Why Marriage Matters

For too long, marriage has been considered optional. We see celebrities and average people pop out babies without any sort of commitment at all. And for some people, a minority of them, it works. But for too many young people, they see this as an option and it ends up being an anchor that weighs them down economically and educationally for the rest of their lives. If, as stated by The Smartest Woman in the World, it takes a village to raise a child, then perhaps we should get all of our villages to restate the standards of behavior, such as not getting pregnant when you haven't the will or means to take care of a child. I have kids in my school who see getting pregnant and living on public dole as a viable career path. And I teach in an upper middle class school. Movie stars notwithstanding, most single women who have children without the benefit of a spouse wind up on welfare. They remain poor and their children remain poor. Shouldn't we want more for our kids? And why aren't more people within the community outraged at the media that promoted promiscuity to kids without fully disclosing the possible outcome?

From the Economist magazine) There is a widening gulf between how the best- and least-educated Americans approach marriage and child-rearing. Among the elite (excluding film stars), the nuclear family is holding up quite well. Only 4% of the children of mothers with college degrees are born out of wedlock. And the divorce rate among college-educated women has plummeted. Of those who first tied the knot between 1975 and 1979, 29% were divorced within ten years. Among those who first married between 1990 and 1994, only 16.5% were. At the bottom of the education scale, the picture is reversed. Among high-school dropouts, the divorce rate rose from 38% for those who first married in 1975-79 to 46% for those who first married in 1990-94. Among those with a high school diploma but no college, it rose from 35% to 38%. And these figures are only part of the story. Many mothers avoid divorce by never marrying in the first place. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among women who drop out of high school is 15%. Among African-Americans, it is a staggering 67%. Does this matter? Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, says it does. In her book "Marriage and Caste in America", she argues that the "marriage gap" is the chief source of the country's notorious and widening inequality. Middle-class kids growing up with two biological parents are "socialised for success". They do better in school, get better jobs and go on to create intact families of their own. Children of single parents or broken families do worse in school, get worse jobs and go on to have children out of wedlock. This makes it more likely that those born near the top or the bottom will stay where they started. America, argues Ms Hymowitz, is turning into "a nation of separate and unequal families".

Judge One President, Judge Them All

While I don't fall in lockstep with some of the decisions made by President Bush, I am sick to death of the way the media whips him on every move. Look at the list and compare the pardons and commutations made by other presidents. Some will surprise you.

PARDONS AND COMMUTATIONS

George W. Bush (2001 - )
Pardons -- 13
Commutations -- 4

Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
Pardons -- 396
Commutations -- 61

George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
Pardons -- 74
Commutations: 3

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
Pardons -- 393
Commutations -- 13

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
Pardons -- 534
Commutations -- 29

Gerald Ford (1974-1977)
Pardons -- 382
Commutations -- 22

Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
Pardons -- 863
Commutations -- 60

Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969)
Pardons -- 960
Commutations -- 226

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
Pardons -- 472
Commutations -- 100

Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)
Pardons -- 1,110
Commutations -- 47

Harry Truman (1945-1953)
Pardons -- 1,913
Commutations -- 118

Tony Blair/Terrorism & Tiny Minds

Tony Blair seems like a decent enough chap. He has a nice family, he's polite and he's articulate. But the British press pilloried him for allying with the United States in what is truly a War Against Terror. Blair had read the insider information and seen what the potential was for violence spreading outside of the Middle East and into Europe and the US. And even though Mr. Blair is what is known as a liberal, he cared more about doing the right thing, than doing the politically expedient thing. The British press hounded him. The spread rumors, lies and disinformation with their goal, as with most western press, to pry another ally away from the United States and gain control over whatever political puppet was put in place. Today there were three open attempts at terror on British soil. Two car bombs, thankfully detected and defused, in London and another in Glasgow. The changeover from Blair to the new PM was today. I talking to experienced terror experts, all were agreed that the attitude of appeasement has made it easier for terrorists to infiltrate British mosques and recruit British subjects to attack their own country. Is this not EXACTLY what President Bush said would happen if we appease terrorists by giving in? And yet our press is doing to President Bush exactly what the British press did to Tony Blair. What do you think will happen if someone whose appeasement attitudes such as Hilary, or John Edwards or Barak Obama get in office? How long do you think it would be until we had a serious attack on American soil? Wasn't 9/11 enough? If I were Tony Blair, a man far more gracious than I am, I would hire out a series of prominently displayed billboards with these words:

I TOLD YOU SO!

I'm With Fred

I should probably have a tee shirt or something that says this. I am coming in early with support for the candidate I think has the most to offer the American public. And that candidate is Fred Thompson. I have read a great deal from his site and other sources, and he appears to be the antithesis of what we have seen in politics the last few years. He appears to be smart, deliberate and doesn't make stupid comments just to provide sound bites. Sure, he's not Mr. Goodhair, but then again, I doubt his wife will call Ann Coulter to make her stop picking on him. Good Luck!

Motherland or Fatherland?

The other day on the news, I happened to see the ceremony for burial for a member of the military killed in Iraq. As his father took the podium I braced myself for the tears and the outrage and the typical sort of imagery that the media usually shows from such events. Instead, the father said, "I was proud of my son when he joined. I was proud of my son as he served. And now, I am so proud of his service." Brave words. When you counter that with Sheehan and her disrespectful and often virulent protests after her son died, it made me stop and wonder what our nation has become, and why.
It made me think of how we have changed as a people and think whether much of this is because so many of our young men are being raised without fathers. When you look into the general population, although there are still some conventional families, the norm is the blended family or the single parent family. Back in the day-and by that I mean the Paleolithic times-mates were based on the ability to create life, provide services and the honor of the tribe was in continuing those necessary roles such as hunter, shaman, cook, and so on. Many of these roles were based on gender, mostly due to the role of women as nurturers. It is a traditional role, one that many feminists disallow, but one that continued unabated through many civilizations. There had to be a reason for that. And I think that the Greeks were closest in the spiritual plane of explaining the psychology of the sexes. They believed that the gods created four-legged, four-armed creatures that were complete in every way. And because they were complete and balanced, they were happy. Balance was the key to the Greeks, at least in theory. But the gods became jealous of the creations' happiness, so they cut them in half, leaving them to forever seek their missing half, their balance. Although graphic, I think there is some wisdom here.
Like it or not, when a child is raised in a single parent home, they are going to get a less balanced view of the world and a method of deciphering the world that is biased in favor of one gender over another. There's a good reason that children need both mothers and fathers. Mothers, generally, are more nurturing, more in touch with emotions, more responsive to emotional needs. Fathers, generally, are more goal oriented, more aimed at structure and discipline and more focused on such things as responsibility and follow-though. That's not to say these things are exclusive to one parent over the other, but when any child gets so absorbed by just their feelings, and their reactions, and their goals over the larger goals in life, it makes for some very selfish and self-serving adults.
When we fought in WWII, we were a Fatherland, a land that sought the goals of the "higher good" for a wider swath of humanity. While parents hated the idea of losing their children to war, there was a unified concept of national need. Today, our nation is divided by race, by sex, by religion, by education, by status, by wealth. The goals that were seen as national are now seen as marginal. We have become a nation of individuals that can only see the goal in the light of how it betters their situation. There is no adherence to the idea of a "higher good" that sometimes is served through the ultimate sacrifice. As I see it, we are now a Motherland, more dismissive of the societal goals unless they directly impact the individual. In a way, as our towns got larger, our personal focus became smaller.
And when you see confrontations over the war, or culture or any other aspect of the political realm, I think what we are seeing more of is Motherland vs. Fatherland. I don't think you can be both and successfully complete any mission. The Fatherland only hesitated slightly to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Motherland flinches when collateral damage occurs even if it prevents bloodshed down the line. It's a difference in long term goals and short term memory. And in terms of success, we need a Fatherland attitude to win wars and a Motherland attitude to keep domestic peace. We need to be able to make the hard decisions for the goal. And we need to have compassion and help after the goal has been achieved. Perhaps I am crazy, but it was something that struck me as interesting.

It is not the rich man you should properly call happy, but him who knows how to use with wisdom the blessings of the gods, to endure hard poverty, and who fears dishonor worse than death, and is not afraid to die for cherished friends or fatherland.

Horace (65 BC - 8 BC), Odes

Listen, before you Look and Vote

There are people out there who are so unbalanced, so needy, that they seek a spiritual mentor or belief in order to bring their lives into what they perceive as "balance." This happens quite a lot with religions, much more than I think most mainstream believers care to admit. Too often the minister is more important than the message. Which is why we end up hearing these sordid stories about men and women who claim to be "of God" when in reality they are out to acquire their own pleasures and privileges.

I am afraid, given the rumor mongering nature of the internet, that our political intentions are going the same way. Voters see a pretty face, hear of other appealing people who support this candidate and fail to concern themselves with the real meat of their agenda. As the political season heats up and the Labor Day starting gate of the primaries come into view, be very circumspect in which candidates you choose. Try listening to them on radio in addition to TV. Sometimes the pretty face and slick delivery can mitigate flaws in their direction. It's like in the Wizard of Oz, when Dorothy discovers that the Wizard is just a bald, fat man behind a curtain. This next election will be one of change. I think the mainstreams of both parties are disgusted with the self-serving attitude of the people who pretend to represent us. And this is why you must look into the voting records, the public statements and the personal agendas BEFORE you select a candidate to support.

Below is a link dealing with cults. The reason that I have included this is because I think some political extremism borders on the same type of frenzy as that created by religious cults. Think about things going on in this state, nation and world and ask yourself if issues are being driven by fact or by personality. At any rate, it's an interesting review of the mindset of those who manipulate reality for their own gain.

The Church of Global Warming-New Religion of the Left

The Church of Global Warming sounds like a joke, but it has all the earmarks of a cult.
1. There's a somewhat charismatic leader (If Gore could be called that...)
2. Celebrities are friends and supporters of said charismatic leader.
3. The code of belief brooks no doubts-you either accept every word, or you are an infidel.
4. The "church" and its leaders believe they are the only holders of "the truth".
5. The "church" believes that unnamed conspirators are acting behind the scenes to discredit them.
6. Secrets from within the "church" are believed to give the faithful access to the truth.
7. Initiation in the way of restraint, recycling, regression from technology and other isolation results in adherents blindly following the leaders.
8. A belief that endless supplies of money, all of which is to be turned over without question (by the taxpayers?) is to be spent on "special programs" to alleviate or appease the climate gods.
9. The belief that questioning any of these goals, any of the programs or any of the methods of obtaining money is equal to apostasy.
10. The belief that the "little people" should suffer deprivation for the good of the "special people" (See Barbara Streisand's house and ask yourself if this is a balanced use of resources according to the opinions of the Church of Global Warming)

Global Warming: The Cult, an update

Global Warming has all the earmarks of a religious cult. The link connected to the heading discusses this more specifically. I encourage you to read through the website and ask yourself if your friendly neighboring environmental nut isn't carrying on just a bit too much.

• The cult claims that they have the only way -- the only way to Heaven, or to salvation, or spirituality, or eternal bliss, or higher knowledge, or sanity, or mental powers, or recovery, or whatever it is that the cult promises to deliver...

• And then there is Denigration of competing sects, cults, or religions. A corollary to cults' claims of having The Only Way is the assertion that "the other people" do not have The Way. "They" are all misguided and missing the boat, and "they" won't be going to Heaven.

• Thus the cult encourages an isolationist "us versus them" mindset, which naturally seques into an attitude that

• The cult members are special -- they are morally and spiritually superior to the common rabble who haven't been "saved" and who don't have The Big Answer....

• Another common cult characteristic the we have seen is the demand for Surrender to the Cult. You can't just join the group; you have to surrender to the cult and give it everything -- your life, your mind, your heart, your loyalty, your obedience, and even your soul. (And all of your money will be welcome too.) An Oxford theologian observed that the students who became involved with Buchmanism were obsessed with it:

  The Groupers are unable to give their heart and soul to any other organization whatever: for his heart and soul is given to the group, whose sole immediate task is to attack sin.
  C. R. Morris, page 85, writing in
  Oxford and the Groups; The Influence of the Groups considered by Rev. Geoffrey F. Allen, John Maud, Miss B. E. Gwyer, C. R. Morris, W. H. Auden, R. H. S. Crossman, Dr. L. P. Jacks, Rev. E. R. Micklem, Rev. J. W. C. Wand, Rev. M. C. D'Arcy, S.J., Professor L. W. Grensted. Edited by R. H. S. Crossman. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1934.

• Then there are the constant put-downs -- the cult characteristic of You Are Always Wrong: "You have been defeated by sin", "You are so sinful that you are insane", and "You are hiding some giant sin that keeps you separated from God".

• The constant put-downs also reveal the the mind-bending technique of Guilt Induction, and the use of guilt to manipulate cult members.

• Channeled or occult sources of 'wisdom', like 'Guidance' psychically received during a 'Quiet Time', is common in cult religions.

• A hierarchical, authoritarian system of control of members is very typical of cults.
  

• So is Pseudo-democracy. The Oxford Groups supposedly offered people "true democracy", where nobody voted and everybody followed orders without question. Curiously, Frank Buchman simultaneously declared that he was giving people "the true dictatorship of the living God", and "the dictatorship of the spirit of God". It takes some fancy semantic tap-dancing to reconcile "true democracy" and "true dictatorship".

• The doctrine that you cannot trust your own mind or your own thoughts, and must turn to the cult's mentors or elders for guidance is anther standard cult practice.

• And thus, so is a system of mentors.

• As is Intrusiveness -- they want to hear about every sin you ever committed, and they claim the right to tell you how to live, what to do, and what to believe.

• And so is the attitude that newcomers can't think right.
  

• And so is the deceit that "we have no structure or system", when in fact they have a very despotic system of control.

• And then there is Deceptive Recruiting.

• The End Justifies The Means.

• And You must change your beliefs to conform to the group's beliefs.

• Thought-Stopping Language. Thought-terminating clichés and slogans.

• Inability To Tolerate Criticism, and Personal Attacks On Critics.

• Dishonesty, deceit, and wild exaggeration of successes and praise, accompanied by minimization and denial of faults and criticism.

• The Cult is Money-Grubbing.

• The cult leader is not held accountable for his actions.

• The Guru Is Extra-Special.

• Everybody else needs the guru to boss him around, but nobody bosses the guru around.

• The guru criticizes everybody else, but nobody criticizes the guru.

• And the problems of Disturbed Guru, Mentally Ill Leader,

• New Identity -- Redefinition of Self -- Revision of Personal History

• The cult wants to own you.

• Demands For Compliance With The Group

• Grandiose existence. Bombastic, Grandiose Claims.

. Below

This Time, It's Serious-Immigration

Here's a copy of an open letter I sent to Diane Feinstein. I don't expect her to read it. Actually what I expect is for some third level political flunky to either delete it, or to send me a snarky form letter. While I have held these views for awhile, they came to a head when I read the series from San Antonio that is linked in the headline. Please read it. Please. This is important for our safety, for our security and for our future. I hate to sound so dramatic, but these are dangerous times. And this could be our last chance to change things.

"I know that I am not a constituent, but as a Congressional representative, you do have the obligation to hear opposing thoughts on the issues of the day. Texas is on the front lines in this dispute and as a teacher I can assure you, we are suffering due to the sporous condition of our borders. I would invite you to read the series in the San Antonio newspaper regarding the infiltration of OTM's under the guise of Mexican immigrants. It is a very scary situation and I think it is a time bomb waiting to go off.

I am a native Texan and I am VERY concerned about Congress negligence and lack of foresight on the illegal immigration issue. First and foremost, we have lost our national security since it is documented that the designation "other than Mexican" is one that includes known activists in terrorism and that some have crossed our borders with impunity.

Domestically, we have an erosion of local economies, such as is happening in Farmers Branch, wherein absentee landlords rent to people without even knowing how many people live in that house. Where the taxes on one single family house provides roads, water, sewage, education and health benefits, it is not equitable when two, three or four families live in the same house or apartment. Landlords have few tools to control this. Schools and social/welfare offices are swamped with giving aide and special programs for these illegal immigrants. In addition, if they are working on the books, they have to be using fraudulent ID's and that is IDENTITY THEFT, which could seriously ruin someone's retirement.

Finally, I think that there are some members of Congress who are intent on making it possible for illegal immigrants to vote. It is already happening on a local level, although it should be denied by the Supreme court. How can we be sure that people are voting legally when we can't even ask for a valid ID? If we can do criminal background checks on PTSA moms, soccer coach dads and Sunday School teachers, then we should be able to LEGALLY expect identification for something as serious as voting. I am very concerned and I am NOT ALONE. I will be watching to see what is done in regards to this issue.

As I said before, I know I am not your specific constiguent, but I am a voter. And I am a blogger. And I do as much as I can to get information into the hands of those who will vote. While you may be able to wrap up California for your candidate on this issue, I promise you that in Texas, it won't be that easy, because we are running out of money, out of time, and out of patience.

Define ExtraCurricular

Extracurricular-Adj. That which is outside the normal curriculum.

What happened to the idea of extracurricular activities. Athletics, band, cheerleading were all things that you elected to do as something BEYOND the basic realm of classes. Yet now we have actual classes, with, I assume, actual curriculums, syllabi and standards. Why is this? Is it that we have caved in to the parents who want their children's every breath given credit weight? Or have administrators become so dazzled by the reflected glory on the ball field that they throw huge amounts of money for staffing, equipment and facilities toward these non-academic pastimes. And that is what they are. Like it or not, cheerleading is NOT a class. It's an activity. Like it or not football and baseball and basketball are all activities-not classes. Sure, you can learn to block, or learn to hit, or learn to throw a layup-but it's still not intellectually stimulating. Now I know many kids think this is the only way for them to get a college education. And that is the fault of a society which is so enamored with celebrities that we now have celebrities that are famous for such things as behaving badly, going to rehab and wrecking cars. This worshipful attitude towards those who are seen as talented has got to change. People often wonder where these young athletes and stars develop such horrible personalities. Maybe it's because rather than teaching them to read and think, all their schools and parents concentrated on what how cute they were, how talented they were or how good they were at athletics. Some kids are really good at working this type of minor fame into excuses for dismissing ignorance, stupidity and out and out self-centered behavior. If they are talented enough they work their ways through college being coddled for their fame until they either graduate or move onto some major league or field of work where such hubris is appreciated. What are we teaching them when we value those superficial things over the real meat of education? When was the last time your school had a pep rally for the Debate team? Or the Math Club? Or the Academic Decathalon team? I know my school hasn't and probably never will since almost all of the administrators in my district are ex-coaches. I am not saying athletics and such aren't important, but as the Greeks said, in all things "balance". And we are dreadfully unbalanced right now.

If They Can't Drive, Should They Have This Power?

Our state, Texas, is currently being lobbied via radio ads to support a bill that claims to "support good teachers." That is a bit of a misdirection. What the bill intends to do is pay a stipend to teachers based on their students' achievement. On paper that may seem harmless or even beneficial. But in reality what it will do is leave many teachers at the mercy of their students. In some cases, that isn't a bad thing, but let's face it, out there in lala land, there are parents that think it's no big deal for a kid to take a day off from school. I have had parents write excuses ranging from as serious as a death in the family to as assinine as "getting a tan before prom." Now there are reasons to be absent. As I have posted before, I don't like kids coming to my classroom sick. It isn't healthy, it spreads viruses and I am always the first one to catch anything coming down the pike. In addition, AYP is based on total students in attendance. When kids start taking off for silly reasons, our rating suffers. The final blow with the tie in between testing and income is that there are kids who do not care what they make on the test. They could be brilliant, but they stall and sleep and do everything they can to drag out the test and avoid going to class. TAKS week is a nightmare because I don't see half my classes at all. And that includes my AP classes. Should we really base pay and compensation on the whim of someone who will take an unnamed pill or sneak out to a party? Parents say we must, but those are quite often the same parents who write totally lame and unfounded excuses for everything from absences to missing homework. At what point are the adults going to take charge again? More and more teachers are leaving education due to burn out. Thank God my class isn't a core class, and I would rather cut off my right arm than ever teach a Language Arts class again. What was begun as an experiment to produce drones for H. Ross Perot's little Metropolis, have become the Golem of Doom that stomps and slaughters without rhyme or reason. This type of bill, that would set compensation based on test scores will make teaching even more remote, push those with marginal students to cheat, and lead to scores of lawsuits. I just don't see this as being worthwhile. But then again, according to these same folks teachers should be facilitators and all our technology should be geared to do the teaching. RIIIIIIIIIGGGGHHHHHHHHT.

Back to Reality?

So how soon will the public forget? How long after OKC or 9/11 did we sink back into the sticky goo of complacency and reality TV? I wish I could forget. I was talking to another teacher today and she said, "wow, do you realize all the events we have seen together in the past six years? 9/11, Challenger crash, so many tragedies. I wish I could right of everyday things. I wish things would return to normal. I am not even sure what normal consists of anymore.

Forgotten Hero at Virginia Tech

I think one of the most overlooked factors in the Virginia Tech tragedy is that in many college dorms student employees such as Resident Assistants are often the first line of security. One of the first victims of this madman was a popular student who happened to be a resident assistant. It's an avenue of employment that is sought by many college students because it mostly pays for the most costly aspect of college life, housing. These kids work like crazy. They have to be outgoing, smart, organized and willing to enforce rules. In short, they play parents to the entire resident population under their control. A good RA can help students bond with the school, make friends and feel part of the action.

It hit close to home, because for two years one of my own kids was an RA and knowing how those student employees are trained, I could see her trying to intervene and defend a resident and getting hurt in the process just like the second victim in this tragedy. I don't think that parents sending their kids off to school appreciate the huge load carried by these student employees. RA's are the first faces they see when they move kids in. They are the ones who organize events, who lend a shoulder to cry on and who advise students and refer them to the offices where they can get academic or personal assistance. In short, they are the face of any university housing department.

Resident Assistants have to be the eyes and ears of administrative staff in regards to everything from code violations to criminal offenses. I know my daughter had to deal with fires, drug busts, assaults, theft and vandalism as a 19 year old. There was even one time that she had to deal with a student who threatened to kill his roomate. She called the police, security, the locksmith and then gave the offender a tongue lashing as the police cuffed him. These young people are given an inordinate amount of personal responsibility. And quite often they rise to the occasion. In this sad case, I am sure the RA tried to prevent the initiation of this tragedy. How sad that the messages conveyed by the perpetrators writings were ignored. Sometimes it is wise to trust gut instinct and to choose on the side of error or doubt rather than adhere to the motto of polictically correct blind acceptance.

In many universities it is campus policy that students who were suicidal or violent were told to leaving housing due to the potential for injury of student employees. In some schools there are teams to evaluate seriously sick and disturbed students. But in too many cases abhorrent thoughts and erratic behavior is dismissed as being normal, because too many times the odd is seen as normal in the light of college life. To attend a party where you know no one is "exciting" to take drugs or drink drinks that you have no idea of the contents is seen to be a rite of passage by some. Our schools, in seeking intellectual freedom have forgotten that it must be tempered with caution and responsible behavior. When the system fails, as it did in this case, there needs to be change. Maybe there needs to be a more authoritative presence in college dorms to avoid such events. In decade past a dorm mother would control the activities of the house. In the past, curfews were enforced for reasons of student security.

Too much freedom can be just as scary as too little. We could simply eliminate student employees to take them out of harm's way, but then we end up depriving students of much needed campus employment. Perhaps in the end we should consider dissolving some of the research programs and providing enough money for scholarships so that students won't end up having to work to attend college and for adults on site with the authority to provide a safer environment for all students on campus.

Cocoons and Why They Can Be Deadly-Va. Tech

There is no question in my mind that the actions today at Virginia Tech were the actions of a madman. In many ways your average preschool class is far more wary of strangers than the average college student. We spend all our time and effort pressing kids to ignore differences and embrace diversity. This attitude has made is an anti-social act to declare someone unbalanced or just plain nuts. We have conditioned an entire generation to the Sesame Street philosophy that everyone is "okay". Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.

Our society's insulation of this generation of children from the dangerous, the stupid and the outright deadly has made them believe that they are made of titanium and cannot be destroyed. Your average teenager already has the idea that they are invincible, but our overprotective culture has fostered the idea that there is always someone else to blame-some corporation, some political party, some faceless group. But most serious crimes are perpetrated by individuals. It's much easier for an individual nut to cause serious harm than a group, because like your average rodent, they are harder to catch individually. That's why suicide bombers are so deadly. And so rightly feared.

But when it comes back to how we have raised kids dually to think that their every whim is to be fulfilled and that nobody can harm them, we set up a situation where the common sense ideas of personal security and personal responsibility become secondary to personal wants over needs. I am not in any way saying that these victims deserved this fate because no innocent person deserves to die like this. When I have students who have never seen the towers fall from 9/11 or who have no concept that doors are locked and curfews imposed for their own safety, then we have a problem.

There is no cocoon more complacent than a college campus. People leave doors unlocked to sneak in and out playing the eternal games of boy meets girl. People loan books, keys, laptops, apartments and cars to those that they barely know. Parties are thrown where even the host has no idea who most of the people attending are, or where they came from. This makes for good film footage on MTV Spring Break, but unless we start expecting our young people to use basic common sense on a daily basis, we are going to end up with a generation that runs cars into walls expecting insurance companies and lawyers to run to the rescue. Our nation was founded on the ideal of personal responsibility. When pioneers moved west they lived on their own, miles away from others. To fail was to die.

Today, failure is seen as a process, often one to be encouraged. And while I don't think failure should be met with death, sometimes in the real world, that is what happens. When you fail to alert an administrator or a boss that someone is acting odd or when you allow someone to enter without knowing who they are, or when you fail to use the instincts with which we are all blessed and allow bad things to happen through absentminded neglect, you are setting into motion situations that don't need to occur. There is no doubt that this is a tragedy. And it's one that people will talk about for awhile. That's good, but unless everyone is willing to take the steps necessary to make sure our kids are taking responsibility for their own safety, then it will someday happen again.

Breaking the Social Contract

Part of what has kept our nation together is a shared vision of what is acceptable and unacceptable within our society. For a long time there were social taboos such as cursing, nudity and such that were not part of the fabric of everyday life. There was this mutual agreement between total strangers that such things weren't part of what our society considered "normal". Fast forward to today and you find that even the word "normal" is seen as suspicious and even derogatory. At what point did we as a group decide to allow our society to be co-opted by the seamy underbelly of life? I recall refusing to let my elementary aged children access to The Simpsons. Their friends made sure that they felt left out and backward, but in truth, I have never thought that The Simpsons, no matter how funny, were meant as a show for kids. Similar words and concepts that would never have been mentioned in polite society are now part of everyday conversation. I really can't believe that everyone is comfortable with this. I still squirm when I watch some shows and my now 18 and 21 year old sons are in the room. It's not a false sense of modesty, instead it's sense that there are some things that the average person doesn't need to make public. I personally don't give a damn about what people do in their private lives so long as it doesn't impact me or my family. Marry a hamster for all I care, but dont' tell me the gory details of the wedding night.

The social contract goes beyond matters of taste. Just the idea that we all stop at a four way stop sign is something based on mutual trust. But do you really trust that stranger across the road? More and more the answer should probably be no, because red lights, speed and roadrage are all acceptable behavior in our shredded social fabric. Even those things that are against the law have armies of apologists waiting to make nice when someone drives under the influence and kills someone else's kid. This is one of the big reasons I would never support legalization of pot-we already have parents willing to buy their kids' popularity with an unsupervised house and a keg of beer, I can't even imagine the carnage if kid start getting into their parents stash. And what about the way that children and infants are seen more as money sources than as people. Just this week a nine month old was killed when his psycho mom stole an SUV on a test drive and got into a police chase. The baby was lying in the front seat when the Mom flipped the car. Other mothers keep quiet when their live in boyfriends or sometimes husbands abuse their kids physically, mentally and sexually. And the mothers stand by and watch. Are we so desperate to fit into this illusion of life that we sacrifice innocents? Where is the outrage in the community, because this is far more devastating than any remote racism or perceived slight? Where are the protests over stupid mothers that sacrifice their kids? And when did it become okay to do anything you please? Are we a nation of three year olds, incapable of deferring our pleasures for even a moment? We seem to need to be tied into a web of communication and honestly, I don't think anyone is really saying anything important. That's probably a good thing, because I dont' think anyone is really listening.

All of these precedents are filtering down to our kids. While their are great kids out there, there are also kid who think the Bill of Rights includes a new car on your sixteenth birthday. Some kids think that school and work and anything else is only worth as much as it gives you pleasure or money. They are becoming shallow and vain and very very spoiled. And this isn't just the rich kids, but all of the kids. Their parents either simply do not pay attention to them and shove money instead OR they are too busy trying to be their buddies. This isn't the way to build a nation. We need some rules. And some shared values. And some serious talk about deferring immediate gratification for higher, bigger and better life goals. We need to do this soon or we are going to end up with kids that live their lives as if they are on a reality show=except nobody is there to rescue you if you fall.

Our "Exceptional" Society

ex·cep·tion·al - ɪkˈsɛpʃənl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ik-sep-shuh-nl] –adjective

1.	forming an exception or rare instance; unusual; extraordinary: The warm weather was exceptional for January.

2.	unusually excellent; superior: an exceptional violinist.

3.	Education. (of a child) a. being intellectually gifted. b. being physically or esp. mentally handicapped to an extent that special schooling is required.

Once upon a time, being exceptional was not the norm. It meant you did incredibly better than your peers. You were to be admired and respected. Such was the past of exceptionality.

Fast forward to today and now EVERYONE is exceptional. But today it doesn't mean that you are necessarily good at anything. Or perhaps you are good at one thing. And that would be avoiding the rules, restrictions and laws that control everyone else. These days it isn't a rare occurence for a schoolday fight to be countered with the excuse "but he's on the.....team" or for a drinking binge to be excused by the comment "but she's a cheerleader." What follows is amazing and will probably result in the child's destruction somewhere down the road. Because what follows is the parental expectation that the oh so strict rules they desire in place will be applied to every child but their own. Our courts, our school yards, our dormitories and our offices are filling up with a generation that thinks they can do no wrong and that their very words are golden. Every sniffle, every small milestone is puffed up into an event status. And those true rights of passage events like prom and graduation take on the trappings of a coronation. It is frightening to see seventh graders arrive for their first day of school in a limo. It is equally terrifying to overhear supposedly concerned moms talk about providing "safe places to drink" for after prom. What happened to the rules?

If you listen to the media, there's public outcry and demand for harder rules and strict and swift punishment. But what actually happens is that when an incident occurs-whether as simple as a kid getting a zero for not working or as serious as drug use or weapons on campus, there's always a parent there with a ready excuse. Sometimes these excuses go so far as to exemplify the young person as a "wronged" individual. Something like this happened in a city north of Dallas, where a fourteen year old shoved a teachers' aide, breaking her arm. She was sent to court and offered probation if her mother would supervise her better and make sure she got counseling. The mother refused. And the girl ended up in juvenile custody for over a year. But the story doesn't stop there. The student is African American. Since she is a minor, her record is sealed-but while her mother claims the girls was an innocent victim, others in the community cite the girl as a problem child. The mother gets a local hiphop station to protest. The girl is ultimately released, but only because of overcrowding. Now I ask you, what would you do with a student, and this girl isn't a petite thing, who shoves and breaks the arm of a school employee? Do you look the other way? And what of the mother? Why would she rather her daughter spend time in juvey than accept probation and serve it out? Doesn't that smack of dependent neglect?

This is just a small example of what our society is becoming. And if doesn't end there. As these big babies move into employment, the seem to think they can jet off from work with impunity. Imagine their shock when they get fired. And it happens over and over again. Have sex, make a baby, oops too much stress, run away. That's the pattern. Someone is always there to make the excuse. You can almost hear the parents chanting "he's too pressured, she's too stressed, he's an athlete, AEP will ruin her life, she's a cheerleader, he's on student council....." How long do they keep up the chant? I know of students who in college got pregnant. Now in most stories this would cause them to mature and take their lives into control. But not these kids. Nope, their parents pay for a luxury apartment, with a washer and dryer and cable and all the amenities. The pay for their car and car insurance. And the reason is "we want them to finish school ." Well, what was once four years has morphed into seven. The kids still count on that check from mom and dad every month. And as their parents retirement accounts dwindle and their parents keep working into their mid 60's and 70's-at some point the parents will either become too old to work or drop dead trying to support these Big Babies and their insatiable, intolerable narcissism. And the parents support these activities.

Please understand, I am a parent. There are times you support your kids. But there are also times you allow them to learn that they can support themselves. To constantly run interference for every bad decision insulates kids from the consequences. If they don't learn when they are nine or ten that bad decision sometimes created bad results, then we end up with adults who don't understand that they can't cook the books, or steal the profits or insider trade. While much is made of the ravages of street crime and white collar crime, not very much is said about the situations that create criminals. Most experienced teachers can tell you who the scam artists are. They know which kids have parents who offer structure and accountability, because those kids are usually well behaved, responsible and independent. Only those that have serious developmental or disability issues will have parents going to bat. Teachers can also tell which kids have parents too busy trying to be friends rather than enforcing rules. They come to school dressed as a gangster or a thug, or wearing peekaboo blouses and slashed jeans. When parents are called about any violation, the parent either doesn't show up, or starts demanding for teachers to be fired. Kids learn early on how to play people. And when the adult in their lives takes on the people who are demanding accountability, then they learn that rules can be broken and that they can get away with doing so by pouting, appearing remorseful or simply lying through their teeth. And that is just with small things. Locally we have had numerous incidents with cheerleaders drinking and performing aerial stunts, baseball players using steroids and wrestlers charged with hazing and sexual abuse. At what point do these activities stop being "high school hijinks" and become serious repetitive criminal behavior. Are we raising a generation of sociopaths?

Ultimately this creates an Ethic Vacuum where the kid assumes ANY behavior is excuseable. We had this demonstrated locally by the son of a locally placed DA. At age 16, the son was charged with shooting at girls at a local playground with a pellet gun. The result was a case tied up in court for over two years. At age 17, the same boy shot a shotgun at his fence, scaring workers nextdoor half to death. Once again, a case held up in court. Finally, at age 18, he tried to buy beer with a fake ID and when the clerk tried to stop him, the boy punched him and stole a case of beer. NOW he's in jail. But if his issues with authority and behavior had been addressed earlier, he wouldn't have an adult record. Now it becomes a permanent part of his history, one that employers and others can refer to when they need to make decisions about personnel. I do not think our society can endure with an entire generation of self-serving quasi-criminals. At some point someone is going to have to step in and say "enough". Right now these kids are young adults-I shudder to think what havoc they will generate as they age. And I wonder what further exploits the good kids of this generation are going to have to pay for via higher taxes, more laws and further invasion of privacy.

This Is What Fraud Looks Like-

I came across this little film clip from Australian news outlets. It tells about a man who has two wives, claims the right under religious freedom, and then proceeds to pick the pockets of taxpayers via public support. It's not unlike what many are doing here in the US by entering illegally then demanding education,health and social services, for which they do not pay. How long is it going to take for the people of the free world to realize that there is a flock of human locusts whose sole selfish intent is their own welfare-no matter how much it exploits the rights of others.

The Power of Cheese

Every once and awhile you read something that catches your attention so much that you wish YOU had written it. Such is the case with The Power of Cheese. Written by the clever Mister Teacher, it is the view of someone in the frontline trenches of education. For those of you out of the loop, "cheese" is a lovely new concoction of black tar herion and liquid tylenol. It's highly addictive, cheap enough for ten year olds and it is tearing through certain lower middle class sectors of our area. Although I felt guilty, I did laugh. You will feel guilty and laugh too. I wish the reason for the article wasn't so damned sad.

What Price Fame?Or, R U Sick of Reality Shows?

I've been wondering about this for awhile. Of course, Andy Warhol predicted this when he said "in the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes." Little did he know how true this would become. I think the first reality show I ever watched was on MTV in the mid to late 80's. Something about people living together in a house....I forget. But now every single channel has jumped on the programming bandwagon with their own tweaked versions of Suvivor or Idol or Apprentice. Can we have a chat? What happened to creativity? What happened to doing something because it was new and different. New sells, it really does. Why else was LOST such a hit in its first season? It was a hit because it was NEW and DIFFERENT. Now that there are clones out the wazzoo for that genre as well, I have to wonder why Hollywood is even bother to pay writers anymore. They could easily go with the fill in the blank version of every plot and save themselves a bundle. Or perhaps that is what is going on. You don't see the big names writing screenplays very much any more. Instead you hear about sublevel hacks who plagiarize and risk trial to make a blockbuster that sadly enough, everyone has seen ten times before.

As for the "celebrities" we are encountering, are these people really worthy of their 15 minutes? I hate to sound petty, but in most cases the answer is no. And sometimes, hell no. I truly believe that casting diretors seek out the lowest common denominator of every socio-economic and racial profile to fill slots and then step aside to watch the mayhem. Is this really quality programming? When you watch American Idol, are you truly seeing the very best performers the country can produce? Or are we seeing a marketing ploy that send marginal performers to stratopheric heights. I know people who are serious vocal students at highly competitive programs who were told to go home from the auditions. They were told they were "too good". So Idol and its ilk are looking for the quirkly fall guys and gals to publicly ridicule. I do not call that entertainment.

I suppose part of this has to do with what this type of programming is doing to our society and our kids. We have kids who think they are going to be the next NBA first round draft pick, even when they are only 5'6" and can't jump, because our society has this irrational fear of speaking the obvious. Not every kids who plays a sport will get a scholarship. And even fewer will turn pro. And that's true for EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of life. You have to roll with the punches and work with what you are given. Yet we see time and again parents pushing kids into molds that they simply cannot or will not fill. I blame this on celebrity and reality type programming and on adults that have the common sense of moles. We have elevated celebrities to an insane level of worship and we ought to be totally demoralized. These people are just, PEOPLE. They have no super powers, no special insight. Yet we see the media turn to them in times of crisis asking "And what, Sean Penn, would you do about New Orleans?" or "How would you change the global warming prospects, Madonna?" PUH-freakin-LEEZ. With a few exceptions, celebrities are among the least educated and the most narcissistic subset of the population and they gauge their every utterance on how it will play in the media. Can you really trust a person who is more concerned with what camera angle the photographer is getting than the down the line side-effects of their lame comments?

It's No Fun Anymore

Okay, I admit it, I was one of those starry eyed student teachers who loved school so much that I decided to stay in school for life. I loved the reading, the writing and even the arithmetic. I enjoyed the flow of days from Autumn through Spring. I enjoyed new pencils and tablets of paper and the smell of new crayons. And up until now, with a few small glitches, I still enjoyed the turn of the wheel. I am not sure I feel that way anymore. Not after today.

See, I am one of these teachers who likes to bring students into the program and tries to find some way, any way, that they can work. But I can't fight a gossip campaign, especially when it comes from inside the school. For some reason this year, our freshman class has been particularly and some would even say, deliberately, immature. There are some great kids, but there is a prevailing character of disrespect, destruction and chaos that makes it difficult for the good kids to get the education they deserve. This isn't the kind of inner city urban issue that one associates with a mass exodus of teachers, but it does give one pause. I seldom write referrals, and this year I have written more in one class than I have in the entire previous year. Students are often defiant, refusing to do work, and their parents support this behavior. They justify this by claims of teacher retaliation backed up by reports from the student in the class. What is worse, we have a good number of students whose parents work in the school. The athletic director's wife works in an office, the basketball coaches wife is an aide and so on. So if one of these parent-educators decides they don't like you or your class, then they begin a whispering campaign. And since they live in the neighborhood with most of the kids, what begins as a whisper can become a roar.

I had a conference today. It seems that in comparing a student to one of my favorite students from the past, I have inadvertently labeled the student. I am not sure how comparing a student to another good student is bad, but for some reason it is in the eyes of this parent. Because of this, her student has done little or no work, barely passed the exam (which was a scantron test, but somehow it's my fault the student nearly failed...) and according to the views of this parent, his lack of work is justified. I am not really sure how much of this is the student making excuses and how much of it is the parent taking things way out of context, but if it weren't making my life so depressing and stressful I would have to laugh. This kid plays a sport. A highly competitive sport. I wasn't an athlete, but my dad was a coach. I have been around coaches and they don't mince words when it comes to making corrections on the field or court. So I have to believe that our coaches must go up and whisper corrections to our athletes, because according to this parent, the child has never been told to sit down to be quiet or to not throw paper in class. I know in the vast scheme of things, this is small potatoes. But when you see and hear and have to deal with these sometimes irrational and demanding parents, it wears you down. It makes teachers who care and who work hard figure that it just isn't worth the time and effort. And as they teachers wear out or burn out, they either simply stop teaching or they quit.

I have this recurring nightmare where I have a heart attack while in class. And as I lie on the floor, the students throw things at me and taunt me. It's a scary dream. And I would like to think that such a thing wouldn't happen because I know there are some good students out there. But then again, how much longer can this nation last if we continue to feel that we must extend parenting to the point of suffocation. We aren't allowing our kids to suffer the consequences of bad choices. Too many kids are rescued at the lower levels of mischief which allows them to think they can do anything they want. That ends when they turn 18, but I still hear of parents bailing out kids who have gotten on drugs, or are in jail, or pregnant or any of a million other circumstances. Fifty years ago, at 18, many parents would tell a kid that they were on their own and have a nice life. Now we encourage kids to live at home until they are thirty. Such constant attention destroys a kid's self-confidence. And it erodes the sense of responsibility. How can we expect these people as adults to make good choices, when we never allow them to fail until their parents die or retire?

Other Voices Dispute Global Warming Religion

In the title is another link by the BBC. The BBC isn't known for its political conservatism, yet it does have a profound respect for the work ethic that goes into making scientific pronouncements. Global Warming has transcended the level of an issue and become for all intents and purposes a quasi-religion. And it has become a religion whose followers harken back to the bad old days of the Inquisition complete with the verbal and emotional tribulations that period experienced. Are we as citizens of the 21st century going to allow political rhetoric, most likely centered with the Green Party platform as filtered through the Democrat Party, to drive our industries, our jobs, our way of life out the door for science that doesn't even hold up under the most cursory of examinations? I am not one who thinks that we should stop recycling or waste resources, but that is because I am conservative by nature and true conservatives don't waste anything. Instead professionals who have written and studied the environment for years are being driven out of their jobs, away from chairmanships for even expressing the slightest doubt in the Gospel According to St. AlGore. Galelio was excommunicated by similar folks for daring to say that the Earth orbited the Sun rather than the other way around. And in the end he was right! Are we going to force ourselves into narrow, draconian methods of change, just for the sake of change rather than for ample cause? Are we going to continue to let half-baked, ill-informed media hype be the central diet of our learning? Is so, then perhaps we deserve what will happen, which will be an economically shattered nation and a political infrastructure run by self-serving hacks.

Modern Pantheon

I have been thinking about this quite a bit, especially since the seemingly endless brouhaha surrounding Anna Nicole Smith's untimely, and very publicly exposed, death. As I teach about ancient civilizations, especially those more well known such as Greece and Rome, I have to wonder if we are truly talking about deities that popped out of someone's imagination, or if instead, they are the much enlarged versions of real people. Follow me here. I read a few years back that our constant display of Elvis would lead archaeologists of the future to believe that we worshiped him. With the internet, text messaging, YouTube and a vast array of local, national and global news networks, it isn't a far step of logic to see that a valiant warrior could be Mars, a voluptuous woman-Venus, a scary old guy-Jupiter. If that is the case, are we currently building religions based on public opinion? The concept is scary. I could see a future St. Algore-patron saint of natural gas. Or how about St. Dontrump-patron saint of self promotion? Maybe even minor gods and goddesses that would help our tumbled down civilization cope with the tribulations that have befallen them. The Romans had a word for this raising of the human to the celestial realm. It was called apotheosis. Several monuments exist to the new "gods" such as Hadrian or Titus. Arches and temples were often build in honor of their assumption to the role of "god". When you watch Access Hollywood, or any of those other tabloid shows, it is just possible that you are increasing the strength of this person to evade the death of their image. Oh yes, they will still die, in a human way, but their legends will live on. Look at Elvis or Marilyn Monroe, JFK, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King. There exploits and visions have been elevated while any question of impropriety is eliminated. Look at Paris and her ravaged pack of harpies-do they not look like people who would lure innocent sailors to their deaths simply as a matter of amusement. And then there are those celebrities who seem intent on causing problems, often verbally lashing out at those who cross them near and far. Could there be a better Medusa than Rosie O Donnell? I will admit, I am being a bit flippant with this topic, but there is a serious issue here, we as a culture have got to drop the ancient Greek philosophy that believes "that which is beautiful, is also good." I am not saying that beautiful people cannot be good people, but there seems to be this entire cult that exonerates the beautiful people who break the law, hurt others or in other ways go against the grain of the primary culture. A perfect example was on Jay Leno the other night. In his monologue, he was discussing yet another sordid story about a female teacher having sex with a male student. But this time the woman was immediately arrested. He followed up with a question, "What happened to that teacher in the south who got away with the same thing? Can we show her picture?" The image of a strange Barbie-like female, blonde, blue eyed and overdone showed up on the screen. Then Jay asked for the image of the arrested teacher to be shown and it ended up that teacher was middle aged and frumpy. They both committed the same crime, did the same things, but on the virtue of beauty and a well placed tear, the pretty one got away with it. Our society has got to begin placing more emphasis on the inner being rather than the packaging. And sadly enough, I think it is mainly the American culture that has this immature and shallow bias. I had an exchange student from Peru. In class we saw the tragic story of a girl from New York who was hit by a drunk driver and dreadfully disfigured by the ensuing fire. Another student murmured, "Oh what a shame, she was so pretty." And my exchange student replied, "Wouldn't it be just as sad if she wasn't pretty?" And that sums it up, in a nutshell. Think about it.

In Defense of Public Education

I just finished reading a laundry list of complaints on a blog I regularly read from Right Wing on the Left Coast. In it I found a series of complaints, concerns and general dithering in regards to education. Some of the more salient points had to do with the status of teachers as union members, and it that regard I do believe that teachers by and large did themselves no favors by aligning with the likes of Teamsters and the AFL/CIO. I understand the why of their organization into union status, I just do not see how the union goals reflect those of their members or how the union has done ANYTHING to improve the lot of the average hardworking teacher. Instead I see huge benefits for union bosses as well as a great deal of support for teachers that have no business anywhere near a child, much less in the classroom. In those things, I agree with the writer.

In other respects, I have to disagree with the writer's disregard for public education. Public schools do a very difficult and very necessary job. The concept of offering a free public education is one of the cornerstones of our nation and what separated the American experience from that of its European roots due to the idea that ANYONE could excel and succeed. Public education is a key part of that concept. By law public schools MUST offer and fulfil the educational needs of any child who comes through the door. When we were ethically and morally a more homogenous society, this was an easier quest. We now have a range from absentee parents who either totally neglect their children in pursuing their own dreams or through helicopter parents who hover and micromanage their children's education all the while undercutting teachers and destroying their children's ability to fend for themselves. (I have even heard rumors from college professors that some helicopter parents will call the college to dispute grades-and people wonder why kids don't move out until they are forty...)We have become a society that is far to ready too blame others rather than seeking the root of the problem. Perhaps it is that Johnny needs glasses or Sally is diabetic or Gregory has a learning disability. But it also just as likely that Johnny's parents took him out of school for a ski trip, Sally's parents don't check to make sure she has a snack and is on her meds and Gregory is far too overscheduled to pay attention to the work that is involved with schoolwork. And when children fail, too many parents would rather blame the school than look for solutions.

Too many parents, often the more affluent groups at that, are anxiously pointing their fingers at the public school down the road, siting it as the source for all that is wrong in their neighborhood. That may be true. Or just as likely, it may not. Parents like to think that when they enroll their kids in a private school, that their tuition check assures that their children are well and safely educated. In some cases that is true, but any school whether private or public, is only as good as its personnel, its students and its parent support. I see parents selling candy and t-shirts and the ever popular coupon book all the time to support the athletic teams, the band, the choir, the debate team and so on. When was the last time you saw a booster club for academics? Oh there may be the rare case of a Academic Decathalon team getting props, but by and large parents like to support the headliners. And in most schools that has little to do with core academics. Private schools are able to delete programs that impede progress. While some private schools do have extracurricular activities, most of them are student funded and after school-which is the true meaning of extracurricular-outside the normal curriculum. Public schools incorporate them into the school day, the conventional wisdom being that too many kids can't stay after school. As such these programs cut into the academic day, shortening exposure to academic classes. (In one sad sidenote, when a kid at a city public high school got drunk and paid his buddy to ride his motorcycle, without a helmet, and ran into a tree and died, the epithet "Rest In Peace----" with the kid's name were on cars at all the local schools including a very exclusive Dallas Christian school. The moral is, the kids that party all know each other and that boundaries don't exist when you are seeking more and better ways of getting high...)

Another way that school differ is that private schools have charters and rules that allow them to kick out any student that is not performing to the written code and standard. It is a nasty secret, but private schools also demand parental participation. Public schools want that participation, but have no power to demand it. As a high school teacher, I have seen less than ten parents at a "Meet the Teacher" night at our school. (And of course, those are never ever the parents of the problem child that doesn't do work or shows up to class high.) That kind of lackadaisical attitude is frowned upon at private schools where sales of spirit wear, candy and such are daily events. And failure to participate as a parent can cause a student to lose his or her place unless the absence is replaced with cold, hard cash. Public schools do not have the luxury of dismissing students that fail to progress or with parents that never show up, and in fact public schools need every kid in a seat to generate state funding and to account for every penny they get from the state. Since the public schools are mandated to educate every student that comes in the door, a draconian hierarchy of assessment and testing and support for learning disabilities and language acquisition has to be in place. Those types of folks cost money. And that cuts more into the ever dwindling pie of funding. Ironically when I worked at a highly rated private school, they would send their children with disabilities to Scottish Rite Hospital or the nearest public school for help-all the while still accepting tuition from the student. In a further moment of irony, the most notorious pot dealer in the area was in my eighth grade homeroom. So much for safety and innocence.

So the premise that public schools are failing is somewhat biased because not all schools are failing. Some public schools outdo their private counterparts. And some students that fail in private schools excel in public schools. I know that it's popular for conservatives, for the most part, and affluent parents to condemn the public school education as inferior. But I don't think they are looking past SAT and state testing scores when they make these claims. One of my most extremely liberal friends was adamant about staying in their Uptown condo and had their kids in private schools, not considering that many of the inner city and uptown private schools are dealing with the same issues as the public schools. When she realized her daughter had a reading disability which the school couldn't address with a trained professional on staff, they moved to a competitive suburb, where her child flourished. Not all private schools are better, in fact I would say that some of the lower echelon privates are worse due to uncertified teachers and lack of professional oversight. While public school scandals make the headlines due to the public nature of the situation, I have heard my share of equally haircurling episodes from the parents of private school students.

There are many things that a student can learn in a diverse environment. In fact the whole concept of a true university situation is that students from all backgrounds attend and share their perspectives. (That doesn't mean that it happens in today's university setting, but that was the original intent...)And since our world isn't a homogeneous population, its important that students learn to deal with those who come from different backgrounds. This isn't just a liberal rant, because I consider myself fairly conservative. But all my kids went to public schools and although I have had my differences with individual teachers, they recieved a better than average education. I attended a public school and I feel like I had a better grounding in a wider variety of subjects than many of the students I attended SMU with, many who came from very rarified and costly prep schools. But as a parent and a consumer, you have to investigate the schools and pick the right location, whether the school is public or private. My parents,especially my mom who was a teacher, were informed consumers. They looked for a good district and made the sacrifices necessary to allow me and my brother to have a good education. The difference was that when my parents chose to move, they looked at the schools FIRST then made decisions about housing. My husband and I did the same thing when time came for us to move. Many parents are far more entranced by the chichi location or their own personal comfort to address the issues of education until their children become old enough to go to school. And quite often, real estate trends being what they are, the parents end up selling low or not being able to move at all. You have to plan ahead.

As for the intangibles of public education, there is much to be said for having a wide range of friends. My children accept people more readily and learned to function in diverse and competitive environments. They have been able to experience a much wider and more varied range of experiences thanks to being in a public school. My kids all read and can argue and discuss topics from contemporary music to history and politics, as do most of their peers in school because different readings and cultures came together not just to agree, but to learn to defend one's personal beliefs. In our increasingly diverse culture, this is a necessary suvival tactic. Those kids that only hang out with the same group are the kids who never move past the limitations of stereotype. As a society, we must learn to deal with everyone in an evenhanded manner-public education encourages that because if the student wants to excel, they can take action to make it happen. This particular district is an inner ring suburb with a changing and diverse population, yet most of the students graduate, go on to training or college and manage to succeed. How this happens is that parents get involved. Teachers make sure communication lines stay open. Administrators facilitate teachers getting the support and materials and time to adequately teach their classes. And students take charge by being allowed to control their education and become owners of their education plans. I have seen it work. Similar plans work in public and private schools across the nation-but it has to be driven by the students and parents, the schools are only the medium for success.

To simply say that one type of school has failed or succeeded is to ignore the factors that cause this to happen. Any school, no matter the type, will fail if students are absent too often, if parents refuse to support the school and if administrators fail to care and let it show. Everyone has to show up every day ready to rock and roll. I don't see this as an indictment of the public school system, nor praise. There is no doubt that things could be done better. More time in academics core classes and less time on extracurricular programs would impact every school in a positive way. Although this will make many parents cringe, we could spend less money on our athletics teams. Face it, very few of them are worthy of full ride scholarships and in the long run the perceived camaraderie of athletics does become divisive within the student population. Decent and timely materials and smaller classes would allow better student and teacher contact and possibly prevent so many of the problems with drop outs and such. In short, public schools are doing what we can within the limits of our location and budget. Public schools have been the whipping boy for both political parties and that isn't fair when you consider that public schools have been pressed into carrying the load of social programs aimed toward children. That we don't hit homeruns every time has as much to do with the student, the parents and the curriculum as it does the school and staff. There's no question we could do better, but in many ways our hands are tied by regulations that have little to do with teaching a kid to read, write and think. Public schools are necessary. They are essential to our shared culture. And if we allow public education to go by the wayside, we will end up with a caste system that makes feudal Europe look like a cakewalk.

I think in this regard, Benjamin Franklin stated it best
"We should all hang together, or we shall surely hang separately."

Education and Stunted Emotional Growth

<span >It isn't often that I find myself at a loss for words. But this is one of those times. I have been teaching for awhile now off and on. And while the burden of education sometimes gets to me, overall it's been a good experience. In short, I can handle the stress. So imagine my surprise when I return to school after a two day planned absence, and find frantic emails from a parent because I moved her son away from his best friend. I could understand if I was abusive or even mildly sarcastic, but I wasn't even in the room. I choose to periodically move students for two reasons, it breaks up cliques and it helps kids learn to accept others outside their comfort zone. I find that if I leave the same kids together for the entire term, their work suffers. In this kids case, he's a typical freshman. Goofy, inattentive, male-normal behavior includes talking, flirting, throwing stuff and generally playing around rather than working. To avoid the plummeting of his grade, I moved him from the back of the room to the front of the room. Immediately his mother emails me frantic to know WHY OH WHY did I move her son? WHY OH WHY didn't I contact her first? First of all, I have the absolute right to place kids where they need to be. This may mean at the front, in a desk rather than a table or even out in the hall if they are disruptive. But instead of accepting that her kid was throwing paper airplanes and generally doing everything but work, she wants a full blown meeting with counselors and principals and the like. I suppose I could understand if the kid was failing, or even if he had been sent to the office, but neither of these events have occurred. So instead of taking care of work during my planning period Monday, I will be spending time listening to some overwrought mother whine because little Boopsie isn't seated next to his friends. I wish I could simply say "tough sh*t" but my professionalism prevents it. I don't know where in the Constitution it says that this generation is supposed to be protected not only from harm, but from disappointment, but it seems as if there are two groups of parents working in the system today: Those that don't care, and those that care to the point of impairing their own childrens' growth. I swear that if they could the former would ship kids to camp for 18 years and the latter would put them in a box surrounded by cotton batting and bubble wrap. If you don't let your child learn to make decisions, and make the child live with the consequences of those decisions, then you end up with college students that do stupid, self-destructive things like binge drinking and running up thousands of dollars in debt on credit cards. Those parents who make every step a safe one and every negative situation a happy ending are setting their children up for a life filled with disappointment. In the real world, bad things happen. It's unfortunate and sad, but if you spend your time dwelling on the negative, you never grow up and make it to the positive aspect of this thing we call life. Parents, allow your kids to grow up. And teachers, don't let parents bully you into making school work, homework or tests any easier than they should be.

Sacred and Profane

What happened to civil conversation? What happened to not saying whatever explitive came into mind? What happened to having some personal restraint? Are we as individuals so out of control that we have to blurt out whatever pops into our heads no matter how foul, no matter how offensive? It used to be said that good manners were the oil that made society function smoothly. But instead it seems that in too many segments of our society, it's not only acceptable, it's expected that you will converse using the foulest language, the most suggestive behavior and the most provocative content in public. And that ties into a great deal of the problem we are having in society. What happened to boundaries between your public persona and your private life? I know there were gay people before 1980-so why then did it become so paramount for everyone to tell every single sordid detail of their personal lives at work, at school or in public. Some things are simply not meant for sharing. STD's are one, and gruesome graphic gross details about someone else's personal life just isn't my cup of tea. I am not a prude. I can discuss and view Greek nudes or paintings with aplomb, but I really really really don't want to know about the personal lives of friends and co-workers on a graphic and self-serving scale. Some things were simply better left unsaid.