Let’s Talk About Urinals

Dark StoreA few years ago, in a fit of enviro-economic greenness, Wal-Mart started this thing where they didn’t turn on the lights or keep their stores tolerably warm or cool. 

Presumably this saved tens of thousands of dollars per location, but that wasn’t the stated motivation for the change. Rather, they were doing it for… ‘the environment’. Not the store environment, it seems, but the larger concept of Mother Earth and her sweaty, dark embrace. 

Needless to say, this approach was tempting for any number of organizations, including the public education institution in which I daily shared wisdom and inspired greatness at that time. We arrived one day to discover that the urinals in the faculty restrooms had been altered. 

For those of you cursed by the cruel combination of biology and social mores which makes it unlikely you’ve enjoyed observing at a urinal firsthand, they look something like this:

Urinals

Although rarely accompanied by printed instructions, common usage patterns suggest four basic steps: approach, prepare, urinate, flush. Handwashing is ideal afterwards, but that’s a different station. 

Now, though, the handle used to flush them had been removed. A very nice, commercial-quality sticker was affixed to the wall between them:

“This Urinal Does Not Require Flushing.”

Tulsa is not the most glorious of consumer meccas, but we do have a few pretty nice retail establishments and a number of malls run by ginormous international conglomerates. Only a few miles from this public education institution is one of the flashiest malls in a several-state area, and they had – a few short years before – remodeled their public restrooms and installed fancy new environmentally cozy urinals. 

Woodland Hills MallI’ll spare you the intimate details, but suffice it to say we all knew damn well what a flushless urinal looked like, and this was not it. Them fancy mall pee-ers were devoid of water, nicely decorated and scented, and had little plastic things that did I-don’t-know-what, but left you feeling modern and fresh and I’ll tell you what. 

This was the same old urinal, and the same old water, but with the flushing handle removed. 

Were further confirmation needed (it wasn’t), it wasn’t unusual for those in the building after hours for various reasons to be in the restroom when the custodian came in to clean. He usually started by pulling out some pliers and using them to flush the urinals we were unable to because of the missing handles.

“This Urinal Does Not Require Flushing.”

It so very much DID, though. It totally did. We just couldn’t. And that’s a very different thing.

Two Buckets

It was a large building, and this particular faculty restroom was located such that it was well-used throughout the day. Fall days. Winter days. Spring Days. Cold days. Warm days. 

People come in early; people stay late. Male people. Urinating people. Lots and lots of urinating people.

Plastic buckets would at least have allowed for greater volume, and been further away during these most essential interactions. As it was, by mid-afternoon even walking into the restroom was… distressing. 

“This Urinal Does Not Require Flushing.”

It took a long, sustained stream (see what I did there?) of complaints and explanations and – I’m almost ashamed to say – photographic supplements, but eventually they had the handles put back on. I’m thankful we won that particular fight, but it’s time and energy and advocating capital I’d rather have spent on something more substantive.

It also made me a Bambi-hating anti-environmentalist afraid of change and accountability or something, but no one came right out and put it that way. The annoyance from my betters was palpable, however. 

Years later, I can’t help but be reminded of the experience every time I see rhetoric slathered on top of the same old systems. It’s usually accompanied by just enough tinkering to lend credence to whatever trendy claims are being put forth, while in reality further handicapping those trying to take care of critical business.

“These may LOOK like multiple choice tests, but they’re carefully designed to measure CRITICAL THINKING!” (That’s not a thing. Multiple guess is multiple guess.)

“We’re moving towards inquiry-driven, standards-based learning!” (OUR Inquiry and OUR standards, of course.)

Yes We Can!

“Our priority is treating every child as an individual with unique strengths and interests!” (As we cram them through the dehumanizing factory model of faux enlightenment curriculum?) 

“I believe my job is to SUPPORT our Teachers, and be an Instructional Leader!” (iPad w/ evaluation rubric alert!)

“This NEXT set of state standards will be the highest expectations for all children ever anywhere in the universal highness of standardized critical thinkingly career readiness global market!” (Need I even?)

“This Urinal Does Not Require Flushing.”

The sentiment may be sincere. Sometimes we just need to cut utility costs, or get off a state naughty list, or qualify for someone’s grant money. Too often, however, selling the rhetoric requires taking steps to make things worse in order to pretend we’re making them better (see ‘Common Core’, ‘No Child Left Behind’, or pretty much anything done by President Snow for the 12 Districts).

Perhaps a better place to start would be to ask those doing the urinating or the educating (I was tempted to ponder that particular analogy further, but opted to go ‘high road’ instead) what they think might be the most helpful. Be honest about goals and motivations of other interested players. Work it out like grown-ups, crazy as that may sound.

The powers-that-be can keep taking off the allegorical handles and posting their little stickers explaining what a wonderful improvement this is, but that doesn’t make it so. We may not be able to prevent such policies, but we’re not going toilet it go unchallenged. 

It’s hard to stop the flow of information once it’s started. We’ll keep leaking our golden insights to anyone who will listen. I may sound like a bladdering idiot (that one was a stretch), but I’m here to inform those in power:

“Urinal-ot of trouble if you don’t listen. Stall if you wish, but you won’t wipe us out. Because we’re teachers. And we’re pissed.”

Flushing is most definitely required. 

Night Custodian

RELATED POST: Unintended Consequences

RELATED POST: Condemnation Bias

RELATED POST: The Elevator Is Broken

Impossible School

Impossible School

Welcome to Impossible School. I’m Blue, an adult in the building who apparently has enough time to show visitors around without sacrificing something far more useful I should be doing. That’s just the beginning of the many impossible things going on here at Impossible School! 

Let’s start with the foundation of our humble approach – the Possible Machine. I know, I know… the name sounds like a contradiction, but it’s this device which actually makes Impossible School, well… possible.

You’re familiar with pen and paper assessments, yes? (Sometimes they’re on computers, but that merely makes them more expensive – the substance is sadly the same.) Generally these ‘assessments’ make deeply flawed efforts to determine a student’s existing content knowledge. Sometimes they venture into the realm of hit’n’miss personality profiles or oversimplified learning styles. Rather ambitious for ‘Choose A, B, C, or D’, right?

The Possible Machine does this – properly – and much, much more. It allows faculty and staff critical insights into what each student needs in order to make a meaningful learning experience possible. We can, of course, never guarantee success no matter what we know or do, since student choice unfortunately remains a critical component of all education. But we CAN get SO MUCH closer to providing the best possible opportunities and pathways to each and every lil’ darling who crosses our threshold. 

Here, let’s slide into this classroom for a moment. That’s Ms. Lipsky over there, half-guiding that small circle discussion. These are kids who do best with personal interaction. They need the security that comes with structure, and they’ll read assigned material, but the information takes root and becomes meaningful when they have time to discuss it in a safe, somewhat organized environment. They’re capable of great things if they’re able to do this more often than a traditional classroom allows. 

See the young lady on the far right? She’s not saying much, is she? Normally that would be a red flag, but in her case – 

Oh! We’ve been asked to join in! Over half of the kids in this group were also identified by the Possible Machine as quite capable of professionally appropriate social skills – even at this grade level – if given a little guidance and opportunity. Consequently, they’ve been encouraged to take this sort of initiative.

No, thank you! We must continue the tour – but you’re doing great, kids!

Ah, here – Room 211. Mr. Zeller is giving a rather advanced lecture on the role of Calculus in AP Physics. You see we’re able to seat nearly 200 kids in this class, and have chosen an ‘auditorium’ style seating arrangement. Most of these students are on a self-selected Engineering track or other very #STEM sounding combinations of courses, and were identified easily and early as focused and self-driven. We have several assistants, of course, to provide individual or small group help, but you know the real challenge with this group?

Literature. They don’t naturally love literature. 

Oh, some dragon books and such, sure – but we had to use graphic novels just to build basic familiarity with the classics. We don’t bury them in it, of course, but everyone ought to know a little Jane Austen, don’t you think?

What’s that? The Purple Door? Of course we can. You’ll notice much smaller class size here, and a very relaxed dress code and casual seating arrangements. These students have a variety of needs and gifts, but what they have in common is a lack of intrinsic interest in academic subjects like math or history and varying levels of unsupportive or even chaotic home environments. 

Thanks to the Possible Machine, we were able to realize this immediately and set them up with teachers who, while quite qualified in their subject matter, are more about heart than head. They spend as much time on life skills as they do traditional content, and students are assessed for progress and effort rather than cut scores on state exams written by people who couldn’t on their best day so much as fathom their realities. Most of these kids need protein and access to mental health services more than they need a deeper understanding of the Progressive Era – ironic as that may seem. 

We do, of course, work on math and reading skills. The instructors are some of our most knowledgeable, but their focus is on stimulating interest and applying what’s learned towards successful living rather than simply punishing kids – however wrapped in fluffy platitudes – for their upbringing. 

Across the way here you see a classroom which at first glance looks similar – looser policies regarding dress and language, and a variety of seating options. These kids, however, are very motivated to do well, and consequently can be pushed much further in the cores and several extension topics which vary by semester. 

Pushed? Oh yes, I choose that word quite specifically. I said they were motivated, not intrinsically driven to truly learn. They come from families who care deeply about good grades and college prep and staying in just the right amount of activities. We don’t have to worry about these kids failing – the Possible Machine knew that from the moment they walked in the door.

The challenge with this group is actual learning. Sure, we have ‘grades’ as motivators, but Miss Benovidas and Mr. Carson have shown quite a gift for transitioning them into actual interest in the various subjects being taught. Under the old system, these kids would have been completely written off based on the numbers and letters they were able to secure by successfully gaming the system. We’d throw a few awards at them, give them an extra ribbon or two at graduation, and think we’d accomplished something as they went forth cynical and jaded, unable to see the wonders of string theory or appreciate the beauty of fractals as mathematical art. 

We’ve retained the outdated A-F labeling system, but only to smooth the transition. Miss B. and Mr. C. don’t measure their success or student progress by those silly letters; their challenge is to find ‘sparks’ in the eyes of these little darlings over something they didn’t think they could even care about – the Populist Movement, or the power of allegory in a great speech, for example. 

Thanks to the Possible Machine, we don’t insult students who come from educated, involved homes by dragging them through ‘financial literacy’ or ‘Constitution Day’, and we don’t unnecessarily traumatize them with ‘Sex Ed’ or hours of ‘how to calculate your GPA’. They can skip that and move into what their parents would call ‘real school’. 

On the other hand, we don’t neglect students who couldn’t otherwise ask essential questions about sex, or pregnancy, or health care. We’re able to identify those who couldn’t successfully watch an episode of The West Wing without more background knowledge, and those for whom the only pathway to success in science or math is through music and art. 

The Possible Machine confirms our instincts as to how many of our young ladies need to be told regularly that they’re strong, and beautiful, and smart, or that what happened to them wasn’t their fault – it wasn’t ever, ever, ever, in any way or by any definition – their fault. It points out the young men who seem fine, but who need someone to look them in the eye and ask how they’re doing several days a week, and the quiet ones who really are fine watching and listening and mostly staying… quiet. 

The Possible Machine tells us which kids need sports more than they need World History, and which kids will do better in World History if we use sports as leverage. It helps our teachers better intuit who to push, who to comfort, when to offer greater freedom and when to maintain the comfort and security of unyielding structure. 

We hear repeatedly that “all children can learn,” yes? And they can. Of course they can.

But they can’t all learn equally well in the exact same ways or on the same schedules. They can’t all move forward on the same tracks at the same speeds to hit the same checkpoints at the same time. That’s ludicrous. Imagine a public education system grounded on such an inane fallacy! Why, it would be mired in mediocrity for decades!

At Impossible School, all children can learn, and do so more widely and deeply than they could have imagined. At Impossible School, we build on the unique combinations of interests, strengths, and possibilities each child carries within them – and can reevaluate this yearly, monthly, or weekly if need be. 

We’re able to teach more than the ‘average’ student or the fictionalized ‘standard’ kid. Thanks to the Possible Machine, we’re able to figure out the intangibles of each student – each weird, wonderful, gifted, needy, broken, individualized student – and chart how they might best be stretched and realized intellectually, personally, and professionally. 

At Impossible School, we refuse to treat diversity as a disease only curable by standardization. 

Because it’s possible, somehow. It’s possible – for all of them. 

RELATED POST: Dolph & Lana Break The Rules

RELATED POST: Wil Wheaton, Aquaman, and Octave Chanute

RELATED POST: The Seven Reasons Every Teacher Must Know WHY Kids Learn!

Inconceivable Conversations

BananaPhone

I Do Not Think That Word Means…

We should put children on trial. 

What?

On trial. Kids should be required to go on trial to graduate. 

You mean, like… if they’ve done something wrong or fallen sho-

No. All of them. Innocent or guilty. Graduation or death. Maybe incarceration. 

*pause*

Why?

*impatientsigh* 

We all go through trials in life. High school is to prepare us for these trials. So they should be put on trial. 

Those two uses of the words are largely unrelated.

Clearly I believe in children and you don’t. 

What You Think It Means…

We MUST test children with state-created tests. All children should have to reach a certain cut score – to be determined long after they’ve made the attempt – on standardized exams in randomly chosen subjects, regardless of their backgrounds, interests, abilities, or circumstances. 

But that’s insane. Kids aren’t all the same. And our choice of ‘important’ subjects is wildly subjective. The standards change annually, and the tests aren’t even that g- 

Life is full of tests. 

Full of tests? 

Yes. 

Multiple choice, single-day, high stakes tests, during which you cannot have so much as a bottle of water and large periods of which involve mandatory staring at the wall because you’re not allowed to read or nap or look around and are being held captive solely at the whims of the testing companies and little Billy who takes forever on everything? Those sorts of tests? Life is full of those?

Yes. 

*pause* 

That’s not even close to true. 

Pilots take tests to become pilots. Ha! SCORE! *doesvictorydance* 

Pilots want to be pilots – they’re intrinsically driven to do well. They’re paying for it, they want it so bad.

They’re not being required to become pilots by some distant entity who’s decided piloting is more important than, say, plumbing. 

Pilots take the most important part of the test in a plane. Flying. They learn by doing and test by showing they can do, along with whatever pen and paper stuff is required.

Plumbers, on the other hand, don’t have to take the pilot test; they have to do something involving plumbing and the format isn’t even the same. They don’t sit at a computer for six hours, their entire success or failure resting on a cut score which hasn’t even been set yet based on this week’s ever-changing standards which themselves have nothing to do with plumbing but everything to do with weak-minded leaders who want to sound tough on edu- er… tough on plumbing and get themselves re-elected by constituents barely able to unclog their own toilets, let alone fix actual pipes in this particular allegory.  

*pause* 

So you’re saying that plumbers don’t need to know what an airplane is? That plumbers will never need to fly anywhere? 

That’s not even remotely what I’m saying.

*playsinspirationalsongaboutbelievingyoucanfly*

I Am Looking For A Six-Fingered Student…

All children can learn. 

Yes. 

I believe in the potential of all children. 

Yes, so do I. 

No you don’t. You said plumbers can never learn to fly. 

No, I – actually, never mind. You go ahead. 

Kids need a rich background in a variety of subjects to be well-rounded citizens and fulfilled individuals, and because we’re training them for jobs which don’t even exist yet! 

Yes. 

So every kid regardless of ability, interest, or circumstances, should be required to read-to-learn by 3rd grade and pass certain benchmark tests at 5th, 8th, and 10th grade or be held back. 

No. 

You need to make up your mind.

Those aren’t the same claims. The first celebrates the general potential of young people, and the second is a rather dogmatic and specific set of punative, limiting, unnecessary checkpoints. 

So you don’t think kids need to know how to read? 

I think they’d become better readers if they were offered a purpose other than being tested over books. I think they’d become better readers if we focused on helping them become better readers instead of on helping them become better test-takers over reading passages. Is that the same thing? 

I think that math is good for everyone, and history is good for everyone, but I also believe with equal-if-not-greater conviction that team sports are good for everyone, and the arts are good for everyone, and learning how to present yourself professionally online and hold a decent conversation is good for everyone, and knowing how to fix your own toilet or make other minor repairs around the house is good for everyone, and first aid is good for everyone, and spending time outdoors alone in quiet contemplation is good for everyone and knowing that you’re beautiful and strong and more than you’ve been told by the corporate-driven world around you is good for everyone.  

It’s not a question of whether or not this or that is ‘good for everyone’. It’s a question of whether or not we select a few specific things to draw hard, punitive lines over, at the expense of all the others. If we could teach them all everything at all levels all the time, that would be ideal. But if we want to teach them how to learn and grow as best we can with minimal time and resources, the Biology EOI is not a ditch in which I wish to die – not for all kids in all circumstances of all varieties. Especially when it means taking so many kids down with us. 

And remediation by repeating grades has a horrible success rate – lower than Oklahoma marriages or tax policies. Most kids who are held back don’t get better at whatever’s giving them difficulty, they just learn that they’re ‘slow’, or ‘stupid’. We’re teaching the strong students to hate learning while they beat the system, and weak students to hate learning while it beats them. We’re going to teacher hell for that kind of thing. Kids who are held back or placed in unending remediation don’t magically bloom the ninth time through; usually they become discipline problems or simply drop out. 

At which point our scores go up. 

Well, yes – I suppose… 

Meaning more kids are learning and that high standards help all children. 

*stunnedsilence* 

Our Schools Are Only MOSTLY Dead

We’re training them to compete in a global economy. 

Are we? 

Yes. There’s a globe, and an economy – they are therefore competing within that economy. 

The number of Oklahoma graduates going up against kids from China, Germany, or Russia for a specific position is pretty small… 

Our number one goal should be to produce Finnish children without doing anything Finland is doing to get there. If we can’t do that, we’ll make them Chinese, or Russian. Wait, no – how’s Estonia doing these days? Do we even TEACH Estonian in high school…? 

RELATED POST: “Mirror, Mirror”

RELATED POST: 5 Bad Assumptions Behind Education ‘Reform’

RELATED POST: Leave My Teachers Alone

“Mirror, Mirror”

Mirror MirrorI’m wrong quite regularly.

That’s OK – I’ve learned to live with it. I’m actually getting pretty good at it. Sometimes I throw stuff out there I’m not entirely sold on myself, seeking refutation from which I can learn or to which I can cling. 

Other times I just like to stir the pot a bit and see what comes to the surface. Some learners are more kinetic, others more verbal – I learn best from provocation. It’s a gift. 

I’m blessed to be surrounded by people who disagree with me about any number of important things. Some inform me regularly that I’m full of stuff one does not normally wish to be full of for any length of time. Others enjoy the heated engagement as much as I do. 

It’s nice to have people online agree with me, especially when I’m so often insightful and witty, but it’s equally appreciated when I’m challenged – or even called out on my overconfident snark-flinging. 

Other times, though, I find conflicts springing up not because I disagree with someone, or they with me – rather, it comes because we’re not even operating under the same set of assumptions. My paradigm crashes into their paradigm and awkward frustration ensues. 

Mirror MirrorPerhaps this is my failure to communicate clearly. I can be a bit scattered and make all the wrong assumptions and it’s just… yikes.

Often, though, I think it has more to do with entrenched worldviews – paradigms which deserve to be challenged, or at least questioned. If they can’t withstand a little examination, they’re not very good worldviews, are they?

For example, I’ve long been an advocate for a much wider and looser definition of ‘essential curriculum’. I don’t believe every child needs to focus on the exact same subjects at the exact same point in their lives or reach the exact same cut score to have any chance of being a useful human being. I find state standards – here or most places – to be an unacceptably haphazard, outdated, narrow-minded selection of hit’n’miss priorities yoked with punitive standardized exams. And yet, it is towards this freakish mélange that we devote the largest chunk of school resources, priorities, and evaluations.

I find it inconsistent at best (and grossly hypocritical at most likely) that we hold so sacred and homilize so vigorously standards for EVERY child – HIGHER standards – ESSENTIAL standards – The HIGHEREST HIGH STANDARDS OF ESSENTIAL HIGHNESS, without which all youth are destined to wallow in mediocrity and food stamps – which most of us holding good jobs or enjoying fulfilling careers probably couldn’t pass without substantial preparation. 

Mirror Mirror 2Standards which those making the rules couldn’t pass even with preparation. 

Not because they’re SO HIGH, but because they’re simply not necessary or useful to us on a daily basis. 

Those for whom ‘improved test scores’ acts as a synonym for ‘richer learning’ and an immutable antecedent of ‘good employment and greater personal fulfillment’ read such claims and don’t merely disagree – they shudder in horror and outrage at the very suggestion that math is stupid and unnecessary, no one needs to know science, why should you study history if you’re not going to become a historian, and reading is for pale, sickly nerds who can’t play hockey. 

Except that I haven’t said anything remotely like that – not in my world. 

In theirs, however, it’s quite genuinely the same thing. “It’s inane to hold every last child from every variety of circumstance and with all sorts of different strengths, interests, abilities, and opportunities, to the exact same Algebra II requirement and cut score or they can’t graduate high school” reads 100% the same to them as “When am I ever going to need math?”

This is the same sort of conflation used less innocently by edu-reformers to push their agendas. They open with a statement with which only bad yucky stupid people would disagree – such as “All children can learn!” Everyone in earshot nods vigorously, grunts in assent, and looks around uncomfortably as if expecting any moment to be confronted with a vile defier of child potential.

The Bringers of this New Wisdom then slide quickly into some variation of “So of course we must sit them at these screens for 6-hour periods without looking around, going pee, or reading talking thinking sleeping moving breathing loudly fidgeting or otherwise indicating they are a life form for hours and hours and hours even after they’re done because HIGH STANDARDS ACCOUNTABILITY POTENTIAL GLOBAL MARKET! 

Mirror MirrorIf you question the validity or long-term value of this test, the North Koreans have pretty much already won – all thanks to YOU, the soft bigotry of low expectations outdated edu-relic hippie-who-destroys-the-future labor union drone.

Because it’s the same to them – the test is the potential is the belief in the children is success is what we do. 

I usually leave it to others, then, to explain once more why such thinking is false. Why such assumptions are misguided. Why the efforts built on these perversions are not merely doomed to fail but dooming those consumed by them in the meantime. 

I simply lack the words to make those connections – not for those who disagree with me, but for those occupying an entirely different reality stream. In their worlds, Worf marries Troi, Britta keeps that blue streak in her hair despite the disapproval of Evil Abed, Vampire Willow is eternally “bored now”, and Captain America is irrevocably white. I’m not condemning their paradigm, it’s just that I can’t – 

No, I take that back. I’m totally condemning their paradigm.

Get over it, people. Testing and education are not the same. You cling to this only out of brainwashing or fear you cannot fight it – but you can. Come with me – keep me honest, if you must, but join me in this timeline. We can take Sunnydale back, keep Community on NBC, and let Willow find her own gay in her own way.

As to Worf, I always thought him with Troi was kinda neat. So we’ll keep that. 

Mirror Mirror

RELATED POST: Inconceivable Conversations 

I Agree With Jay – Whiny, Lazy, Teachers

Cronley HeadingA few days ago, Jay Cronley of the Tulsa World wrote an editorial which sent legendary #oklaed blogger Rob Miller a bit over that edge from which he otherwise enjoys the view.  

In it, Cronley suggests that schools receiving poor marks on the state’s vague, insulting, widely discredited A-F report card stop their whining and simply do what schools getting high grades do.  

I’m all for that. It’s embarrassingly obvious, in retrospect – if you want a better football team, publicly degrade the coach, sure. But just as critically, only accept good players on your team. That’s how the so-called “real world” works, yes?  

You only blame the coach when it’s clear there’s sufficient talent on the roster, but not enough points on the board. (Right, Bruce Boudreau?) Otherwise you need to get busy making trades and securing draft picks. Cut the dead weight from that locker room!  

The schools not doing well are thus either lazy or stupid. Despite the best efforts of the state to push them into the light, they’re still letting pretty much every little loser turd-child walk in the door several days a week and play school with them. Seriously, TPS and others so inclined? This is why the Dallas Cowboys keep losing – no quality control at all.  

Forget remediation. If those little parasites can’t read-to-learn by the end of 3rd grade, kick their little asses OUT. Go hang with the Factionless, Billy. Oh, wait – you won’t get that allusion BECAUSE YOU CAN’T $#&@ING READ.  

What else are we supposed to do to them?  

Teacher ECardNo, seriously – I get that school-shaming and teacher-blaming are supposed to motivate excellence (thanks, Stalin), but once the schools and teachers are done whining and complaining and are finally ready to step up, what exactly would you like us to do to force these little failures to learn gooder?  

Surely you don’t believe that scribbling a few letters and numbers on a piece of paper and mailing it it to their fake address drives the average 11-year old to excellence, do you? Grades are horrible motivators unless the kid already carries an unhealthy fixation on them derived from whatever her parents have indoctrinated her to believe about herself.  

But those aren’t the kids getting us in the damn newspaper. So what else could we try?  

I suppose a good talk with the average 8th grader about his college and career prospects might motivate him to give up the Xbox and plow through that 17th Century sonnet one more time.  

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, that was rich. I needed a break from all this serious talk.  

The maximum reach of “future planning” among freshmen is about eleven minutes. It’s delusional to expect teenagers to have better self-control and long-term focus than most adults when asked if they want bacon on that. 

Giving Teacher the FingerWe’re not actually allowed to hit them anymore, so that’s off the table. Based on a handful of classic rock albums from the 70s, that may not have worked well anyway.  

Let’s see… No lunch until you solve for ‘X’ more efficiently? Also not allowed. The Liberals keep acting like none of the dumb kids eat enough to begin with, so forget that.  

Torturing pets got a bad rep back in the 80s when we were trying to prove that every child everywhere was being molested by every adult everywhere, so that won’t get board approval. And torturing the actual children is sadly inadequate – hence the entire discussion over test scores to begin with (EYES FRONT NO TALKING NO READING NO SLEEPING JUST STARE AND KEEP STARING UNTIL TIME IS CALLED RELAX AND DO YOUR BEST OR FAIL FAIL FAIL!!!)  

Other suggestions?  

I’m a little surprised we don’t rank their parents and publish the results. There’s simply no healthy competition when it comes to child-rearing. I say we give kids vouchers and let them leave their $#% parents to join those who’ve already proven they can bring up children properly. The tax breaks are for kid-raising, not kid-having, right?  

What’s that? The best families won’t all gladly open their hearts and homes in massive efforts to turn around years of less-than-ideal upbringing and reverse several varieties of cultural dissonance which have been in place for centuries? Surely you jest. They need only do what the good parents do… 

It’s probably a moot point. Any kid with the gumption to take advantage isn’t the one getting us on the ‘F’ list anyway.  

Bad Teacher

So we’re back to faulting teachers for not sufficiently inspiring them. If police would police better, there’d be no crime. If columnists would just write better, everyone would still read the newspaper. Seems only reasonable that if teachers to would teach harder…  

The penalty for doing poorly in school is to keep repeating the parts you hate until you hate them even more. If that doesn’t work, we’ll begin taking away the few things in our control which you DO care about or value in yourself (in those few instances we’ve somehow connected with those to begin with) until you drop out or change districts and our scores improve that way.  

Other than that, what is it that Cronley and the populace at large think we should be doing? I’m 100% serious here – what is it you believe all of these stupid, lazy, sucky teachers COULD be doing but aren’t?  

Better yet, why don’t you come show them? Bring your little platitudes and patronization and take over their classes for a month or two?  

I know, I know – who would POSSIBLY fill the critical life-altering role of writing a few columns a week taking potshots from the sidelines?  

Oh wait – that’s my $&#@ing SPECIALTY! Got you covered!  

WalMart BoySo go coach those kids into excellence. If they pass whatever random set of politicized and poorly framed expectations we’re swearing by THIS year, they’re practically guaranteed a fulfilling lifelong career, food, housing, health care, and access to a multitude of other services. If they DON’T, they’ll be stuck at home smoking weed and playing Xbox while guaranteed food, housing, health care, and access to a multitude if other services.  

The main difference in the latter scenario, of course, is that NEITHER of you will be working as a result. If that doesn’t inspire them, I can’t imagine what will.  

As to to merit pay, if the teachers with the best scores are the most talented, it stands to reason that James Patterson is the world’s most profound writer and Kim Kardashian the finest thespian of her generation. Now if only Donald Trump would run for President based on his impressive outcomes, all of our problems would be solved!  

Cronley and the rest might oughta start making those lesson plans. Between the open hostility of our state legislature towards knowledge in general and ongoing abuse from the press, those stupid lazy teachers dumb enough to work with those bottom-feeder kids tend to bail after not-very-long-at-all.  

They leave the state, sometimes even the profession, or they compete with one another for a handful of slots at those “good schools” – the ones smart enough not to try to win high stakes games with undesirable players. The ones with better demographics, or stronger magnets, or more stable populations.  

The ones doing what the good schools do.  

These Grades

RELATED POST: #OKSDE & The A – F Report Card (from 2014)

RELATED POST: Assessments & Grades – Why? (from 2014)

RELATED POST: What’s Next, #EdReform? 

RELATED POST: 5 Bad Assumptions Behind ‘Education Reform’