EBSCOhost

# data[].attributes.headline
Brandon Spohn - Do video games cause violance

# data[].attributes.subject
Brandon Spohn - Do video games cause violance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gym class is invariably portrayed on the silver screen as a time of awkwardness and embarrassment when kids have to climb ropes and do a certain number of push-ups in a minute's time. However, gym class is much different now, and it is not surprising that today's students and parents are questioning why it's even a mandatory part of the day. After all, according to an MSNBC investigation, researchers have found that the average high school gym class only keeps students physically active for an average of 16 minutes! In a class period that is about 45 minutes long, that isn't a lot of active time. In today's educational climate in which standardized test performance in core subjects carries a significant amount of weight with regard to teacher and school evaluations, "wasting" all that time doing nothing in PE is something districts cannot afford. As such, PE classes have been cut so students can spend more time in core classes.

Supporters of mandatory gym programs contend that physical education classes have a wide range of benefits. According to the National Association for Sport and Physical Education, physical education classes help children develop fine and gross motor skills, learn cooperation and teamwork, reduce stress, and improve self-confidence and self-esteem. Furthermore, supporters argue that public schools have a responsibility to encourage children to enjoy a healthy and active lifestyle - especially as a rising number of young Americans are obese. Activities that promote muscular strength, cardiovascular endurance, and flexibility, they argue, can help reverse the trend of American

children gaining weight.

Subsequently, some school leaders are left without a clear answer in the debate. Should fitness classes be required to fulfill a school's curriculum requirements?

This video looks into the question of whether or not physical education should remain in public schools.
Are Physical Education Programs Really Fit?
Further expounding on the issue, MSNBC also analyzes a major study of physical education programs conducted by Cornell University. The study, based on information from 37,000 high school students' responses to surveys from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reveals that most students do not believe gym class is effective. This has led nearly all states to create and pass new bills to reform public schools' fitness education programs.

Unfortunately, while many states have increased the time students spend in gym class, Cornell's study found that adding 200 more minutes of time to gym class each week did not produce substantial changes. Even by adding 200 more weekly minutes, the studies showed that boys generally engaged in only 7.5 minutes of more activity per day, while girls only participated in activity 8 additional minutes each week.

Attempting to explain these disappointing results, Cornell's lead professor of policy analysis and management asserts, "The rest of the extra gym time is likely spent being sedentary - most likely standing around idly while playing sports like softball or volleyball that don't require constant movement." Cornell's results hit a familiar nerve, as a study of fitness classes in Texas elementary schools also found that the majority of students spent the class time inactive; specifically, the data suggested that students were only engaging in exercise or movement for approximately 3 minutes during the entire class period.

As reported in USA Today, what would benefit children more is periods of rigorous physical activity that make them break a sweat. High-energy games like tag and dodgeball are great examples of activities that have little downtime. At a minimum, elementary-aged children should get 30 minutes of moderate exercise a day. Middle school and high school students should get 45 minutes of exercise a day. And about half of that time should be spent in activities like those mentioned above that get the heart racing.
Should Schools Discontinue Gym Classes?
Despite the results, the lead professor of the Cornell study does not necessarily believe that gym classes should be banned in public schools, arguing, "We're not saying schools should get rid of (physical education)," but "there has to be a meaningful change in the curriculum."

While many of the nation's gym classes may not be performing at peak levels, supporters of fitness education aim to spotlight the potential of reform, as well as the accomplishments many public schools have achieved.

In examining the changing policies of fitness education, it is important to understand how gym classes in public schools could be modernized. While running laps and doing jumping jacks used to be a staple of many physical education classes, many schools have diversified their options to reflect a more modern take on gym class. Schools offer instruction in traditional team sports and games like flag football and red rover, but also emphasize healthy eating habits, and the benefits of lifting weights and offer unique experiences from bowling to fly-fishing to kayaking. By offering more intriguing physical activities for students, many public schools are reporting positive feedback from both their students and community members.

Many physical education leaders are arguing for a complete paradigm shift in the area of fitness and wellness instruction. Elizabeth Spletzer, a highly experienced fitness instructor currently coordinating the University of Minnesota's Physical Education Teacher Licensor program, strives to teach future fitness teachers the diverse learning benefits that children gain from physical activity. Instead of seeing gym class as only a physical activity, reformists like Spletzer want others to understand the psychosocial benefits of exercise, including improved self-esteem, better behavior and decreased instances of depression and stress. There are academic benefits as well. According to a report by the New York Times, students who are physically active have better attention and focus, improved problem-solving abilities, better working memory, and a general improvement in both reading and math scores. In fact, the academic benefits students gain from physical activity during the school day appear to outweigh the benefits of increasing class time in subjects such as reading and math.

While schools debate the future of physical education, one fact remains certain: gym class will never look the same again!

Questions? Contact us on Facebook. @publicschoolreview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros and Cons of Mandatory Gym Class in Public Schools - PublicSchoolReview.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leaders debate the pros and cons of mandatory gym classes in public schools. Learn more about the controversy and whether gym class should be a phenomenon of the past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As school budgets shrink, the question of if schools should require students to take a music or art class for at least a semester is brought up. Being a musician, I almost immediately jumped to schools requiring an art or music class. Art and music are aspects of our society that are so prevalent in everyday life that not teaching student about them is leaving them at a disadvantage in life. Even more personal than that, how would someone ever truly know if they wanted to be a musician or artist without first being able to experience it.

In the 5th grade, I was given a choice. I was asked if I wanted to play a brass instrument or sing. After choosing playing an instrument, I was then given the choice between the cornet, trombone, or a smaller tuba-like instrument. Without ever going down this path in my past, I would never have learned that playing music on the trumpet, ukulele, upright bass, mandolin or any other instrument I might want to learn would become an integral part of who I am. Now I play in a jazz improvisation group at my school, and it's easily one of my favorite periods that I have. I get to sit down, play classic jazz songs, and solo over them on a daily basis and there's nothing else I would rather do during that period.

But how does this relate to schools requiring an arts or music class? I find playing jazz to be one of the most relaxing things I do everyday in school. It's a moment of relaxation and distraction from normal school stress and drama. Everyone has a similar stress relief, but they come in different forms like drawing. Most people would never learn if they want to become and artist or musician without first experiencing it, which would never happen in their spare time. Another aspect of this is that there is so much more than just being an artist or musician. I have plenty of friends whose passion is music theory and transposing pieces of music or transcribing music for the musical or for a music group performing in the concert. Music and art are such inspiring and world changing passions that never trying either of them should be considered a taboo in society.

Music and art are also so prevalent in our society; it's impossible to ignore them. Everyone walks around listening to music, or visits a museum at some point whether it's for enjoyment or school. To not even learn about music or art, let alone participate, leaves the average person at a major disadvantage, because music and art are easily two of the most powerful forces in human society. Music and art have existed for millennia, and they are both world-wide "languages." If you can read sheet music, you can read sheet music from any country, language or ethnic background. If you can interpret an image, than you can understand art just the same as someone who reads sheet music can understand sheet music from anyone anywhere. These are not only international powers, but they are very historical powers as well. Art and music are used as expression of recent or historical events, as well as how the artist felt at that moment in the their life.

Many argue that high school students should be able to narrow their interests and use whatever time they have to do what they are passionate about instead of studying music or art, which they may never pursue. But with that logic nearly no one would take a math class. I may never even consider becoming a mathematician, so why should I "waste" my time studying something I will never pursue? I don't enjoy learning math because I enjoy the material, I find math interesting because of the life skills it teaches you. On every math test or quiz I have ever had, what I need to solve is noticeably harder from what I learned in class. This is because the point of math isn't to use a sine or cosine graph at some point in my life, the real point to math is to creative problem solving skills where you know the simpler version of what you were given, and from there can infer about what needs to be done to solve a harder problem. A similar process can be transferred to why studying music or art should be required.

Music and art teach students about precision, the science behind something, but also the feeling that goes into creating it. Sure, a painting using colors that complement each other will look better than one that uses brown and grey, but at the same time a painting that uses complementary colors badly will receive less merit than a beautifully crafted brown and grey painting. Using music theory to create a song that is "technically" perfect in terms of timing and pitch will sound like garbage if there is no feeling or finesse from the artist injected into the piece. Students will never truly know what they missed if they aren't shown the world of music or art, and with that a phenomenal world-changing musician dies with that lack of exposure.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As school budgets shrink, the question of if schools should require students to take a music or art class for at least a semester is brought up. Being a musician, I almost immediately jumped to schools requiring an art or music class.

# data[].attributes.body
Alex George - Violent Video Games

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On the morning of August 12, 2013, nearly eight months after 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and killed 26 people, Michael Mudry, an investigator with the Connecticut State Police, drove to nearby Danbury to try to solve a little mystery. Police had found a Garmin GPS unit in Lanza's house, and its records showed that the gunman had driven to the same spot nine times in April, May and June 2012, arriving around midnight each time and staying for hours.

The GPS readout took Mudry to the vast parking lot of a suburban shopping center, about 14 miles west of Lanza's home. Workers at a movie theater there immediately recognized Lanza from a photograph. He was at the theater constantly, they told Mudry, but never to see movies. He came to the lobby to play an arcade game, the same one, over and over again, sometimes for eight to 10 hours a night. Witnesses said he would whip himself into a frenzy, and on occasion the theater manager had to unplug the game to get him to leave.

Police had been scouring Lanza's home since the shootings, and on his computer hard drive they found information on weapons magazine capacities, images of Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, copies of the violent movies Bloody Wednesday and Rampage, and a list of ingredients for TNT. And like many teenaged boys, Lanza owned the typical first-person shooter, fighting and action games: Call of Duty, Dead or Alive, Grand Theft Auto.

But those weren't the games that possessed Lanza at the movie theater. The title that so consumed the Sandy Hook shooter? Dance Dance Revolution-an arcade staple that has players dance on colored squares to the rhythm of Asian techno-pop. That discovery not only surprised investigators, it also was at odds with overheated speculation in the media and around dinner tables that violent video games had helped turn Lanza into a killer.

Yet no one knows how any of these games-Dance Dance Revolution included-might have affected a kid who was clearly struggling. The truth is that decades of research have turned up no reliable causal link between playing violent video games and perpetrating actual violence. This is not to say that games have no effect. They're built to have an effect. It's just not necessarily the one that most people think.

A tradition of worry
The implicit connection between violent media and violent behavior is so old that, like a barnacle clinging to a hull, it's not easily dislodged. The notion dates at least to the Victorian era, when educators, tastemakers and clergymen began criticizing what was then a fairly raucous popular culture. Violent, sex-soaked dime novels and penny-dreadful magazines were immensely popular, and upstanding publications such as Harper's and the Atlantic Monthly took delight in denouncing them. Author and critic Harold Schechter, whose 2005 book Savage Pastimes lays out a social history of violent entertainment, notes that the trend divided the literati of the time. Ralph Waldo Emerson complained about his countrymen "reading all day murders & railroad accidents," but Nathaniel Hawthorne loved the scandal sheets so much that he had a friend ship stacks of them to Liverpool, England, while he lived abroad as a U.S. consul. The belle of Amherst herself, Emily Dickinson, relished stories of "those funny accidents where railroads meet each other, and gentlemen in factories get their heads cut off quite informally."

The 20th century saw criticism grow more robust. In 1936 Catholic scholar John K. Ryan laid out what he called the "mental food of American children," as seen through the media they consumed. It was a long menu, one that included "sadism, cannibalism, bestiality. Crude eroticism. Torturing, killing, kidnapping." He was talking about daily newspaper comic strips. In 1947 critic and actor John Houseman lodged similar complaints about cartoons on television. They "run red with horrible savagery," he wrote.

Into this fray entered Stanford University psychologist Albert Bandura, now 89, whose experimental studies in the early 1960s established the theoretical basis for limiting kids' access to violent media. In a 1961 study, Bandura and his colleagues gathered 72 preschoolers. Laboratory assistants led the kids, one at a time, into a playroom, where they sat at a small table and received instruction on how to make potato-print pictures. Soon another adult entered the room and settled into the opposite corner with a Tinkertoy set, a mallet and a five-foot, inflated Bobo clown doll, the kind that rights itself if knocked over. The adult then either quietly assembled the Tinkertoys, ignoring Bobo, or turned to the doll and began "aggressing toward it"-punching it, sitting on it, kicking it around the room, all the while saying things such as "Sock him in the nose!" and "Pow!"

After 10 minutes, each child was led into another room and invited to play with some "relatively attractive toys," such as a fire engine, a spinning top and a doll set. But after two minutes, a lab assistant announced that these were "her very best toys" and that she'd decided to reserve them for other children. The kids were swept into a third room that held more toys, both "aggressive and nonaggressive": a tea set, crayons, dart guns, a mallet ... and a three-foot Bobo doll. You see where this is going.

Faced with the frustration of having nice new toys suddenly snatched away, the preschoolers who had watched Bobo get mistreated were more likely than the others to take out their aggression on the mini Bobo. Bandura repeated the experiment in 1963, using film and cartoon depictions of Bobo's mistreatment, with similar results. The conclusions seemed clear: watching unchecked aggression in real life, on film or in cartoons makes us more aggressive because it provides us with "social scripts" to guide our behavior. Bandura's conclusions opened a floodgate of "media effects" research that continues today.

The problem is that many of the findings, especially when applied to children's media and play, are misleading at best. Critic Gerard Jones, whose 2003 book Killing Monsters makes a case for giving kids access to "make-believe violence," writes: "There is no evidence to suggest that punching an inflatable clown has any connection to real-life violence." In many cases, he and others say, researchers mistake natural competitiveness or the effects of discomfort for aggression or mislabel the subjects' temporary aggression as behavior that holds the potential for violence. In an often quoted 1976 study led by Brian Coates at Washington State University, researchers found that preschoolers who watched the famously mild Mister Rogers' Neighborhood were three times more aggressive afterward. Jones suggests that the experiment itself may have made kids anxious or even angry by compelling them to "sit in a hard plastic chair in a strange room" and watch TV on cue.

It was the 1999 Columbine High School shootings that got many Americans thinking about violent video games. After the attacks, victims' families sued more than two dozen game makers, saying titles such as Doom, a first-person shooter that the two teen gunmen played, desensitized them to violence. A judge dismissed the lawsuits, but the post-Columbine uproar led more researchers to begin dissecting games, much as Bandura did for TV, in search of the roots of aggression.

Deciphering the data
A few studies tried to draw distinctions between good and bad games. In a 2010 experiment, Tobias Greitemeyer, then at the University of Sussex in England, and Silvia Osswald of Ludwig Maximilian University in Germany asked subjects to play one of three video games-either a "prosocial" game, an "aggressive" game or the "neutral" game Tetris. After eight minutes, an experimenter reached for a stack of questionnaires but "accidentally" knocked a cup of pencils off the table and onto the floor. Participants who had played the prosocial game were twice as likely to help pick up the pencils as those who played the neutral or aggressive game.

Others have tried to tease out the aftereffects of playing violent games. In a 2012 study, Andr Melzer of the University of Luxembourg, along with Mario Gollwitzer of Philipps University Marburg in Germany, found that inexperienced players felt a need to "cleanse" themselves after playing a violent video game (the so-called Macbeth effect: "Out, damned spot!"). Researchers asked subjects to play either a driving game or the mayhem-heavy Grand Theft Auto for 15 minutes, then pick gifts from an assortment, half "hygienic" (shower gel, deodorant, toothpaste) and half nonhygienic (gummy bears, Post-it notes, a box of tea). Inexperienced players who played Grand Theft Auto were more likely to pick out hygienic products than were experienced players or inexperienced players who had played the driving game.

But neither of those studies make the case that these games lead to real-word violence. Although drawing conclusions about small population subgroups-such as kids at risk of violence-from broad population trends can be dicey, it is still worth noting that as violent video games proliferated in recent years, the number of violent youthful offenders fell-by more than half between 1994 and 2010, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. This trend is not what you would expect if these games had the power to make good boys go bad. Indeed, in a 2011 analysis of game sales from 2004 to 2008, A. Scott Cunningham of Baylor University, Benjamin Engelsttter of the Center for European Economic Research in Mannheim, Germany, and Michael R. Ward of the University of Texas at Arlington found that higher rates of violent game sales actually coincided with a drop in crimes, especially violent crimes. They concluded that any negative behavioral effects playing violent games might have are more than offset because violent people are drawn to such games, and the more they play, the less time they have for crime.

Even if violent video games are not turning people into killers, we might still wonder if they are harming our kids in subtler ways. As psychologist Douglas A. Gentile of Iowa State University puts it, whatever we practice repeatedly affects the brain. If we practice aggressive ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, he writes, "then we will get better at those." In a 2008 survey on the gaming habits of about 2,500 young people, Gentile and his father, psychologist J. Ronald Gentile, found that children and adolescents who played more violent games were likelier to report "aggressive cognitions and behaviors." They concluded that violent video games "appear to be exemplary teachers of aggression." They also found that eighth and ninth graders who played violent games more frequently displayed greater "hostile attribution bias" (being vigilant for enemies) and got into more arguments with teachers.

The greatest worry is the impact on children who are already at risk. "Media is most powerful in our lives when it reinforces our existing values," media scholar Henry Jenkins, now at the University of Southern California, said in a 2003 episode of Religion & Ethics Newsweekly. Indeed, Jenkins argued in an essay for PBS, a child who responds to a video game the same way he or she does to a real-world trauma could be showing symptoms of an emotional disturbance. So used in the right setting, a violent game could actually serve as a diagnostic tool.

But beyond such special circumstances, media effects research, with its Bobo dolls as markers of real-world aggression, is problematic. The fighting kids do in physical games and video games alike is just a simulation. In other words, it is play. It looks like fighting, wrote Brian Sutton-Smith, the late renowned play theorist, in his book The Ambiguity of Play, "but it is also the opposite of fighting ... carried on by those who are not enemies and who do not intend to harm each other."

In a way, we are pointing fingers at the wrong people. When we worry that a violent game is going to turn our kids into killers, aren't we the ones who can't tell fantasy from reality? Kids already know the difference.

Adapted from The Game Believes in You: How Digital Play Can Make Our Kids Smarter, with permission from Palgrave Macmillan, a division of St. Martin's Press. Copyright 2015.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Video Games Inspire Violent Behavior?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the morning of August 12, 2013, nearly eight months after 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and killed 26 people, Michael Mudry, an investigator with the Connecticut State Police, drove to nearby Danbury to try to solve a little mystery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chihuahua Saved from Hoarding Situation Gives Birth to 11 Babies on National Puppy Day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 11 dog litter is the largest Chihuahua litter Unleashed Pet Rescue president Danielle Reno has seen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chihuahua Saved from Hoarding Situation Gives Birth to 11 Babies on National Puppy Day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 11 dog litter is the largest Chihuahua litter Unleashed Pet Rescue president Danielle Reno has seen