"If weak government, low taxes, union busting, guns, and a hugely influential church were a recipe for success, then Mexico would be a paradise."

Sorry, folks. Needed a place to store that.

Celebrate

Fib

Just
Ate
Salad.
With croutons
Store-bought from a bag.
Gonna buy me a nice fry pan.

Why would we expect otherwise?

A couple of students at the school I last taught at have stirred up a tempest in a teapot over whether they should be allowed to carry bottled water to class. The full story, from March 21st's Review-Journal is here, with last the next day's follow-up here. Basically, a couple of juniors protested the no-bottles-of-any-kind-in-the-classroom policy that had been implemented during cooler weather

"We live in the middle of the desert," Smith said. "There's no reason not to carry water everywhere."

That sentiment carries a grain of wisdom: I always had a couple gallons in the car, along with some antifreeze. Just in case, you know?

But I know that campus very well. I know where all four of the drinking fountains (that students have access to) are. And there are others in the (separate) gym building. And "up" at the elementary. However,

"That water is disgusting," high school junior Stephanie Van Sluis said. "I can't stand it."

I know which fountain she's talking about. She's exaggerating, though probably not by Dasani's standards. The water from the fountain by the front door, though, is excellent. And it's less than twenty steps from the one she's more likely talking about. Of course, I had access to the kitchen (shhhh - don't tell the health inspectors) where I could and did get ice so the water would actually be cold, but still...

Then in this editorial that Thursday, the paper asks,

Why have these Indian Springs students, their parents and administrators allowed so much time to be wasted on an issue irrelevant to education?

I'll get back to that question in a second, but a cynical reader answered in part when he said they "got their 15 minutes of fame."

So in that sense (again, just assuming the legitimacy of the question), the R-J itself, by covering it, encouraged the very wasting of time it turns around and disparages in its editorial. Sort of like bloggers who expose things so they can make fun of them...

(Really - how many of you knew Las Vegas even had a newspaper (or schools, for that matter?)?) (And for the record, 'Vegas has two newspapers" the Review-Journal and the Sun.)

Now, in fairness to the R-J, they also covered the actions of students at the school when the senior class voted to give to Katrina charities the funds they had accumulated for their senior class trip (story here).

But I think what got lost in all of this is that these kids are high-school juniors. They're studying American history. They know that this is a nation founded on protest. They've heard of the Boston Tea Party. They've heard of Carrie Nation and Sojourner Truth. They've heard of Kent State and sit-ins. Should we blame them if they want to see if it still works, even if on a smaller scale and over an arguably less significant issue? The question posed by the R-J implies that "education" is reading and math - the NCLB stuff, the stuff that's proficiency-tested, the stuff that effects AYP.

Obviously, I think there's more to education than that. I think part of my education was learning that if we (students) all got together and approached things right, we could get the dress code changed so that we could wear Levis (they have the rivets on the "wear-points" - the custodians didn't like having to refinish the wooden chairs that the rivets scratched). Was it inconsequential in the grand scheme of things? Probably. Other kids in bigger cities were protesting the war.

And today, other students, in bigger schools, are walking out of school to join in protesting immigration-control efforts. It's all part of the education process, and I'm not at all sure we should be poking fun at kids who apply what they're learning to their day-to-day lives. Even if it's just bottled water.

Maybe it's not the principals' fault

According to this story out of Minneapolis:

St. Paul is known for hiring superintendents short on school chief experience and keeping them longer than the average two years that most urban superintendents last.

Most urban superintendents last only two years? Maybe I shouldn't have been disappointed that my urban-district principals shuffled in and out every three (or less).

If it's Wednesday...

it must be Carnival Time. Once again, the Education Wonks host in their splendid fashion, this time Week 59.


Warning to those inclined to experiment with the little flags down here: I just looked at the French translation, and it's pretty much horrible.

Dark clouds, silver lining

In his post this afternoon, Dan McDowell at A History Teacher reveals the crux of so many educational dilemmas: "It is the teachers that make the school and we simply have not had consistent leadership (3 principals in 4 years, 4 in my 10 years) to bring us together."

He's speaking in the context of a protracted contract dispute (going on two years, which strikes me (pardon the term) as beyond protracted)and says important things in his piece. It's what I quoted above, though, that struck me hardest, in no small part because it resembles my own experience. I wish I couldn't relate.

I taught for 28 years. Without bothering to count assistant principals (whose turnover was even higher), I did so under the leadership of ten different building administrators. Actually, two of them hired me in May and had retired by the time I actually started serving on the campus, so let's say it was only eight.

The first seven years it was all the same principal. The second seven were split between two. The last fourteen there were five, so right in the same problematic neighborhood Dan talks about for 75% of my teaching career: inconsistent leadership.

Stop and think about what that means: it's not at all uncommon for public schools to change leaders with over twice the frequency that our country has, and at this time when people are so vigorously and verbally concerned about the performance of those same schools.

I'm not about to blame any of those who left behind the task of writing my evaluations in response to greener pa$ture$. I'll be cynical about the lure of the almighty dollar, but I won't blame them for following it. Some of my favorite lures are green, too, so I understand.

However, I want to return to Dan's point(s): it is the teachers who make the school, and consistent leadership matters. I'm concerned that an ever-expanding educational bureaucracy seems dominated by entrepreneurs. Of the eight I worked for, only two principals struck me as genuinely interested in the students; the others were there for the financial or bureaucratic mobility the position offered: the green frosting on the other side of the fence.

We're living in an age wherein teachers, much as they might want to make, as much as they might hope to make, as much as they might actually succeed in making a difference with individual students, are viewed as interchangable steps on an invisible ladder by the people who revolve through the leadership door. We want to be consistent. We need to be consistent. Because when you get right down to the bottom line, none of it works without us. We are the school.

And then every two or three years, the wind changes direction...