Of Hockey Bias And Edu-Paradigms

October 17, 2015June 12, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

I have a confession. One which is likely to shatter your adoration for my suave veneer and perpetually professional perspicacity. In fact, send the children out of the room, because –

I like hockey.

More specifically, I like Dallas Stars hockey – especially when mingled with the weird world of Hockey Twitter Commentary during games. When you follow and love the same team, you become a strange little community… not exactly friends, but more than random fans at the same game. It’s fun. And maddening. And sometimes just odd.

Then there are the feels…

Of course, emotions can run dark as well as light. I mean, it’s live – so there’s that. It’s also semi-anonymous. Even those using their real names aren’t real people in your real life with real faces and real feelings, right?

I realize the logic falls apart pretty quickly there, but that’s kinda my point.

It’s also Twitter, meaning “not a private line” – anyone in the world can look up what you’ve written and hold you to it. This has the potential to become a thing when controversy and strong emotions mix.

Often, during hockey, controversy and strong emotions mix.

Especially when someone gets hurt. Not normal hockey hurt – but ‘uh oh, that looked bad’ hurt. This happened Thursday evening when the Stars visited the Tampa Bay Lightning – a particularly strong team loaded with offensive talent and surrounded by a passionate fan base.

I don’t follow many Tampa people, but response from the Dallas end was predictable…

Hedman – the player receiving that hit – left the ice and didn’t return.

And then it got uglier – in the game AND on Twitter – with what looked like retaliation – and that’s also where it became interesting from more than a hockey standpoint.

I respectfully suggest that what unfolded over the next few minutes was a lesson in perspective and assumptions, with maybe a few big words like ‘confirmation bias’ thrown in for good measure. I’d also argue that the lessons potentially learned from this round of Twitter Fallout could be applied in realms ranging from political arguments to interpersonal relationships to discussions over education reform.

See, some of us got pissed.

My outrage was not without provocation. I’m at home on my couch, watching events unfold on my TV. The camera zooms in on the injured player – MY injured player – while the Stars’ broadcast team expresses concern over his condition. As the extent of his suffering becomes clear, the crowd’s applause swells in the background – and with it, my blood pressure, my adrenaline, and my just-two-beers-I-swear-fueled sense of injustice and twitter-outrage.

It is clear, it is unspeakable, and it is objectively horrific.

Except the crowd in Tampa watching the game live didn’t view a half-dozen slow-mo replays of Benn’s hit on their guy – who they feel like they know and care for. They saw it once in real time, maybe a replay on the Jumbotron, and their guy was hurt enough to leave the ice – which brings the feels. Nor would they have side-by-side video comparing it with the retaliatory hit a minute later.

As the kerfuffle brews after the hit on McKenzie, most people physically there would be drawn to the developing scuffle, the potential for a rather large-scale fight. So yeah, the cheering increases – but we’re experiencing two different things. I’m watching McKenzie, MY GUY, listening to familiar voices confirming my fears; they’re watching a potential fight of all-on-all at a live event with only group feels to drive their reactions.

On the surface we appear to be reacting at the same time to the same events, but we’re not exactly working from the same reality. It’s not just that we disagree – we’re not even addressing the same things.

Time for more preconceptions to enter the mix…

My hockey world consists largely of TV viewing and Stars Twitter – a mixed group, to be sure, a bit cynical and sometimes pissy as hell, but not a group which generally chants for blood or demonstrates pleasure when someone gets injured – no matter what the team or circumstances.

Well, maybe if it were Corey Perry. But otherwise, never.

We tend to give one another the benefit of the doubt when, you know – THE FEELINGS – so when I’m challenged on my interpretation, it is through that lens:

Look what the power of relationships and presumed goodwill can do to change the tone of a discussion. I don’t even KNOW these guys in real life. To the best of my knowledge, I’ve never even interacted with Kedge online before.

But we see ourselves as ‘on the same side’, and consequently I receive their comments much differently than I might otherwise. We’re all suddenly showing our bellies and reassuring ourselves that we’re all good.

Take a moment and mentally apply this to any of your favorite realms of recurring consternation – political, social, personal, or professional – and the parties involved.

Imagine the change if we began with different assumptions about one another. I’m not saying all intentions are good or all participants pure-of-heart – just that we might wait until they’ve established actual malice before proceeding under that paradigm.

In other words, let’s not be like me during hockey.

The next day I was called out by someone I don’t know at all – a writer who covers the Lightning. By way of perspective, writers for SBNation.com contribute as a labor of love – they’re not making serious money; they’re fans.

I asked for clarification, and he referred me to his comments of the previous evening:

What’s the difference in perception?

Well, he knows his team, for one. He has history with the players and a feel for what they are or aren’t likely to do. He probably attends live games in Tampa, and thus sees things through arena norms compared to my televised paradigm. When I’m watching hockey, I’m a fan participating in social dynamics; when he’s watching, he’s a fan doubling as a reporter.

I’m not saying he’s right. Don’t be ridiculous. Clearly I’m far more outraged, therefore justice is on MY side.

But I AM suggesting that there’s something to be gained by viewing circumstances through other lenses. His dissent – while not particularly warm and fuzzy – was also not personal. He finds my thinking bewildering… perhaps inane. But that’s what he attacks – my position. He can even explain why he thinks so, with just the right amount of tone.

OK, maybe it’s a tad belittling – but still…

I’ve been attacked on Twitter in far more juvenile ways, I assure you. It’s a gift I have, bringing out that side in others. And me, so demure and naïve in the ways of the world.

I have absolutely no interest in some sort of passive relativism preventing us from arguing or resolving anything as we scrape and bow before one another’s point of view. God knows if we’re going to make any meaningful progress in the realm of public education (or anything else) we’ll need vigorous and thoughtful debate.

But perhaps those debates will be more productive and our own insights a bit richer if we begin with different assumptions about one another and work from there.

Unless it’s during hockey.

RELATED POST: By Any Means Necessary

RELATED POST: Condemnation Bias

RELATED POST: Cognitive Dissonance

What’s Next, #EdReform?

October 9, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

Accountability. Standards. Highly Qualified. Our Children Deserve… {insert platitude here}.

It really doesn’t sound so unreasonable, does it? Why is it that teachers – and let’s be honest, their LABOR UNIONS – are so afraid of a little accountability? They’re paid by our tax dollars, after all. Entrusted with our children. We try to be supportive, of course, but sometimes…

Well, sometimes it really does seem like they just don’t want to be held to any expectations or standards at all. I’m sorry they don’t make a lot of money, but is that any reason to let the lazy ones slide, or the stupid ones stay? I’m sure most of them are very hardworking and caring and educated people – but they’re not the ones who should be worried, right? So why so much whining every time the state or some other interested party tries to figure out who’s doing their job and who’s not?

That’s more or less the narrative inculcated by most “education reformers”. It’s usually laid on top of lofty rhetoric and trite faux-speration, but these are the basic questions planted in the minds of legislators, business leaders, parents, and – perhaps most importantly – the ethereal ‘public at large’.

I’ll spare you the reasons so many of my peeps distrust the instruments generally used to measure teacher effectiveness. They’ve been well-covered elsewhere, by people much smarter than myself. But… I’m not sure their arguments resonate with many outside the world of public ed.

Don’t misunderstand – I think their refutations are absolutely correct. Accurate and insightful. I’m just not sure they’re convincing to the folks who most need to be convinced.

So I’d like to add a question of my own to the edu-pile. It’s a biggie, but one reformers somehow manage to avoid repeatedly. There are enough proverbial elephants in the #edreform room to keep one’s attention scrambled, but this one is larger than the rest. And neon orange. With eleven legs. And it’s making dolphin noises.

Let’s assume our state leggies get themselves all a-spinnin’ and finally implement VAM and TLE and OOPS and OMYGOD and whatever else is on the table. They may even throw some form of underfunded ‘merit pay’ into the mix so they can spin it as an actual ‘raise’ for the ‘good’ teachers.

There’ll be formulas no one understands – including the people applying them to determine the success or failure of various teachers, buildings, and districts – and rhetoric aplenty declaring we once again have the higherest highness of high standards in education. Oklahoma will yet again reign as the undisputed leader in academic standards and overeducated pedagogues!

Heck, we may even get some Gates money thrown our way – wouldn’t that be nifty?

Let’s even assume the various formulas and measurements and standards somehow DO begin to identify the ‘good’ teachers and the ‘bad’. Let’s grant the remote possibility that as the kinks are worked out, districts are able to apply these expectations in a meaningful way and the state is able to weed out the real bozos, the slackers, or even well-intentioned idiots.

Maybe it’s 10% of the total teaching force of the state. Maybe 20%. Or maybe it turns out we’re not all such morons after all and it’s only 3% or 4%. Whatever the numbers, the weeds are pulled and the flowers showered with 2% stipends for teaching white middle class Methodist kids from two-parent –

My apologies – I was supposed to be speaking hypothetically.

The flowers are showered with 2% stipends for strong improvement among all levels of students from all sorts of backgrounds.

My question is… Now what?

That’s the thing no one beating the #edreform drum seems to even consider.

If there are crappy educators hiding all ‘round us, who need to be identified and repaired or removed, as part of an overall plan to improve public education, what do we do when we’ve removed the bad ones?

The answer is not so obvious.

If you said “replace them with good ones,” you lose. Even under the current system of supposedly no standards or accountability, we’re unable to fill something like a billion teaching positions in Oklahoma alone. Texas is begging for warm bodies with any degree at all. Maybe California is packed with highly qualified professionals desperate for a tenured position in South L.A.’s inner cities, but ‘round here, we’re short on teacher-types.

Any teacher-types.

Any at all.

It’s possible the major voices in #edreform simply haven’t planned that far ahead. Maybe they’re really smart at figuring out the initial stages but it hasn’t occurred to them it might actually work – and we’d have to know what to do next. Of course, if that’s true, they really have no business suggesting or being in charge of anything at all. If that’s true, they’re appallingly short-sighted.

Or maybe they’ve never seriously addressed the question because they knew it wasn’t important. Maybe they’ve never worried about it because that’s not how things are intended to unfold.

If you’re moving out of your current apartment, you at least consider where you hope to live next, yes? If you’re going out to eat with friends and don’t like their choice of restaurants, you pick somewhere better. Or cheaper. Or you order pizza. Or suggest making something at home.

Reformers haven’t done any of that. It’s like they believe it’s enough to simply settle on where we’re NOT living. Where we WON’T eat. As if starving outside on the sidewalk is a pretty impressive solution. Just look at our standards!

Or, perhaps they know no one will like their choices, so they keep them a ‘surprise’.

They do offer a few scattered scenarios – most involving privatizing education in some way, or making it easier for well-off families to get their kids into elite institutions so that it doesn’t really matter how bad the public schools are.

Regular readers know I’m not particularly aghast at the right charters, vouchers, private schools, or homeschooling consortiums. I’m a very open-minded guy.

Even with all that, though, one can’t help but wonder at the dearth of interest in how in the world we’re to replace these ne’er-do-wells we’ve eradicated. What resources or innovations are on the table to help locate and lure in all the fabulous teachers hiding just outside the realm of reality?

Is there some unperceived benefit to purging enough of the workforce that instead of a thousand unfilled positions we’ll have two thousand? Help me understand.

I suppose the most certain way to eliminate weeds from your garden is to simply plow the entire thing under and douse it with generous quantities of defoliants. If your primary concern is with these supposed ‘weeds’, that should definitely solve your problem. It’s just that you don’t have a garden when you’re done.

So is a better garden – or an improved public school system – even really a goal? Or were the intentions all along something not requiring that level of subtlety or care? Is it possible that ‘reformers’ know exactly what they’d like in that area that used to be the garden, but have their own reasons for keeping it a ‘surprise’?

I fear there’s a very good reason no one’s saying what’s next.

RELATED POST: Chipotle Mexican Grill & Charter School

RELATED POST: Unintended Consequences

Dolph & Lana Break The Rules

September 9, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

I don’t like very many people.

Well, that’s not entirely true – I like most people… in small doses. At a distance. At the right times. For a bit. I’m the guy in staff PD who took the personality test and ended up at a table by myself on the far end of the media center with 117 peers assuming I must have lied on the questionnaire because I seem nicer than that.

But among the small circle of folks of whom I cannot tire and who energize me just by sharing the room is a friend from way back in middle school and his stunning wife. I’ll call them Dolph and Lana for reasons likely amusing only to me.

Both did fine in high school – one public and one private – and graduated easily. Dolph has a degree in journalism and a photographic memory, while Lana holds a ‘music ministry’ license she doesn’t like to talk about. But neither are committed to what I used to think of as ‘normal’ careers. They don’t have ‘real jobs’.

Don’t get me wrong – they’re not unemployed. They don’t require public assistance or loans from family and friends. They’re one of the more fiscally responsible couples I know, even managing periodic vacations and rather enigmatic social lives.

Oh, and they have a two-year-old, who almost makes me like kids. We’ll call him Hogarth.

Dolph is a musician, a painter, a freelance writer, and a producer. Occasionally he’s a graphic designer. I know, I know – these are collectively often used as euphemisms for “deadbeat”, but I assure you, he works long hours at a variety of things, all of which he’s ridiculously good at and mostly enjoys.

He’s also one of the most involved fathers I’ve known in this life. It’s weird.

Aside from his actual family, there’s nothing Dolph loves more than the endless hours spent crafting his original songs into reality and posting them essentially for free on Spotify or other outlets. Considering how insanely talented he is (I blame an imbalanced universe unconcerned with equity), it’s surprising how many hours this consumes to do well.

Those hours, however, pay very little, so he also applies his talents to producing music for others – which is rewarding in its own way, but still actual work. It’s not always fun, and it’s not usually easy. He plays in a local cover band doing music he doesn’t always like for crowds which aren’t always appreciative. This is the musician equivalent of a ‘day job’ – it pays the bills while still keeping you near your chosen craft and first love. He writes for periodicals which aren’t always reasonable about events he wouldn’t otherwise attend or people with whom he wouldn’t necessarily choose to spend his free hours – because that’s how ‘work’ works.

Turns out even in the world of live music, painting, or writing, there’s an element of ‘grit’ and self-management required in order to thrive. One must be organized. Responsible. Creative, but rational. Able to communicate and to truly appreciate other points of view. To go around the leaf.

But he does it, and he does most of it really well. In the process, he hones and stretches skills he applies to the stuff he loves. He takes care of his family, provides for them comfortably, and still lacks what I used to think of as ‘a real job’. More on that in a bit.

Lana has been preoccupied with the lad Hogarth lately, but she too is a mashup of surprising talents. She paints, sings, and co-taught at one of the high-end private schools in these parts until the little person came along. You know those rare people who can explore the world of high-end teas or local sushi trucks and fill you in without making you feel stupid or proletariat about it? That’s Lana. Any suggestions she’s particularly gracious or sophisticated prompts pshaw-ery and eye-rolling.

She doesn’t see it. She’s just doing what people do, right?

She currently works at home for a media company promoting independent film projects and other specialized artsy fartsy things. I not actually sure whether this is an innovative approach targeting enigmatic tastes and interests, or if she just manipulates us on Facebook for a living. No matter – I adore them both, and they’re incapable of ever being truly evil.

None of what they do involves Algebra II, or Oklahoma History, or success on standardized exams. Some of their ELA classes may have been useful to a degree, and a few extra-curriculars stir fond memories, but by and large I’m not sure high school offered either of them much of substance – even though they both conquered it easily.

Dolph and Lana have found a way to do what they love for a living, not as part of that small sliver of the mega-successful covered by TMZ or E! or populating magazines in the checkout aisle, but as normal people who refuse to accept the unspoken ‘rules’ inculcated by public education, most universities, and society in general.

They’re not standardized. They’re not career-oriented. They’re not perpetually preparing for whatever’s coming NEXT. While they have a quirky diversity of interests and tastes, they rarely put in time or effort mastering subjects they couldn’t possibly care about. Their work ethic is unimpeachable, but both have passed up fiscal progress in order to live where they’re happy TODAY, and do that about which they’re passionate NOW.

In short, they’re doing everything completely wrong.

And yet, by any meaningful definition, they are wildly successful. Happy. Interesting. Useful to themselves, their families, and their friends. Giving back to their culture, their community, and contributing to the economy.

Crazy fun to be around. I don’t even know what we DO most evenings we’re together. They just… happen.

Not wealthy, certainly, but hardly impoverished. Not famous, but beloved – they know everyone, everywhere, and it’s ridiculous how many people want to be their bestest friend evers. I’m telling you, it’s weird to watch.

I’m not sure how you teach that, but I’m pretty sure it’s not the way we’re doing it now. I don’t know that it requires abandoning traditional subjects entirely, or burning every last textbook and desk. But I respectfully suggest that Dolph, Lana, and Hogarth are not outliers. They’re better at real life than most, but they’re not freak-of-nature unique.

How many responsible, happy, fulfilled and fulfilling adults find their ways in spite of rather than because of the bizarre endurance test we call high school? How many of those who succumb to our system grow old endlessly chasing that elusive point at which they’ll be allowed to enjoy or care about what they’re doing NOW?

I’m sure I don’t have an easy or clear solution, but before we continue our efforts to go faster and further down the road of #edreform or ‘excellence’, perhaps we’d do well to check our GPS and clarify exactly where it is we’re hoping our students will go. Personally, I’d trade most test scores, a ton of future earnings potential, and a healthy slice of ‘college & career readiness’ for a few more Dolphs and Lanas.

RELATED POST: Demolition Man

United First School District of Change & Continuity

September 4, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

Being in Tulsa, one can’t help but maintain some awareness of the evangelical community and the world of relatively orthodox faith – American Protestant flavor. I’ve been in and out of it myself in years past.

Despite perceptions of the godless and truculent (who seem to find fascist right-wingers ruining fun everywhere), the past few decades have been difficult times for the faithful – especially those in positions of responsibility. It’s increasingly challenging to bring in new, er… ‘believers’. It’s almost as tricky to hang on to those brought up IN the church.

Spiritual ramifications aside, it’s an interesting dilemma. How can organizations – like, say… churches or schools – built on specific beliefs and value systems, with long traditions regarding how things are done, survive (or maybe even grow) as the culture around them loses interest and moves on?

The current system of simply stealing members back and forth across town from one another is inherently flawed and finite. You can imagine the hand-wringing by well-intentioned church leaders and their supporters as they grapple with a question familiar to anyone interested in public education:

How do we adapt to new freedoms, more tantalizing distractions, a new sort of clientele, and a changing set of socio-political realities, without forsaking our core values and beliefs?

This leads to an even more difficult question for either world – church or school…

And what exactly ARE our core values and beliefs? What is it we’re trying to accomplish?

The answers aren’t as self-evident as they may at first seem. In the world of faith, perhaps the goal is to ‘save souls’ – to help people find Jesus or some variation thereof. But that hardly explains multiple meetings each week (composed almost entirely of those already converted) to teach doctrine, or inspire behavior, or correct poorly chosen paths. We must be trying to teach and grow those already converted as well.

Then there are those cell groups and potluck lunches and innumerable breakfast-at-Panera meetings – what do THOSE accomplish? It appears there’s a network or support system of relationships that we value deeply, in addition to our other goals. Fair enough.

Oh – and most churches worth their salt (see what I did there?) have some means of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. Some target the divorced, victims of abuse, illnesses overseas, or other groups perceived to be in need. There are even a few doing impressive work helping kids succeed in school. Because education ‘breaks the cycle.’

I appreciate them lending depth to my analogy.

These things need not be mutually exclusive, but any organization can only have just so many top priorities – so many ‘primary functions’.

What does ‘improvement’ look like, exactly? It might be possible to make Sunday mornings more entertaining, for example… does that require a trade-off involving doctrine or appropriate mindsets towards an omnipotent God? Maybe we could focus more on outreach and bringing in the lonely and dysfunctional. That certainly seems in keeping with the overall mission, but what do constant new names and their weird issues do to that community the rest of us need so badly?

I’ll bet getting rid of hell and so many sins would do wonders for participation – with one minor snag being that if we’re wrong, the fallout could be both permanent and uncomfortable.

And that would be unfortunate.

It’s not my purpose to solve this particular dilemma on behalf of 21st Century Protestantism. I’m not even sure I have a real solution when I transition to the world of public education.

Which is now, I guess.

There’s no shortage of books, blogs, tweets, and edu-rants laying out all the things we supposedly must change/fix/modernize/grow in public education. There are even more about how wrong and awful everyone else’s ideas are. Jonathan Edwards has nothing on BAT or their ilk when it comes to rhetorical venom – just ask them about charters or vouchers or TFA and watch them go! And just smile politely in the direction of Common Core on Twitter to experience a level of scathe beyond all but the most radical evangelicals tackling the most colorful sins.

We do not lack solutions. Everyone has a plan, a direction, a technology, an approach to set things right. Now if we could only agree on what ‘right’ looks like, exactly. What ARE our core values and beliefs? What precisely are we trying to accomplish?

The answers aren’t as self-evident as they may at first seem. Perhaps the goal is ‘college and career readiness’ or some variation thereof. But that hardly explains the variety of subjects we require of even those committed to technical trades or our inflexibility regarding seat time no matter what their gifts or interests. We insist on a diet of literature, science, math, and some social studies, so… we must be trying to enrich and grow those already employable as well.

Then there are those sports, bands, school clubs, and innumerable pep assemblies and speakers – what do THOSE accomplish? It appears there are diverse talents and relationships we care about deeply as well. Fair enough.

Oh – and most schools have some system in place to care for and instruct high-needs kids, those with a wide variety of learning or emotional issues. Many of them aren’t college or career-bound, but we’re nonetheless legally and ethically committed to pour ourselves into those in the greatest need.

There are even a few doing impressive work with character-building and personal responsibility. However carefully we shy away from anything smacking of religion, we not only want our kids to be ‘successful’, we have a non-neutral approach to the morality of how they get there. We’re consciously inculcating ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ as we currently define them. Because ‘character counts’.

These things need not be mutually exclusive, but any organization can only have just so many top priorities – so many ‘primary functions’.

What does improvement even look like, exactly? It might be possible to raise test scores, for example… does that require a trade-off involving personal fulfillment or student attitudes towards learning or the miraculous possibilities it offers? Maybe we could focus more on creative ways to reach the misfits and the underachieving. That certainly seems in keeping with the overall mission, but what does pouring all of our resources into the most draining minority of our population do to the standards and expectations the rest of them need held firmly in order to flourish?

I’ll bet getting rid of grades and so much outdated curriculum would do wonders for participation – with one minor snag being that if we’re wrong, the fallout could be both permanent and uncomfortable.

I have no doubt we can find amazing solutions. We may even manage to scrounge up the resources to implement them. But first, perhaps, we should revisit one more time exactly what our core doctrines and non-negotiables ARE in public education.

What is it that all else must serve?

Unlike in matters of faith, there’s no omniscient power potentially judging us if we get it wrong. The consequences, however, of chasing the wrong sorts of solutions – of forsaking the essential in favor of the flashy, or of clinging to the familiar at the expense of the necessary – well…

That would be unfortunate.

RELATED POST: What Are We FOR?

RELATED POST: All I Need Is This Lamp…

Rules & Rulers

August 27, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

If the internet is true (and how could it not be?), there are some strange laws on the books in Oklahoma:

It’s illegal to take a bite out of someone else’s hamburger.
It’s illegal for women not licensed by the state to do anyone’s hair – including their own.
It’s illegal to have tissues in the back of your car.
AND NO ORAL SEX – even among consenting adults. It’s against the law. Stop it!

Many seem designed to protect our animal friends:

It’s illegal to make ugly faces at a dog, or carry a fish in a fishbowl on the bus. You may not promote a ‘horse-tripping’ event. (It’s presumably OK if the horse trips accidentally.)
It’s illegal for bar owners to allow customers to pretend to have sex with buffalo. (I assume actually having buffalo bar-sex is covered in a separate statute…?)
It’s illegal to have the rear legs of a farm animal in your boots. And whale-hunting is ABSOLUTELY prohibited – anywhere in the state, under ANY circumstances.

Presumably these are antiquated codes passed in different times and circumstances. Some would be difficult to repeal even if legit. What aspiring legislator wants to campaign FOR simulated buffalo intercourse, or come out as pro-hamburger violating?

But these laws aren’t really a problem. No one MEANS them anymore – not most of them, anyway.

No one’s been prosecuted lately for using a little gel or helping their bestie with her braids. Even in revenue-hungry times I’m not aware the TPD or Highway Patrol have EVER written someone up based on that revealing Kleenex box sticking out from under the seat.

The state seems content to let us make our best guesses which laws they mean, and which they don’t.

Even more modern, slightly less-ludicrous legislation can fall into gray areas. Staying parked on the street in a residential area for more than 24 hours can get you towed, but rarely does unless other issues are involved. Disposing of a car battery in the trash is big no-no, but I’m not sure anyone actually checks that sort of thing.

And then there’s all that oral sex. I assume it’s happening from time to time, somewhere in the bounds of this otherwise rather conservative state. Is that a 911 situation, or do you simply file a complaint form the next business day?

A citizen’s arrest would just be… awkward.

Some degree of confusion and clusterfoolery may be understandable – or at least tolerable – after a century of prolific law-making… especially given the general quality of our elected leaders. And there’s rarely real mystery what the authorities will or won’t bust you for – go ahead and make fun of your dog, but keep your boots away from that goat!

The same clarity is often lacking, however, in the rules and policies we institute as districts, school buildings, or in our individual classrooms.

Like our dear state, we do love our many prohibitions and contingencies. Anything undesirable which has ever happened in your district, been rumored to have happened in other districts, or been imagined as possibly happening one day in the most hypothetical of circumstances – there’s probably a rule about it in a handbook somewhere.

You can often tell how long a teacher has been in the classroom by how many detailed expectations and procedures make it onto her wall or into his syllabus; it’s like counting a tree’s rings to determine its age.

We can argue the depth and detail of rules and policies some other time. The problem here is that, much like some of the state laws above, we don’t actually mean all of them – at least not all of the time, for everyone.

Please understand, I’m all for flexibility in the application of consequences based on the student, the circumstances, etc. ‘Equity is not always equality’ and all that. What I’m talking about are the super-secret and ever-shifting distinctions between the rules we actually mean, the ones we kinda mean early in the year or when we randomly decide we need to ‘crack down’ on something, and the ones which simply sound good and we don’t really want to get rid of but have no intention of enforcing – and haven’t for years. We just kinda hope they ‘slow down’ the inevitable problems associated with ignoring them.

Maybe it’s dress code (“But I wasn’t WEARING the hat; I was CARRYING it!”), or student ID’s, or raising your hand before getting up at lunch to go to the restroom. Maybe it’s phones and other electronics, or tardies, or those leftover prohibitions about tattoos or multi-colored hair.

I don’t really care WHAT the rules are, but I do wish we’d try something crazy: if it’s a rule, let’s enforce it; if it’s not worth enforcing, let’s not keep it as a rule.

I realize this is right up there with doing away with grades, eliminating gender-biased bathrooms, and extra Jeans Days for meeting our United Way goal – it’s THAT crazy.

We’re infuriated with students who simply DON’T catch on that they can’t wear spandex to class, while at the same time we never really INTENDED to spend our entire lunch duty coordinating tinkle-time for six hundred teenagers. The girl who guesses incorrectly about which rules we actually mean gets busted for her booty-wear, while the super-demure cooperative honor student gets a UTI and loses circulation in her right arm.

We’re bewildered by both of them, but their crime was the same – incorrectly guessing what we really mean, despite what we say.

I get that no one wants to “give up” on dress codes or ID’s and just let them wear… whatever, indecipherably grunting their name as needed and wandering into class whenever ready. I support our desire to avoid packing ISD with anonymous students wearing yoga pants or arguing over how long it really takes to get to 3rd Hour – they need to be in class, where there’s at least a chance they’ll learn something. We want to prioritize the important things – our primary function.

Unfortunately, “holding the line” and “not holding the line” are, well… completely contradictory.

I fear the real reason we keep so many rules in place without the willingness to follow through when tested is that it makes US feel better.

“We have high expectations, by golly – just look at our rules!”
“We’re so caring about the individual student and value learning over dogma – just look at how we never enforce any of our rules!”
“New Shimmer is a floor wax AND a dessert topping!”

We need to figure out what our actual goals are, both as a whole and in our individual classrooms. Is the purpose of our rules to help things run smoothly? To keep everyone safe & opportunities relatively equitable? To introduce life skills like ‘manipulation’ and ‘guessing which laws actually apply to ME?’

Are we trying to breed creativity? Compliance? Independence? Cynicism?

I’m not saying it’s easy, or that anyone’s intentions are suspect. But our kids are already surrounded by chaos and injustice, uncertainty and the general flakiness of those purporting to lead them. At the very least, we shouldn’t ADD to the madness by forcing them to guess how things work THIS week, or punish the ones who take us at our word – while only those willing to constantly test our sincerity can check that text from mom or pee from time to time.

Then again, at least they’re not keeping Kleenex in their cars or pretending to have sex with buffalo.

RELATED POST: Obedience School