Final Post, I think

Uncle. I give up. I concede.

I'm afraid I underestimated the time and energy it takes to keep up a blog while I'm teaching every day. Somehow I forgot how foolish it is to try to keep up with anything else during the school year. Teaching really does take that much out of you. I'm not saying this in order to elicit any boo-hoo-poor-you's--really, I'm giving this as a reason, as my wife has suggested more than once, that it's so easy for the suits and politicians to get away with all of their teacher-scapegoating and teacher-unions-will-destroy-the-planet crap: they know that teachers are simply too busy to put up an effective rebuttal. At the end of the day, what teacher has the energy to mount any sort of effective campaign to refute the CNN and Fox News and daily newspaper reports, along with incredibly narrow-focus movies like Looking for Superman, all of them prefaced by hysterical statements like, "One thing upon which we all agree is that U.S. Public Education is irretrievably broken. What we can't seem to agree on is what to do about it," etc., etc., etc.

Given that my most basic premise is that our education system is absolutely not failing, I simply don't see any real purpose in continuing with this argument. My voice is simply too small to be heard or acknowledged amid all the screaming hysteria, all based on the presupposition that we are "irretrievably broken."

So I give up. And I thank those of you who gave me a listen from time to time. And finally, I must get in one last jab, just so I can go on record with an I-told-you-so when it's too late. I am certain--absolutely certain--that once they have succeeded in destroying this remarkable system, it will be a very short time before a horrified nation begins clamoring for a return to what we used to have. But it will be too late. The system will have been destroyed by a group of special interest Chicken Little's who, focusing on a tiny population of areas where public education really is failing, will decide that the sky is falling everywhere else, too, so we better just blow up the whole thing--even where it's working really well--and start over. And when we start realizing that, hey, I guess it really wasn't as bad as all that, it will be too late. My guess is that no one will find it worthwhile to become a teacher anymore, given the fact that we're all being told now that we're the reason that education is failing--teachers and the unions who back them (what a joke that is for the vast majority of school districts in this country).

So I leave you with this final thought, a reiteration, really. Be careful what you destroy, because soon you'll wind up having to live with whatever you've replaced it with.

From theTHINGS-THEY-NEVER-TEACH-YOU-ABOUT-IN-TEACHER-EDUCATION-(AND-YOU-WOULDN'T-HAVE-BELIEVED-THEM-IF-THEY-DID) Department:
Homecoming Week.
Homecoming Week begins on Sunday in most public high schools, when members of the Student Council lead an array of other students in decorating the school according to the theme chosen for that year. Our theme this year is "Ocean Odyssey," featuring all sorts of mythological sea deities and nymphs (my AP students, prominent in Student Council, tell me that this is a reflection of what we've been studying in class, but they may just be buttering me up). Then there is a dress-up theme in place for each day. Yesterday, for example, was "Wacky Day." So, being my supportive self, I got up yesterday and put on a pair of Colorado Rockies pajama bottoms, a Denver Broncos T-shirt, a purplish paisely tie, a brown, hopelessly outdated button-down shirt out of the '60's (unbuttoned, of course), a white ankle-sock and bedroom slipper on my left foot, a gray tube-sock and brown Croc on my right foot, and a brown fedora. This was all very fun until I got a flat-tire on the highway going up to my school, and I got to change a tire in that outfit while a billion cars whizzed past and ogled me. I subsequently limped into the school two minutes before the first class started after having missed Wednesday through Friday of last week (what fun!--a nasty flare-up of gout in my left ankle and, not to be outdone, puke-your-guts-out stomach flu, all at the same time). So Wacky Day, already truly living up to its name, greeted me with a desk full of tests to be graded, notes from the sub, and a classroom full of students, each of whom has approximately 47 questions that must, MUST be asked at approximately the same time as everyone else's questions, and I still hadn't finished washing the tire-change black off my hands. The kids were awfully nice, though, expressing tons of concern about my absence, and many of them were dressed even wackier than I was. First Block, setting the pattern for the rest of the day and the rest of the week, was interrupted several hundred times for various reasons, most of them having to do with Homecoming activities. The day continued like that until 2:05, when we all filed into the gym for the week's first pep assembly (featuring me as the emcee, screaming into the microphone, "FRESHMENNNNNNNNN!" in an exhortation to get the freshmen to outscream the other 3/4ths of the school, followed by sophomores, juniors, and seniors all getting their turns), for the last hour of school. These assemblies are unbelievably, ear-splittingly loud and boisterous, and we have to be very careful to keep the frenzy we've created under control. Today's assembly went fine, though, and everyone seemed to agree that it was a lot of fun, but exhausting, just as the rest of the week will be.

What's missing from this description--what I find the hardest to describe--is the atmosphere in the building for the entire week. The word that comes to mind most often for me is "electric." From the first moment of the first day through the rest of the week, culminating in Friday's Homecoming football game and Saturday night's Homecoming Dance, the air is super-charged, unceasingly forged with electricity. Most teachers have made some sort of peace with the notion that, try as we might, we won't get a lot of teaching done this week. There will simply be too many interruptions, too much excited chatter in the classroom, too much electricity to get much accomplished. You can try to fight it, try to resist the flow, but ultimately, if you do, you'll end the week exhausted, disheartened, frustrated, and furious; go with the flow, you'll just end up exhausted--utterly drained. But no matter what, this never-ending current of anticipation, replete with the unbelievable, unflagging energy of the student body, takes an incredible toll by the end of the week.

So--to continue, today was "Favorite Movie Star Day." Since movie stars, of course, are hard to dress up as, what this really means is, "Favorite Movie Character Day." I found this one to be fairly easy. I just wore some brown denim pants, a pale blue denim shirt, a faded gray bomber jacket, and the same fedora I wore yesterday. Voila! Harrison Ford / Indiana Jones--almost too easy, even though neither actor nor character is my all-time favorite. But I didn't have the right clothes to be Dustin Hoffman as Jack Crabbe in "Little Big Man." The only downside was that everyone kept asking me where my whip was. I just told them the principal took it away from me after he caught me beating a student with it out in front of the school this morning. I did get a bit of teaching done, but the students definitely had to be coaxed, cajoled, and bullied into actually learning anything--even more so than usual.

Tomorrow--"Favorite Superhero Day." I plan on totally copping out and going as Indiana Jones. I just left my fedora and bomber jacket in the car when I got home.

Thursday is "Class Clash Day." This simply means that each class dresses in predesignated colors (faculty wears purple). That's easy enough, but the day ends with another pep assembly at the end of which I will announce which class demonstrated the most spirit throughout the week, thus earning possession of the coveted "Spirit Stick" until next year. I will go home as I did Monday--very, very hoarse and completely worn out. Only one more day to go, though.

Friday is "Spirit Day." We all wear the school colors, and we end school with the Homecoming Parade, featuring floats designed by each class demonstrating the myriad and grisly ways in which our football team, winless this season to date, intends to murder, maim, butcher, and disembowel our opponents. Hey. It's Homecoming Week. Anything can happen.

Some professions extend their employees the equivalent of combat pay. Teachers definitely should be given Homecoming pay.

Sorry--my wife and I are currently up to our necks in a bit of home construction, so I haven't had much time to devote to the blog. Please keep checking back, though. I won't be gone any longer than I have to, and I have a feeling some new voices will be checking in soon. Thanks so much to all of you who have been checking in so far!

 I'm noticing how much attention is being paid by the federal government the last few days to public education, and every time I hear something, I just have to grit my teeth and hope that somehow the public is going to suddenly snap awake and say, "Wait a minute! What in the world is the federal government doing trying to regulate something that belongs in the hands of state and local governments? How can they possibly think they can come up with federal regulations over something as widely varied in its needs from state to state, from community to community, as public education?" The last thing we need in education is even more bureaucracy, and nowhere is their greater and more hopelessly entrenched bureaucracy than in the federal government. Why is that such a big deal? Because bureaucracies are loaded with people who have to constantly justify their existence by doing something--instituting some innovative new program or other--whether such a program is beneficial to the institution these people are supposedly "serving" or not.

A perfect example of this comes from a conversation I had this morning with someone very dear to me. She was my student years ago; now she is a fellow secondary teacher in another state. She told me that one of the "programs" her district is pushing currently is a "bullying" campaign (of course, she explained, it's actually an "anti-bullying" campaign, but she says everyone keeps referring to it the other way). Under the terms of this well-intentioned and vitally needed program, teachers are directed to meticulously document every single instance of anything that could be in any way construed as an act of bullying. She says they were given a painstakingly thorough list of such acts in the directive from the district's administration, including, for example, a child announcing that he or she doesn't want a particular other child on his or her team. If such an act occurs, the witnessing teacher is required to write a complete report of the incident and submit it (two copies, I think she may have also said)  to the central administration, where it is going to be equally meticulously noted, documented, and God knows what else. Now, this well-meaning (ostensibly) administrator who designed this plan is just the sort of bureaucrat I'm talking about. In his or her zeal to address an enormous problem we see in our schools--bullying--and, it must be noted, in order to justify this person's existence near the top of the food chain, he or she comes up with a program so ridiculously full of overkill that it will actually serve the opposite purpose than it was intended. By requiring already overtaxed teachers to go to such preposterous lengths to document every instance that smacks of the tiniest hint of inequitous attitudes between middle schoolers, this brilliant bureaucrat is actually driving teachers to the point of letting increasing numbers of these incidents go unnoticed, lest they have to write more of these reports on top of all of the other things being heaped onto them outside of what would normally be called "teaching duties," thereby leading to a a greater likelihood of a proliferation of--you guessed it--incidents of real, honest-to-God bullying. And the administrator/bureaucrat whose brilliant idea actually exacerbated a serious problem rather than alleviate it? On the way up the district ladder, he or she gets to include on his resume the creation of a "comprehensive anti-bullying campaign."

I can't be certain, but I seem to remember once looking up the etymology of the word "bureaucrat," and I think it said it was derived from an ancient Greek word whose original meaning was "clueless, self-importantly officious little twerp who has an important-sounding job but doesn't have any idea how to do it."

I came home last night feeling like I'd been run over by a steamroller, which is not entirely atypical, but this was a really BIG steamroller! I was way too worn-out to think of anything to write about. By bedtime, it became apparent that there was some kind of bug coursing through me (really?--you mean you can pick up illnesses working in an enclosed space with 1000 teenagers inside?), but by this morning it had pretty well run its course. Today was a good day.

But here's my dilemma. I'm really grateful to the nine people who are contributing to this blog--your insights are supportive and substantial. But I don't know how to turn this site into a full-blown war-zone, which is what it really needs to be if any of the crackpots who are doing the decision-making about education in our country today are going to join in and, hopefully, learn that there are a lot of people out here who have a lot better ideas than they have. I need to figure out a way to get lots and lots of teachers to weigh in on this site, otherwise it's doomed to be just this one off-the-deep-end teacher way the hell out in some state no one's ever heard of sounding off about public education to the temporary amusement of nine or ten readers ( for whom, again, I'm eternally grateful). Not only would teachers from different backgrounds lend differing viewpoints to this, I'm sure they'd find a way in the process to find better ways to say what I'm trying to say, too.
Fox Business Channel is airing a special tonight about the funding of public education led by "investigative reporter" John Stossel. In it, Stossel promises to demonstrate how over the last many years, we've been throwing more and more money at public education that isn't being translated into better results. So far, I'm sure most of us would agree with him. But he's going to go on to say that the main culprits behind this problem are teacher's unions and teacher tenure. And he's going to base this on his "investigative reporting." Obviously, then, he is investigating only a handful of large city districts where there is a lot of union entrenchment and abuse of teacher tenure. But if he's going to make such absurd observations, Mr. Stossel needs to truly investigate education in the U.S.. Were he to do so, he would find that those places where such circumstances occur constitute a ridiculously tiny minority of the collection of districts throughout the country. He is right that we're putting money into education that isn't being spent wisely. But if he wants to know where the real spending abuses exist AND find out how the money could be put to better use, I wish he'd just come and ask me! I'd be happy to tell him what I'm going to tell you now: our billions of tax dollars are being inefficiently spent because they're going toward 1) top-heavy district administrations (which, of course, command the highest salaries in every district), 2) programmed instruction (which is outrageously expensive and doesn't generally improve the quality of education), and 3) standardized testing (which is also outrageously expensive and inefficient as a measure of quality of education). You want to see that money spent more efficiently and see it reap absolutely magical (I promise! I'd bet my life on it!) results? Spend it on contracting more teachers (without raising their salaries, even) in order to radically reduce the number of students in every classroom. My wife has classes numbering more than FORTY! Ensure that classes are to number no more than twenty students per class--and hold rigorously to that number (which means hiring more teachers)--and you will be astonished at the results in a very short period of time. It wouldn't be hard for John Stossel to do a little investigative reporting about that--but it certainly wouldn't make for many advertising dollars if he did. And that, as we all know, is the bottom line underscoring "investigative reporting" on television.

So I've become aware that I spend all my time spitting vitriolic gloom and doom so far on this blog. If things are this bad, you may ask (go ahead and ask, I'll wait), why do you go on teaching? Doesn't anything good ever happen at that school of yours?
Glad you asked. Yes. Yes, indeed. Despite all of those things that are going on outside the classroom, the stupid airheaded things being perpetrated by politicians and wannabe gurus, happily, there are a million great things going on inside my classroom. I can't count how many times a day I laugh. Today, though, I was given some background on one of my new, unfamiliar students that made me cry. I had wondered why this young person wore such overt hostility like a glove and seemed to look to manufacture earth-shaking drama at every turn. The student is doing fine in my class--well, in fact--but I wanted to understand more about the circumstances behind the demeanor (I'm trying to be careful not to betray any telling details about this person--even his/her gender). So I sought out a prominent teacher in this student's past today, and she told me stuff that made us both cry (wasn't that a sight?--the two of us sitting there together in my classroom, blubbering). It became apparent that circumstances and events from last year constituted a turning point in this person's life, and that it's a miracle that (s)he is here today, attending classes regularly and doing well in them. I wish I could be more explicit in describing all of this, but this young person's privacy deserves to be protected. Suffice it to say that after 25 years, I still hear stories that curl my ever-thinning hair, and I am humbled to be a part of these remarkable young lives who have come through such nightmarish upbringings, bearing their hurts and their tragedies and their scars, and looking to us with whatever semblance of trust they can muster to help them somehow navigate their way to the other side where maybe, just maybe, something better might await them. And I am reminded that, yes, these are my students and I am their teacher, but the only thing that really separates us is the years we've each put in, and what brings us together is the humanity we all share.
So today I taught three ninety-five minute classes; I gave one quiz in one and a full-blown high-pressure test in another. The third I gave a thorough chewing out because they needed a reminder that they were in my class, not the other way around--and everything went well after that, even though they really weren't terribly fascinated about learning the in's and out's of poetry interpretation. After my last class I filled in for the drama teacher and supervised our drama club's rehearsal of a murder mystery until about five-thirty. During the course of the day, I made seventy-three stupid jokes (give or take), commiserated with several staff and students about the end of the Rockies' ten-game winning streak last night, teased our school social worker whose fantasy football team was defeated by mine last night (by one whole point!), laughed several hundred times, and cried once. Another day surrounded by a pulsating, coursing ocean of humanity. How could anyone not love a job where you have days like that?

Okay, I really want someone to explain this to me, this whole fooferaw about charter schools (and maybe we can start by asking Mr. Obama what his fascination is with them). How is it that a private, often for-profit enterprise can apply for a charter in a district, start up a charter school upon approval, and then get their funding from that district, which is already strapped beyond belief trying to fund its regular schools? In today's local paper, we get news that a for-profit company intends to apply to two of our local school districts to start a vocational charter school in both districts. The idea is that parents can enroll their kids in these schools, whereupon they can get vocational training from local "experts" in various fields and receive the equivalent of an associate's degree by the time they graduate from high school. Terrific idea, right? Well, in the first place, most of the public high schools in our area already have vocational programs in place where students spend part of their high school day at a local comunity college, getting college credit by the time they graduate from high school. Ostensibly, if a student is enrolled in the program during his junior and senior years, he or she can receive the equivalent of an associate's degree. These programs are completely funded by the districts, so of course, there is no profit being made by the schools. So my question is this: how can a school run by a for-profit company be eligible for funding from a non-profit school district? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the system here, but if so, I would really appreciate someone enlightening me.

To me, the quagmire just gets deeper with closer scrutiny of the ways we're "fixing" public education. In our ridiculous mania for higher and higher achievement scores, we've gradually phased out vocational education programs (remember auto shop?) in our schools. These programs, we have reasoned, are expensive luxuries funded by money that would be better spent trying to prepare our students for college. Meanwhile, did our society concurrently phase out the need for those so-called non-professional  (i.e., those professions that do not require a traditional college education or degree) vocations such as plumbers, welders, mechanics, electricians, carpenters (and the list goes on and on, but I won't)? No--in fact, recent news reports are sayng that there is now a shortage of workers qualified to work in those fields! And where did those workers previously get their training? In our high school voc-ed programs, before voc-ed somehow took on a negative connotation. So now that the high school programs have been replaced by more rigorous academic programs that are inflicted on everyone equally, including those students who previously would have thrived in the voc-ed programs for which they were perfectly suited, vocational charter schools can spring up, established by for-profit companies, funded by taxpayers' dollars, to fill a need that high schools are still filling (through community colleges, instead of local "experts"). When will we finally admit that there's nothing wrong with admitting that not all students are meant to go to college? Because, once we admit that, then maybe we can get back to the business of providing a sound education for everyone, whether they're college-bound or not. And when will we begin to recognize that many of the efforts to supplant public education in the U.S. are being spearheaded by for-profit businesses (despite everyone knowing for a fact that an educational organization cannot--cannot--be run effectively using established business practices)? 

I don't know what it will take to reverse these trends that are threatening to destroy what I consider to be the most remarkable public education system on the planet, but right now I'm terribly, terribly afraid that nothing can reverse them. But I will say this. We as a nation need to be very, very careful what we reach for in terms of reforminng public education, because one of these days we'll all end up having to live with it.

Kim brings us an excellent point: how many brilliant, scholarly, scientific, creative, brilliant minds have there ever been that belonged to lousy test-takers? Fortunately for all of us, they all found a way to rise above their inability (I'm not going to call it a disability, because test-taking shouldn't be classified as an "ability!" It simply isn't that important in the scheme of things) and gone on to express their brilliance. And I'm sure that our brilliant minds of today will find a way to rise above our misguided attempts to measure such brilliance, but let's be honest--should we really have to be apologizing for ineptitude to the people we're trying to help along? "I'm sorry, Mr. Einstein, but based on your CSAP scores, we're cutting funding to the science program in your school district, and we encourage you to drop out of high school and become a streetsweeper. We're so sorry, but, after all, you are a terrible test-taker! What could you possibly have to offer society with scores like those?" It's worse than an embarrassment to educators--it's an outrage. But what do you expect when you have the decisions made by people who only know a little bit about what they're overseeing?
Which brings me to the topic of school boards. Could somebody tell me, once and for all (I've been asking this question for 25 years now) why educators are the only body of professionals to be governed by non-professionals (i.e., people who are not trained in the profession)? Once again, about the only professional experience--that is, experience within the profession--most school board members have is that they attended school. Why are we not outraged by that (well--I am...but no one else seems to be!)? A simple explanation is that school boards were never supposed to have the power that they've come to possess and, often, demand. It was never envisioned that a school board would determine what a school district would and would not teach, for example, because it was understood that lay people were really not qualified to make those decisions. But this idea has changed radically, even in the relatively short 25 years I've been teaching.
For example, many people in this area remember when our school district was sued by a local fundamentalist Christian organization for making Greek and Roman Mythology a mandatory part of the sophomore curriculum (and, as it happened, I was the Sophomore English teacherwho had introduced mythology into the curriculum, and since it was a mandatory class, it became a mandatory subject). Now--while this lawsuit created a horribly distracting circus-like atmosphere in our school district that year, the suit was predictably dismissed after two rounds of litigation (in both cases being termed "frivolous" by the judges). But I became painfully aware of the effect such a frivolous action had on our district and, in particular, my teaching. I found myself looking over my shoulder all the time, constantly wondering if the risks I was taking in order to make my teaching more effective were going to stir up trouble ahead. As it happened, I was finishing grad school at about the same time, and I wrote my Master's Research Paper on efforts by the "New Right" to influence and determine curriculum in U.S. public schools. So why do I bring this up? After all, tthis litigation wasn't brought by a school board member.
During my research, I learned that the New Right--Fundamentalist Christian groups--all over America were making it a routine practice to anonymously "develop" and support candidates running for school boards who could be counted upon to push their agenda; infiltrate school boards, they reasoned correctly, and these organizations could go far to limit "non-Christian" curricula (ranging from sex education, of course, to "controversial" novels like Huckleberry Finn to Darwin's theories of evolution). And this method of infiltration has been staggeringly successful, largely because school boards now have such enormous power over matters that, sadly, they aren't trained to address from the perspective of effective educational practices. The other reason they are so successful is that they issue challenges to curriculum even when they know those challenges won't have the apparent desired outcome; this is because there's another desired outcome that will be met--namely that teachers like me that have gone through the challenge experience tend to come out of it as more conservative teachers--once again, looking over their shoulders to make sure they aren't ruffling any feathers out there. No teacher who has gone through this cares to go through it again, which these organizations are counting on. It's very effective, and the people who end up getting hurt the most, of course, are the children for whom these organizations claim to be looking to "protect." If you want to limit dynamic, innovative teaching methods, thereby making it "safe" for all who sit in classrooms every day, all you have to do is persist in going after the teachers. It works and these organizations know it--after all, they've been doing it successfully for years, and very, very often, they're doing it while sitting on our school boards.

Ahhhh, Monday!
Sashma (welcome to the discussion, Sashma--I'm delighted to have another teacher join in) wanted to talk more about standardized testing. Obviously, the importance of scores from these tests have been greatly magnified in the last ten or fifteen years. When I was in school, I remember having to take the ITBS for several years, and then, as I recall, standardized tests kind of went away until ACT's or SAT's came up in the latter part of high school (I graduated in 1972, for what it's worth). Since then, those tests have grown in focus and importance until, today, they have become the Great Almighty Determiner of the Quality of Education in Schools Today (aka GADQEST, an acronym I just made up). Every state has its version of (drum roll, please)...The Test. Colorado's is the CSAP, and in Colorado, if scores are not sufficiently high in a school district, that district (or a school in that district) can be given what amounts to sanctions in the form of loss of funding, disaccreditatation, etc. Now, to me, that makes no sense whatsoever. Schools in trouble need more help--not sanctions.
The superintendent of our district recently addressed the issue of CSAPs this way: he said that while tests like these do serve a purpose--do have importance--there is no doubt that their importance has been greatly exaggerated; he went on to say that the tests should be used to provide a snapshot to educators that can further be used to start a dialogue about some of the areas of concern in our methods or areas of instruction (which, by the way, is how our high school has always used CSAP results). While I agree with this assertion, I would say that the tests and results have now become the final point of the conversation. Results are being used to prove that education is failing on the whole, a purpose for which I know the tests were never intended, and now believe is part of a fairly obvious agenda put forth by a growing number of politicians and entrepreneurs. There is a tremendous amount of money to be made in the business of education, and there is hardly a shortage of people waiting to exploit this opportunity, even if it means destroying the institution of public education as we know it. Indeed, there's a pretty large number of them who make no bones about that being their goal--to bring down public education as it's practiced today.  And they're using standardized test scores to do it. At every level of government, the almighty test score is being used as the be-all, end-all measure of the quality of education in our schools.
Oh, if only it were that simple (never, ever has been, and never, ever can be)! If only someone could design the perfect test that demonstrates exactly what students know and don't know. And here's one of the dangerous pitfalls of that "if only:" the companies that create these tests, under contract from state and federal governments, are now claiming that their tests do function that well, and never mind that everyone within the educational community knows otherwise. We know that there is absolutely no test that can fully measure what a student is learning, that the evidence from these things has to come from a wide range of factors that cannot be accurately measured by a standardized test. And here's the catch: government knows this, too. Eternally frustrated by the infuriating reality that education is not something that can be accurately measured by any instrument they can devise, they have launched this massive effort to overhaul education into something that does fit into their neat little container. But to do that, they first have to convince us of the viability of test scores as an indicator of student progress--wait, check that; not an indicator--the indicator. And this is where we see the federal government inexorably creeping in to areas that are far better left to state and local concerns. The Bush administration's No Child Left Behind is a noble idea (you can just tell it by its noble sounding name!), but it was terribly ill-conceived and based on a mountain of fallacious benchmarks--all of them tied to the nationwide requirement of all districts to meet "Adequate Yearly Progress" as defined by--you guessed it--standardized test scores. Taking this one step further, no one seems to mind that, in essence, it is the school that is being measured--not the students. Test results are based on current school population from year to year without factoring in the vast number of students who come and go in every school district every year (especially in  areas that have large  militarty populations). This would be like a doctor telling his patient that he has high cholesterol, so the doctor wants him to be tested again next year...but in the event he can't make it to be tested, he can send his sister, and they'll look at her results! Obama has done no better (perhaps I should say here that I voted for Obama). In fact, far from recognizing the inability of federal programs to address educational concerns adequately or accurately (after all, how can you adequately address what you cannot accurately assess?), Obama is throwing billions of dollars in federal monies to those states--and only those states--who can show that they are ready to play the education game his way. He has put states into the position of competing against each other for boatloads of temporary funding; Colorado was one of the finalists for a piece of that pie (only to lose out in the final allocation), and the changes that Colorado made in its legislation governing how teachers shall now be assessed--changes all made in an effort lure that temporary money into our state coffers--has, I predict, done inestimable damage to our state's system of education. Teachers in Colorado are now no longer protected under a tenure system--a system that did have its flaws, but was the only system that allowed teachers the security to do their jobs without feeling threatened by capricious or inexpert assessments by administrators who often hold personal grudges or have differing philosophies about things that do not measure quality of education. With those safeguards removed, administrators now are free to evaluate teachers using--once again--standardized test scores as the primary basis for their evaluations. I absolutely shudder at the implications. It's one of the things that make me believe that I am leaving this profession at precisely the right time. And the Colorado public is buying into it, hook, line, and sinker because they apparently just don't know any better.  It saddens me and sickens me more than I can possibly say.                            

Today was my first day of the year of actual teaching--elements of fiction in Creative Writing, foundations of Greek and Roman Mythology in AP English, origins of the English Language in English IV. Lots and lots of lecturing/note-taking--partly by design, since I try to teach my senior-level courses as much like college courses as I can, but partly because I teach best by talking. So this was the first day my students were subjected to the way I teach course content, and they were wonderful. It doesn't take me long to remember every school year that the best part of my job is getting to know these fantastic students. Every year, I bid a sad goodbye to this year's senior class, thinking I can never love a group of students as much as I love this one, and three months later I start falling in love all over again. It might sound corny or contrived, but it's the absolute truth. Year after year, my students end up being some of the nicest people I'll ever meet. Yes, they can be cruel and recalcitrant and petty and inconsiderate, but you'd be amazed at how much they can be just the opposite if you just take the time to engage with them.
I know--this is hardly controversial education issues stuff. But the truth is, I spend most of my time loving my job, and spending the time today with my students just served to remind me why. All in all, a very good day.

Today wiped me out pretty thoroughly...talking, talking, talking all day long, class after class, giving out my policies and rules to kids most of whom I've never met, keeping my radar out for any potential problems I might face in the future with this group of kids or that, trying to remember exactly what I've said from class to class for fear of repeating myself (few things are as embarrassing as leading up to a really, really important point, complete with huge buildup, only to have four voices chirp, "You already told us that!"). My head was pretty much spinning when I left, and then I got a call from my wife telling me news of a family emergency; we just got back from the hospital. Everything's okay, but we're pretty wiped out (my wife's a high school teacher, too; she teaches art in a different district), so this posting will be kept pretty short.

I promised to address the fallacy of using international standardized test scores to compare how we stack up against other countries that allegedly have surged ahead of us educationally. It's really a no-brainer, really, for two separate and very important reasons. First, we're all sharp enough to understand that performances on tests are not truly comparable unless all of the tests are the same. Yes, you can compare the test results, but unless the tests are identical, the comparison is rendered meaningless. So in being told that Japanese high school students, for example, consistently outscore American high school students in terms of test scores, how often have you heard exactly what was being tested? We know that American test scores are based largely on ACT and/or SAT results; what are the Japanese tests? Second, you can't compare test results between two different countries when only the elite students in one country are being tested and virtually all of the students in the other are being tested. In Colorado, every high school student in the state is required to take the ACT test on the same day in April, every year. These are among the scores being generated as part of the basis for comparison with other countries--regardless of the huge range in ability levels, all scores are reported. I'm aware of no other country where this is the case. Suppose we decide to test only our elite students and compare their scores with those of other countries; who do you think is going to win that race? I'll go out on a limb here. I'll put my money on the kids from the U.S.--every time.
I'm too tired to know if I explained this as well as I'd hoped to, but I don't need numbers and statistics to understand how vacuous our "Chicken Little" concern over our standing in the international community is, given the rationale being used to generate the panic. We all need to be aware of when we're being sold a bill of goods. Many of us don't seem to be aware that standardized test scores bear relatively little significance in measuring student performance to begin with--certainly nowhere near the weight they're given by the state and federal governments today. To exaggerate their importance further by using them in comparisons with other countries (where they bear equally relative insignificance) is to add fuel to a fire that never should have been ignited to begin with.
.