Orwell Was Right

Clandestine. That's a word I don't hear very often any more--a fabulous word with rather seedy, sinister undertones. Civil rights. That's a phrase I don't hear very often, either. I think there's a correlation there.

You doubt me? Consider Chicago. The video surveillance system there is so massive that it's reasonable to say that most people who are not in their homes (and maybe even then, depending on their windows), are probably under surveillance. The article that I linked to mentions a recent suicide victim whose last 20 minute drive through the city was recreated via a network of public and private video cams.

That bothers me. In real terms, that means citizens have lost the presumption of privacy. Heard of Big Brother? He's watching, and there's no outcry--we're all surfing online, reading facebook status messages and giggling at YouTube videoes instead of decrying our lost privacy. Even the ACLU, which has extensive info on their site about data, internet and biometric privacy, seems oblivious to the intrusion of cameras as we run routine errands...or, yes, have clandestine meetings.

In 1992, actress Joan Collins sued Globe magazine because they had used a telephoto lens located on public property to take pictures of her on private property. The court found that her claim was valid under the intrusion tort, one of the legal ways the right to privacy is delineated. (This piece from the U Penn on celebrities and the right to privacy was fascinating...time for law school applications? Maybe....) The courts have ruled many times that celebrities and other famous people have less legal expectation of privacy; in other words, Sean Penn really doesn't have the right to beat up photographers in public places if they are a reasonable distance from him and not physically threatening him.

But what about me? Supposing I'm heading to the store at 3 a.m. in my jammies--bra-less and bed head, driving carefully and not indulging in any of the seven deadly sins or breaking any of the ten commandments. Then, I get to the store, realize my purse and my money were still on the kitchen table. I never get out of my car, turning around and deciding that the 3 a.m. run for TP was not happening; we'd use paper towel till the sun rose. The whole time, I'm either on my property or in my property--my Honda--can a picture from a security cam show up on the front page of the newspaper? Even more interesting, can one taken on a cell phone by a student in the car next to mine at a stop light be circulated to all his contacts?

I used that article about Chicago in both my senior English class and my Advanced class last spring, and I was appalled. Even the more thoughtful students were enthusiastic about the spider web of cameras surrounding Chicago, and the cameras that are throughout Lima in places--including our school. The students believe they are in danger, and that the world--even their hometown--are scary places. Almost without exception, they believed they are safer with the cameras watching. Even a discussion about whether the cameras function as a deterrent or as a means for retribution didn't shake their conviction that they are safer with cameras watching, just as looking at crime data for our city didn't convince them that their presumption of danger was disproportionate. (No, I didn't say all that in those words...it took a long, long time to express and discuss those concepts in language that was generally accessible. It's summer. I get to use my native language.) The arguement that almost bothered me the most was, "If you're not doing anything wrong, why does it matter if there are cameras?"

That's missing the problem. That's missing the erosion of civil liberties, and the escalating power of technology as it's used with little wisdom or thought. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. That's the concept that is too often lost in the name of progress--and I'm a techie, not a Luddite in the least. Ben Franklin said, “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.” Amen.

Fried Green Tomatoes....

Steel Magnolias. Terms of Endearment. Bridget Jones' Diary--chick flicks! Ick. Not a favorite genre of mine...in fact, I tend to dislike chick flicks. If they happen to be romantic comedies, maybe...Runaway Bride (with Gere), Only You (Downey), Hope Floats (Bullock/Connick)--I like those ok.

But generally....no. But for the next 5 or so days, I'm living a chick flick. My college roommate, her two kids, another female friend, my daughter, and I are all going on vacation together. I'm excited about it, and know we'll have an excellent time, but...wow. Just hit me tonight that I've never spent that much time in an all-female environment. Two teenage girls, a very precocious 10 year old, and 2 very nice, very happy, well-educated , God-fearing women, and me. Thelma and Louise, and Louise....or maybe Louise, Louise and ....hm....who am I? I'm willing to be Thelma if Brad Pitt's going to make his cameo. But somehow, I think I get to either be Aunt Bea or .....still working on this.

Is there an antidote to too much estrogen? (Well, other than Brad Pitt. I think he's in France right now). Be on standby for texts and emails when the girly factor goes too high!

Questions That Need Asked

Caveat: yes, I think too much. Just nodding and smiling and passing the Communion juice would make me a whole lot more fun.

But...I went to church yesterday, and since no one answered my texts as the sermon was starting, I listened to our minister talk. (Another caveat: I like him. He's a very good guy, and would undoubtably be willing to have a conversation with me about these issues.) In the process of talking about the scripture du jour, he listed some questions that concerned religious people in Jesus' time: how far can you walk on the Sabbath and still be "good?" "Do you have to follow religious laws to be faithful? And...of course...can an uncircumcised man be religious? As a throwaway leading into a transition, he said, "Well, of course those aren't the questions the church should be concerned about now." (Or something close to that.)

So I spent the rest of the sermon contemplating some questions the church should be concerned about now. I was fired up enough about them that I nearly postponed taking Beth to church camp so I could capture my full vitriol. Instead, this is the watered down, more rambling, less pissed off version.

Let's start with this: according to what I've heard from several people, the Methodist conference turned a simple election for district treasurer into a referendum into whether a gay man should be elected to official position in the church. I can cite things St. Paul said about homosexuality, and the Old Testament--but Jesus was a whole lot more into the "judge not, lest you be judged" business than that as I remember the red words in my Bible.

So here's my short, intro list to questions the church might ask now:

• Should gluttons be regarded the same as homosexuals? It's a whole lot easier to identify gluttons than gays, well, unless each church has a designated queen with impeccable gaydar.
• If we're concerned about "sexual sin" (which could be a whole other discussion...one that probably should not be on a blog that minors can read), then should we screen for people who were not virgins on their wedding night? Or people who have had a threesome? Or people who have read "The Story of O?" Or people who have flirted with a coworker? I'm not sure they are any more holy and righteous than that gay minister. Shouldn't the church be considering these issues?
• Are divorced ministers still religious? Again, St Paul and the OT have some strict words about all that.
• What about ministers who have widowed sister inlaws? Aren't they supposed to be taking them in and insuring the family line continues (yes, that means what you think)? Are we holding to that like we're supposed to?

I'm even ignoring questions about whether Christians should invest their money in businesses that exploit labor, or whether Christians should only drive hybrids---or bikes! Or even whether Christians should only watch "Christian" media--or no media at all. Because I'm appalled by the level of rhetoric in the church about homosexuality, I guess I'm focused on sex questions right now--stay tuned!

Summertime....when the living is......well, .......

When I was little, I wore shorts and sleeveless tops and played outside a good share of the day, screen door slamming behind me as I hustled out the back door. No worry about sunscreen, no discussion about how hot and sweaty I might get--it's summer. If I got hot, it was expected--it was summer, after all. And I could always get a glass of ice water and sit in front of a fan if I wanted a break from playing--or, at times, sitting outside reading. Surprised? Not if you know me.

Now, I'm sitting here debating whether to turn on the air conditioning. It's a bit over 80 degrees in the apartment, but I have windows open and a fan going. In fact, I spent part of the afternoon putting the screens in the doors and rearranging the minuscule living room so that I would have a better cross breeze. I like fresh air and all that.

But...my hair is hot. Sweat is trailing down the back of my head, dripping onto my t-shirt collar. My feet are hot, too. My socks are a bit damp, and my ankles itch. Maybe I should take a shower. Maybe I should buy a pair of shorts. Or...I could turn on the AC and be comfy cool, thumbing my nose at Mother Nature's hot flash. Summer--ha. No reason for us to be anything but cool as Kerouac.

Being me, this isn't a question of personal comfort (or Beth's comfort, either; she can deal). If I turn on the AC, am I perpetrating a system that creates soft, weak people, people who are disconnected from nature and the natural rhythms that our foremothers honored? My Cherokee and Iroquois ancestors survived in less hospitable surroundings than I've ever encountered (well, except for my junior prom. No native ever braved that--but I have faith they could have). Am I buying into a consumer mindset that is creating unsustainable expectations about the pampered quality of life I should have?

The personal is the political. Think globally, act locally. Both true. Both cliches I believe. This is a moment that tries men's souls, the summer patriot, etc (Yea, Tom Paine is sticking out his zombie-tongue at me). I do believe that I should not turn on the AC, that a good person--one concerned about the environment, one interested in connecting with nature--wouldn't mind the rivulet of sweat trailing from her ear down her bra...but right now,....well...I'm going to go sit in the Lotus position under my maple tree, decide what Thoreau would do.

Playing Poker in Lima

First: I am going to NOT write about school this summer....as much as possible. Although this is based on Lima student mentality, I'm even limiting how often I blog about that. I'm tired of school, of teaching, of education sucking my soul and asking that I tithe my creativity and intellect at a proportion not commiserate with my job description.

HOWEVER,....gotta write this one. The elephant in our school is the Lima Mentality, a special blend of learned helplessness, entitlement, resignation, and eensy-teensy locus of control. It's not just the kids--it permeates the city. We're limited by "our population" and "our situation;" we don't name the elephant, of course--confronting the issues of underclass, acceptable loss, and racism head on. We're in an elegant do-si-do of enabling and whining, with a soupcon of schadenfreude thrown in for the barely middle class among us.

I've been in multiple conversations over the last few months about this problem, with a variety of people who all deal with it (and fall victim to it) in various contexts. I could analyze and sympathize and sermonize, but I am beginning to belief that my generally warm fuzzy, empathetic encouragement is not the best way to deal with the Lima Beast, even when it shows up in myself (which I will cop to...reluctantly).

Instead of helping with problem-solving, encouraging baby-steps, holding their hands through trials and risk-taking (and some of those "risks" are amazingly small and normal, by middle-class standards), here's what I think I'm going to adopt as my new attitude:

"Yes, you didn't get dealt a fair hand in life. If you're going to whine, make excuses, and be a victim, leave the table. Otherwise, play your cards as smart as you can, work harder than everyone else at the table to learn the game--and maybe the next round you won't lose your stake. If you're not willing to play harder and smarter than the people who were born with aces up their sleeve, don't pretend you're playing the game."

There are valid reasons and situations that add a great deal of strife and complication to my students' lives. No argument. But reasons for failure shouldn't be excuses, they should be incentives for success. And it bugs me more than I can express that I can see that phrase on a t-shirt, turned into a damn motto for happy people to chant as the cycle of enabling and failing continues.

A, B, C, D: The Paradox I Live

I don't believe in grades. That's a blanket statement, and I do mean it. And yes, I did just submit names of students who will not graduate based on not passing my class, and I will be grading papers tomorrow to determine who gets an A, who gets a B and who gets to sit in my class again.

I don't believe grades say anything significant or valid about a student's accomplishment--except, of course, how well the student "plays school." Kids who do all their work will get higher grades than ones who miss assignments. That's simple math. And if a teacher factors in "participation points," offers extra credit, or includes some other wild card, grades reward those who "play school" well even better. A student who has turned in but failed every assignment can, with those types of wild cards, pass a class. A student who gets all A's and B's on major projects or tests, but doesn't do the daily stuff....it's anyone's guess how the grade will be tallied, and depends more on the teacher's system than the student's knowledge and skills.

It is possible that other content areas are easier to quantify; English is more subjective than most English teachers will admit. But consider this: there is no correlation in my school between the ACT, the Ohio Graduation Test, or the Watson-Glaser critical thinking test we've been giving and a student's grade point average. While I understand the correlation wouldn't be exact because of the purpose and formats of those tests, no correlation? That suggests something is flawed somewhere. As low as our average ACT score is (and it's below the national average by enough to matter), over 25% of our students are on the Honor Roll.

Furthermore....even if I come up with a system of grading that gives good feedback on what a student has mastered, and what the student needs to work on--which would be a very valid type of assessment, I think--there's another issue looming under us: what is the yardstick I'm using to measure with? Should students be assessed relatively, either against their own progress or against their peers in the class? Or is there an absolute standard that we should have as our guide?

For anyone who doesn't deal with grading (lucky people), that's the core issue behind "grade inflation." Teachers don't walk in, see poor, minority students and think, "wow, I'm going to right generations of oppression and societal marginalization by giving these students better grades than they deserve." We grade paper after paper, and see which ones are better, which are weak, and before too long, our sense of "good" is skewed. Especially because most of us haven't seen a wide cross-section of papers to gauge from before we get a pile of our own and a nifty red pen.

Until I went to an AP workshop with teachers from affluent districts--places where a noticeable percentage go to Ivy League colleges and most state schools are a last resort--and we spent a large amount of our time working with the very specific requirements of an AP essay, I had no clue what people in other types of schools thought an A or B paper was. My A papers would have barely gotten C's from those schools. And I can list plenty of reasons my students shouldn't be graded like that....which means I'm using relative grading, and there is not an absolute. Also, the underlying assumption there is that my students can't compete with affluent kids--welcome to the perpetration of the underclass.

I watched a few episodes of "Dancing With the Stars" this season, and it was a petri dish of assessment. At the beginning, the stars get comments based on relative standards--Kate Gosselin and Nicey Nash (the non-dancer and the one with "jiggly parts") heard about how they improved and what they needed to work on; but quickly, the star with potential--this season, Evan the Figure Skater and Nicole somebody--they got comments based on professional, experienced dancers, comments designed to push them. The judges were often boo'd by the audience, whose reaction was based on their emotional reaction instead of absolute standards. The scores, though--everyone got graded on the absolute standards. Kate Gosselin's scores tanked; hard as she tried, she's not a dancer, at least at this level. Even with the "curve'--the audience call in votes--the judges retain the power at the end. Their grades matter; their understanding of the absolute standard of assessment matters.

So... as I finish grading this week, I know I'm playing a game---but teachers become teachers because we "play school" well. The system needs overhauled, I know. Next time I'm ready to tilt at windmills, that's on my list.

Pretzel Logic

Why do I write? Or, more precisely, why do I careen my thoughts across cyberspace (albeit, irregularly)? I've been pondering that lately, although I should admit that mulling over meaningless quasi-philosophic questions is one of my most effective ways to procrastinate from grading. A while back, I decided my blogging and other forms of inflicting my ramblings on people was a sign that I needed some perspective...and maybe a life...and maybe a hobby that didn't involve assuming people wanted to know my every thought.

Is blogging sheer narcissism? Am I vain enough to believe that I may say something profound, something so compelling that people should hang my words on their refrigerator? Do I think I'm as amusing as Jon Stewart, and every bon mot should be recorded in hopes that he stumbles upon me and whisks me away to be a staff writer ? (Well,....um....yeah) Or that I have the capacity and wit to create an image or phrase worthy of repeating? On the rare occasions that has happened, it's a real ego stroke, I'll admit. But still--that's too rare to be a major motivation. I think. I hope. Wow....it would be as pathetic as Oliver Twist if that's my major motivation.

Which is why I kept thinking about the topic. Then it hit me that those questions all presumed someone read my brain-droppings. When I wrote for the Lima News regularly, I knew that I had an audience. I was stopped at the grocery by people who liked my latest column--or by people who vehemently disagreed! I got the occasional note from someone who enjoyed a specific column, and I often had interesting discussions with people who wanted to share their ideas and reactions. I liked that. Ok, I'll concede that at least a part of my reaction may have been from the ego lift of people seeking me out to respond, but I thrive on interesting conversation. That really was fun. I miss those conversations with strangers and near-strangers, in fact. But when I write here? I think I'm my main reader, too--this site is not exactly tearing up the bandwidth. Which makes me question why I do it, which leads back to the idea that, yep, it's narcissistic.

Then a couple days ago, I read an article from a columnist for a news magazine (not sure if it was Time or Newsweek; I read both). He was talking about technology and social networking (another topic I'm thinking about frequently), and commented that although public writing is a narcissistic act in some ways, in another sense it is an attempt to build community in a society that has lost most traditional vestiges of community; that the modern equivalent to Solomon's Portico and Emerson's Lyceums is found online, and that participating by reading, writing and/or commenting was the same as discussing at the town meeting or other more traditional venue.

That logic works for me. Instead of being a sad, self-absorbed wanna-be writer, I'm participating in the intellectual life of the community, perhaps even creating a tribe of thinkers, swatting at the issues and dilemmas that pester modern people. So I'm deliberately planning to write at least once a week here, treating it as much like a commitment as I did my newspaper column. That's my plan. Check back on my progress (note, I'm assuming audience again. Hi Mom!Hi Dad!)

Race to the Top (I'm sending this to the Lima News)

Faust. Robert Johnson. Paganini. There’s a common theme linking those characters: they all made deals with the devil. They all wanted something so badly that they signed on the dotted line without worrying about the ramifications of their commitment. They believed their needs would be met if they just did one little thing, confident that they would find a loophole or work out something later.

Should the Lima City teachers have added their name to the list of characters that would sell all without regards to the details?

The Lima Education Association did refuse to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would have allowed the city school district to apply for a grant called “Race to the Top.” Potentially, the grant could have brought a million dollars to the district. If that is the headline, the teachers’ refusal to sign is inexplicable. In a financially-strapped school system, turning down significant grants seems unforgivable. However, the Devil is in the details. Past the headline, there is a lot of fine print.

The L.E.A leadership read reams of government explanation about the requirements for receiving the money. The L.E.A sent the information to its members, soliciting advice and engaging in discussion about the “Race to the Top.” This decision was not made quickly or lightly. The information is available online, but it is dense with educational jargon and slippery qualifications, especially the further you read.

Simply, the people who are part of “Race to the Top” agree to do whatever the Department of Education requires to get the money. At this point, there are very few specific requirements; the main one is that no state laws or union contracts get in the way of whatever the Department of Education says they should do. There are many “potential” and “possible” guidelines, with the assurance that it is an evolving process and will be more clearly explained after they have firm commitments, but at that point, the teachers and the district have signed that they will do whatever it takes. Although publicly it says schools may pull out, the teleconference the district had with the Ohio Department of Education specified that consultants would be sent here to help us comply—it would not be a simple “thanks but no thanks” break up.

In the last few years, the Lima City Schools has seen tremendous improvement in their state report cards. We are on the right path, and we have been involved in many state-sponsored grants and programs to help us get there. Without exception, a large part of that improvement has involved teacher-leadership, site-based management and letting everyone involved in the process have a voice—not just a voice to moan and complain, but to impact positive change.

“Race to the Top” completely demolishes that. It is set up as old-style top-down management, and treats the teachers—the bottom of the educational food chain—as the cause of all the system’s ills. We have made significant improvement by having teachers partner with the district and the state in fundamental ways. Signing away our progress for whatever is behind the closed door goes counter to everything we have learned and experienced the last six years.

And these objections exist without even raising the point that the money we would get is severely limited in what it can do. We would have more consultants and nebulously-defined positions. Many people still question what building coaches and literacy coaches do; imagine a whole new layer of positions like that, which is assured under “Race to the Top.” Teachers would have more trainings and meetings, which means more substitute teachers covering while teachers are fulfilling “Race to the Top” requirements. Based on comments from the public, the parents, and the teachers, the union believed that our district will be able to make more progress by continuing and perfecting the path we are currently on, not by signing the pact that would lead to total redefining of how we go about educating children.

The Lima City Schools is not perfect. There are teachers who need to improve, and there are situations that must change. That’s clear—and that’s true in any district. Even without “Race to the Top,” the administration has the ability to make substantive changes, and the union has a history of supporting initiatives that do radically challenge us to improve. But if the L.E.A had signed the MOU, they would have gotten money with strings attached. Big strings, that are unnamed and unknown right now—and they would have signed way their voice in the process, agreeing to do whatever was needed to meet the terms. Until the details are in writing, with clear expectations and guidelines, the L.E.A would have been right there with Faust, Robert Johnson, and Paganini in learning the hard way the devil is in the details.

Leadership

I'm thinking about collaborative learning, and, because of an odd point of synchronicity--leadership. First of all, there's a video on YouTube that is a focal point of my musing. Alex Hughes, an 11th grader from Greensboro, North Carolina, made it for a Dept of Education contest. He is obviously a student with drive, talent, and resources--all important ingredients for success. Maybe those are not the only ingredients needed for success, but kids who have those can accomplish amazing things. Add some friends to support the effort, and--violá! An award-winning video.

It's clear that Alex Hughes understands 21st century skills. He's used technology to engage an audience for a specific purpose in an authentic situation. He's worked collaboratively with his peers, judging by the list of friends who helped him and who appear in the video. He apparently takes ownership of his learning and shown leadership.

A couple days after I watched this video, I attended the University of Toledo's graduation. It was an impressive scene, with over 1000 graduates. The usual graduation hyperbole was flying with lightning speed, as was appropriate for the occassion. The keynote speaker was Dr. David Eaglesham, a vice president of First Solar, an international company on the cutting edge of green technologies. As he was exhorting the grads to go out in the world and do great things, he said something along the lines of "In the coming years, you need to all be leaders." My ears perked up and the wheels started whirring. All 1000 plus grads needed to be leaders? Really? So....who's going to follow? Doesn't being a leader imply that someone is there, shoring up the rear?

Which lead me back to Alex Hughes, the embryonic Spielberg. As I consider all the various techniques for using collboration in the classroom, there's one element that can't be turned into a nifty protocol or check off box on a rubric: for a group to function well, it needs a leader. That doesn't imply that we need mini-Mussilinis making all the railroads run on time, either. Alex Hughes evidently is a leader. He knows how to organize, he knows how to get people to buy-in and be productive. While leaders obviously can refine their skills, and people can learn skills to lead, many people are not suited to be leaders.

And that's okay. Really. For a leader to be effective, people who believe in the vision and will take responsibility for helping make it come true are crucial. Ask Alex Hughes--or President Obama, whose friend Rahm Emanuel is working as Chief of Staff to make Obama's White House effective. Or any Academy Award-winning actor, who was making the writer's and director's and producer's visions come to life, following someone else's vision to produce a film.

We need to teach students to be responsible, to be curious, to solve problems, and all those other 21st century skills that are becoming ubiquitous buzzwords--but maybe instead of pretending we can teach them to all be leaders, we need to help them learn how to carefully choose who they follow and which visions they should support. I'm still thinking this through, but I'm considering how to use collaboration in the classroom to develop not just leaders, but examplary, creative, effective followers who can challenge their teams and their leaders to achieve more than they imagined possible. That doesn't sound as....deingrating, I guess...as it did before I thought about Alex Hughes

Thom's blog

Movie List, Continued

My summer watching list is growing. As it currently stands, it's full of interesting stuff I haven't seen:

Fellini's 8 1/2 (Ian)
Kubrick's Paths to Glory (David)
Nichol's Who's Afraid of Virginia Wollf (Devin)
Bogdanovich's What's Up, Doc? (Jack--and bless you for letting me watch something fun!)
Smith's Dogma (Leslie--I've seen most of it, but fell asleep)
The Student Prince (Dad)
The Maltese Falcon (Dad)
From Here to Eternity (Mom)
Casablanca (Dad)

Still have at least two openings, still have at least two people who haven't answered--ironically, because I've talked about it with them! Slackers--command me :) I'm going to start ordering them on Netflix today. Will set up my movie blog this weekend. The blog can have multiple authors--anyone want to blog along, or are you just going to make snarky comments about my writings?

Summer Viewing and Reading

I've asked a few people to suggest movies that I should watch this summer, with the goal being to blog about each one and enlarge my cultural horizons (which means the same thing as get out my my video rut--that's not counting Buffy, of course; Buffy isn't a rut!)

I've got part of the viewing schedule lined up, in the order people told me. So far, here's the list
Fellini's 8 1/2 (Ian)
Kubrick's Paths to Glory (David)
Nichol's Who's Afraid of Virginia Wollf (Devin)
Bogdanovich's What's Up, Doc? (Jack--and bless you for letting me watch something fun!)
Smith's Dogma (Leslie)

I've still got a few people who haven't responded, and the people who have responded all offered to give me more recommendations too--but I've limited them to one each so far.

More recommendations are welcome, but I'm pacing myself--and planning on continuing my Buffy blog this summer too! I'm not starting to watch til school's out, so I've got some time to finalize my list.

AND--I'm reading Bleak House by Charles Dickens this summer. Anyone want to join me?

Everyday Rites

When I was young--even through college, but starting from late elementary--the rhythm of my life was set in large part by the ritual of concert and performance schedules. I miss that, the daily practice and rehearse, the pressure as the deadline loomed, the night of the concert--supper on the go, dressing up (argghgh--the white flowing dresses the orchestra girls wore my jr and sr year! I just remembered! Arghghgh.). Milling around backstage, tuning--then performing. If everything went right, the band, orchestra or choir was at their peak that night.

Being in plays is a similar dynamic, but not quite the same. And I miss that, too--but as I sat at Beth's concert tonight I realized that performances shaped the ebb and flow of my life far more than quarters or semesters or any other kind of season.

And I will happily argue that in concret, real terms, committing to excel in a musical group is akin to joining a highly disciplined, competitive sports team--and possibly with longer lasting effects. But I'm tired and need to chase Beth to bed, so that will wait for another night. Tootles!

Letter I just sent to the Powers That Be

I know how deeply you care about our kids’ education, and that when you are making decisions and considering hard issues, the impact on the students is in the forefront of your mind. I don’t question that in the least, so I’ve been biting my tongue and silencing my email for a of couple years now, trusting that my personal reservations about campus wear were based on my inability to see the big picture. After two years of campus wear at the high school, I am concerned that we may have all lost sight of the cosmic picture frame.

Here’s what has prompted my finally writing to you: I have heard from several teachers—including people not in my school—as well as two students about your reaction when you walked into the music room during a senior project presentation. Exactly what the student was doing as the project is not part of the grapevine retelling, nor is how well the task was accomplished. Instead of the focus being on the student’s project, the story flying around recounts how appalled you were by the dress code violations.

Although I’m not working on senior projects this year, I am a firm supporter of them, and want the MI students to value them, be invested in them, and yes, even be nervous and concerned about how well they are completing them. We make the task demanding for a reason: so the students have truly accomplished something noteworthy if and when they pass. I’m troubled that the topic of discussion at lunch tables and hallways is not the senior project, but how people in an ancillary position relating to the project were dressed.

This incident crystallizes one of the key issues relating to the campus wear policy: the balance between focusing on “rigor, relevance and relationships,” the three R’s we have been told would revolutionize our school, and focusing on compliance. As you just demonstrated, I’m sure with the best intentions, that balance is difficult. If we as teachers are to seek rigor and relationship, to get the student’s trust as their advocate, we undercut it in many students’ minds if the first words they hear in class relate to their clothing. Regardless how gently we phrase it, in many students’ worldview that makes us enforcers first. That is not indicative of the educational atmosphere I loved teaching in when we went to the small school concept, and it’s at least one component changing the climate in our school for the worse.

There is an issue tying in with that I think underlies many of the problems with enforcing the dress code: the students have not bought in. They do not really understand why it exists, or believe that campus wear will improve anything. As Chasity Boedicker said in her speech last year when she spoke to the dress code committee, the dress code feels like punishment for low test scores and being from a poor school. “How high do our grades have to be to make this go away,” I’ve been asked. We can explain and justify all we want, but high school students aren’t stupid; they know that Shawnee, Bath, and Elida don’t have campus wear and do better on the tests—as well as having parents who will get involved if they question a policy. When I go to church, or the store, or even to family events, I hear griping not about enforcement of the policy, but the policy itself. And believe me, I’m not the one raising the topic. I’m incredibly tired of thinking about it!

The campus wear policy has done one thing well: it has polarized the adults involved in enforcing it. Some people notice clothing quickly; some people couldn’t tell you what their spouse wore at their wedding! Some are very color sensitive; some didn’t know that baby blue, sky blue and light turquoise were different colors. Some people do not mind beginning class by calling out students for untucked shirts; other people are have multiple papers, late work, make up assignments and other tasks occupying their thoughts. Until campus wear, we could embrace and applaud our quirks and differences, knowing that we are all committed to helping our students perform at the highest level possible. Now, the differences too often divide us into the people who are following the rules to the letter and the people who aren’t—all still with the best of intentions, but the difference still exists.

Out of respect for Jeff last year, and for Sue this year, I’ve kept my concerns quiet. But as I sat in a sermon during Holy Week, I felt indicted by the story of Jesus overturning the tables at the temple. If I don’t tell you what I am concerned about, I am giving you and my students less than my best effort. Our students’ needs are so overwhelming in so many ways. I have to keep asking myself if the time we spend on this issue is key to helping our students learn to navigate the 21^st century, or if we are working hard to win a battle, regardless of the effect on the war? The more I think about that, the less I like my answer. Since you were in the music room, maybe you have some frame of reference for understanding how easily we can lose sight of the mission at hand as we deal with the students on an hour by hour, day by day basis.

I didn't mean to write so much, but there are even more points I could make. However, thank you for your time and consideration--and I do hope you have a good rest of the day!

New Rule

If you feel the urge to write a drama about the Last Supper, and if you believe that it makes any sense for Jesus' mother and Judas' mother to be best friends, and if you then add quotes from a random disciple to to prove that no one, including Judas' mother, trusted Judas, DO NOT also have Judas' mother quote John 3:16 (King James Edition) and cite it as from the scriptures.

I can only suspend disbelief so far.

(In case you didn't know: John was written long, long after most of the rest of the New Testement, long after Judas' mother had left the Home for Heretic's mothers to go to a more celestial homestead.)