Teen dumps former teacher boyfriend

Eigheen year old Jordan Powers broke up with her former teacher, 41 year old James Hooker, after he was charged with sexually assaulting another girl, who was seventeen at the time, in 1998. The romance began while Hooker was still her teacher, though both deny any sexual involvement until after her 18th birthday. Hooker, who was married and had a daughter nearly the same age as his teen girlfriend, filed for divorce because, he said that when you're in love, "Sometimes you take a leap of faith." Jordan's mother, Tammie Powers, claims Hooker is a sexual predator who has stolen her daughter and is campaigning for a law that she says would prevent such occurences from happening.

If you had to guess what state this all took place in, what would you guess?

Imagine a Less Political Lennon

Daniel J. Flynn offers another perspective on John Lennon:

After stumbling through a haze of drugs and alcohol in the 1970s, a sober Lennon returned to wife Yoko Ono, finally succeeded in starting a family with her, and lived the quiet life of a "househusband" from 1975 to 1980. Fatherhood the first time around had eluded the essentially fatherless Lennon. Removed from Beatlemania hysteria, Lennon had been for son Sean what he hadn't been for son Julian: a dad.

His musical comeback owed as much to the comeback of his personal life as it had to his renewed focus on rock 'n' roll to the exclusion of politics and drugs. Politics, Lennon concluded, had "almost ruined" his music. "It became journalism and not poetry. And I basically feel that I'm a poet -- even if it does go ba-deeble, eedle, eedle, it, de-deedle, deedle, it." That politicized John Lennon -- holding bed-ins for peace, singing for marijuana offender John Sinclair, featuring activists Bobby Seale, Ralph Nader, and Jerry Rubin on The Mike Douglas Show during a guest-hosting stint -- coincided with the chemicalized John Lennon. The stringy-haired beardo rhapsodizing about imagining no religion was John Lennon. But so too was the leather-clad child of the fifties belting out a stripped-down cover of "Stand By Me."

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/08/imagine-a-less-political-lenno

From Ben Stein's Diary

Ben Stein's take on the coming result of our public education:

This condition -- not wanting to learn or even knowing how to learn -- is going to kill this country, or at least the idea of a fluid, meritocratic society. The poor will stay poor and the rich who are willing to learn will stay rich.

This will eventually drag down national productivity to the point where we truly become a Third World nation with a thin slice of first world on top of. The process will take a long time, but it will happen. It is already happening.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/01/one-of-eight-billion/1

Imagine

Catholic writer Mark Shea has taken John Lennon's song "Imagine" to the woodshed:

How does it honor the dead to “Imagine there's no heaven”? How does it honor the firefighters who sacrificed their lives to mewl about “Nothing to…die for”? Indeed, it is sung by earnest churchgoers, even at Catholic Masses, who seem to perceive no particular contradiction between the liberating wonder of imagining there's no Heaven and the prayer which begins “Our Father who art in heaven.” It seems to be because the words of the song are more or less treated as sonorous replacements for singing “La La” to its pleasant tune.

Me, I pay attention to words. That is why I have always thought of it as a sort of anthem to Original Sin — fallen man's infinite capacity to believe he can create Heaven on earth if he's just permitted one more chance to get it right. Everything the song advocates and hopes for as a supreme good was the fountainhead of all the horrors of the 20th century. Imagine there's no countries? Hitler dreamt of a world without borders. Imagine there's no heaven? No religion too? Stalin and Mao sought to free us from religion and the burden of hoping for something more than this life. Imagine no possessions? Communism was all about freeing us from possessions (though multi-zillionaire Lennon seems to have honored this dream more in the breach than the observance). Imagine all the people living for today? You got it! A culture of brain-dead MTV-educated “fornicate-today-and-abort-tomorrow” zombies has accomplished the mission.

http://catholicexchange.com/2006/09/27/94446/

Good Rheedance

Much as I'd like to, I can't take credit for that clever title. It goes to Roger Kaplan, who wrote an excellent article regarding Michelle Rhee's timely exit from the Chancellorship of the D.C. Public School system. You can read the whole thing at The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/18/good-rheedance.

[P]ublic schools, like our nation, evolve, and indeed evolve in ways that parallel the larger society's. The most significant of these parallel trends is the surrender of local responsibility to government authorities, and the pretense of the latter to rely on "experts," a.k.a. technocrats, people parachuted into communities where they have no ties but whose problems they can solve . . . .

School reform has focused historically, one might almost say cyclically, on such scarecrows as "entrenched interests" and "out of date pedagogy." In plain English, reformers have tended to think they understand the problems and challenges of educating undisciplined if lovable savages (children and teenagers) better than the people whose job it is to do it, and furthermore that they have a system for teaching math and reading that will work better than any other. In both regards they are very much in the venerable American tradition of snake-oil salesmen, though the Ph.D.'s they often hold are authentic, compared to the "doctor" titles conferred upon themselves by your old-fashioned mountebanks. In terms of truth-in-packaging, the latter were probably more honest . . . .

The schools reflect our society, and being vitally, warmly, constantly interested in the immediate and crucial bond between our communities and our schools is part of the job of running them and working in them. This bond has been sundered by the massive infusion of federal money in our school systems. That is what is really wrong with them. It scarcely matters that teenage boys hate to read -- that would not be news. They should spend more time in shop then, or under the supervision of their coaches and their ROTC colonels. They will come to reading in their own good time. No superman is going to change that, and it is symptomatic of the narcissistic, rules-are-for-others types that they can think of nothing better than blaming teachers for a system that has lost its moorings and its compasses, including most pertinently its
moral compasses.

Doing Away with Recess

A recent column appearing in The American Spectator by Perry Glanzer suggests President Obama should "act like a good politician and tell children exactly what they want to hear" in his upcoming speech to the nation's schoolchildren. He should tell them, suggests Glanzer, that they need more recess. http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/14/what-obama-should-tell-the-kid

Sadly, recess is dying by strangulation from other supposedly good things. Recently, I met my son's teacher and received a copy of my son's schedule. I saw lots of good things he needs to and should learn, but I also looked for what I always loved -- those precious times of recess.

Glanzer is right. In many schools, recess has all but been squeezed out. What remains is like a tiny patch of rainforest surrounded by pasture. One example is the East Providence School District, which recently announced its plans to scrape recess entirely - all 10 minutes of it. I wrote about it here: http://linestoabrasspot.blogspot.com/2010/09/enhanced-recess.html

There was an uproar, followed by the district's clarification that it was merely "enhancing" recess by, among other things, lengthening it from 10 to 15 minutes. On its website, the district boasted that recess, "would no longer be an afterthought squeezed in after a rushed lunch." At this point any parent who was paying attention would have been doubly upset and demanded to know, "Since when did you whittle recess down to a 10 minute afterthought?"

Glanzer remembers his recess breaks in school:

When I was in school, I had three of them. Fifteen minutes in the morning,thirty minutes after lunch and fifteen minutes in the afternoon. During those times I learned to create games with others, choose my own activities, get along, argue, and negotiate.

My own memory of recess is much the same. I wonder about those who would eliminate recess. I wonder how they remember their own recess breaks when they were in school. Have they forgotten, or did they just hate recess?

Far Out

How far out can you go? The folks at the Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP) at the University of Wisconsin at Madison go pretty far in their May 2010 article, "Promising antipoverty strategies for families."

"Difficult issues include determining how much child support can be expected from nonresident parents who are not working, and whether (and how) child support orders should change when nonresident parents suffer earnings losses or unemployment." http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/fastfocus/pdfs/FF6-2010.pdf

You probably thought it would be easy to know how much child support you can expect from a nonresident parent who isn't working. Unless you're far out too.

Waiting for Superman

Director Davis Guggenheim (An Inconvenient Truth) has made a new documentary about public schools. "Waiting for Superman" opens soon and is expected to generate alot of attention. In a recent article in New York Magazine entitled, Schools: The Disaster Movie, John Heileman discusses the movie and its director, whom he refers to as, "an unrepentant liberal." http://nymag.com/news/features/67966/ That's a strange term. What liberal school policies is Guggenheim unrepentant about? Racial desegration? The free school lunch program? Special education services for the disabled? If so, more power to him. But if he's unrepentant about busing, open classrooms, full inclusion, whole language, values clarification, or other variously liberal policies I could mention, then I'm not so sure. Heileman is probably using the term loosely, though it is still very weird. But I am getting way off track. What I really wanted to comment on is the thrust of Heileman's movie review: that terrific teachers are THE KEY to student success.

According to Heileman, Guggenheim's position is that "no variable is more critical to the success of students than terrific teachers." That may be true to an extent. Within the school, teachers probably are the variable most important to student success. Most people would agree with that. But what is wrong with Heileman's and Guggenheim's assertion is what it leaves out, the parents.

In a larger sense, it is not terrific teachers but rather terrific parents that are of paramount importance to children's success in school and in life. Waiting for Superman might acknowledge this reality, but nothing in Heileman's review suggests that it does. Instead, it offers the modest proposal that we bring in a new breed of teacher, a teacher who graduated from the top third, doesn't mind working nights and weekends or expect summers off. Perhaps that is what is meant by the movie title, Waiting for Superman, which I'll remind you Heilemen called a disaster movie. So here's the scenario: our poor helpless schoolchildren are trapped in failing schools. And they're going to fail unless terrific teachers rescue them. There are teachers currently on the scene trying to help, but they can't because they're weak and ineffective (or crappy, as Heileman put it). So the children must wait for Superman, or super teachers, to arrive. But what can we do to make super teachers come to the rescue?

Heilemen has the answser. He cites a study that says super teachers could be attracted to the field for a starting salary of $65,000 and a top salary of $150,000. Will the new breed of super teachers arrive in time to save the trapped children from failing?

Don't touch that dial, movie fans.

Unmentionable

Robert Samuelson, a contributing editor at Newsweek, recently wrote that the biggest reason school reform routinely fails "is almost unmentionable: shrunken student motivation." I'm guessing what Mr. Samuelson really finds almost unmentionable is not the lack of student motivation, because everybody talks about lack of student motivation, but rather it's cause. Here Mr. Samuelson bucks the standard line, which is that lack of student motivation is either the school's or the teacher's fault. Mr. Samuelson asserts that the reality is otherwise. According to Samuelson, as schools are including more and more students who formerly would have dropped out and as the adolescent culture has strengthened, school and teacher authority has eroded. "Motivation is weak," writes Mr. Samuelson, "because more students (of all races and economic classes, let it be added) don't like school, don't work hard and don't do well." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/06/why_school_reform_fails_107033.html

Bracing, as is Mr. Samuelson's next assertion: "The goal of expanding 'access' -- giving more students more years of schooling -- tends to lower educational standards." I am reminded of a quip I once heard from a college professor friend of mine, "The only way we're going to not leave any child behind is if we don't go anywhere."

Could it be we are coming back to the realization that many students fail because they don't like school, don't work hard, and in some cases, don't belong in school in the first place?

Unmentionable indeed.

Enhanced Recess?

The latest assault on recess (and common sense) comes from the East Providence School District in Rhode Island. Tony Carcieri, spokesman for the district, gave a radio interview with Dan Yorke of WPRO in Providence. Seeking to allay fears that the district was doing away with recess, Mr. Carcieri may have simply added fuel to the fire when he explained that the district, "got rid of recess as we knew it and replaced it with something better." Carcieri asserted much of the criticism of the new policy was politically motivated. He also said of its critics, "They would like it to be like the old days." http://www.630wpro.com/Article.asp?id=1917874&spid=18040

A story on the Providence Journal's website sums up many parents' feelings of the new policy: "Developmentally inappropriate. Inhumane. Ridiculous. Too structured. Another popular opinion shared was recess, as most remember it, is gone and shame on the school officials for eliminating it."

Nothing doing, says Mario Cirillo, the superintendent, who refers to the new and improved recess as "enhanced recess." According to the district, enhanced means: 1) five extra minutes (whoop tee doo); 2) recess held at the teacher's discretion (whenever that is); 3) recess will be supervised by teachers instead of aids (another big whoop); 4) students will receive "personalized experiences" with the classroom teachers during recess (huh?). http://www.epschoolsri.com/news/recess.php

The district's claim that it is merely "enhancing" recess sounds suspiciously like a euphemism masking the very opposite: the elimination of recess. Call me a fear monger, but I can't help it when the district's own spokesman goes on the radio and announces that the district, "got rid of recess as we knew it and replaced it with something better." And it doesn't help either that the district's website distinguishes between "unstructured free time play" and recess. Why the distinction? The site assures parents children will recieve fifteen minutes of recess per day, but does not give any assurance of when or how much "unstructured free time play" children will receive. All it says is, "Children will have their unstructured free time play." That is because recess is no longer recess in East Providence. As the district has explained, it got rid of recess as we know it and replaced it with "enhanced recess." Enhanced recess is not the same as "unstructured free time play." Enhanced recess is totally up to the teacher's discretion. It may come at any time of the day, morning or afternoon, or it may not come at all on any given day. It may be inside the classroom or outside. It may consist of the teacher taking children outside for a stretch break or a game of duck duck goose. As for the old recess as we knew it, what the district now calls "unstructured free time play," the district won't say when or how much children will get.

If you read the news, you probably hear alot about the crisis in public education, about our dysfunctional public school system. You probably also hear alot about the supposed causes of the failure: inadequate funding, poverty, teacher performance, level of parental involvement, etc . . . . These issues are secondary. This story gives us a glimpse of the real cause of the crisis in public schools: the boneheaded thinking of those who run the schools.

Bloated Bureaucracy

Andrew Coulson of the Cato Institute has developed an Excel spreadsheet showing that the actual dollars spent per pupil by the District of Columbia Public Schools is more than $28,000. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/do-you-still-think-dc-spends-only-15000pupil/

In a post on the Cato Institute's website in February 2010, Mr. Coulson wrote:

If you’d like all the gory details, drawn from the official DC budget documents and the District’s own audited enrollment figures, then have a look at this Excel spreadsheet file. I’m happy to go over the calculation with any DC or DCPS official — or journalist — who would care to dispute it. (It’s only been challenged once before, and the official in question fell silent after seeing the spreadsheet.)

Interviewed by John Stossel, Coulson commented on the Byzantine nature of school funding:

School district budgets are so convoluted it’s almost as if they’re made to be confusing... DC has split up its education spending into seven different budgets, all of which go to k-12 public education, but only one of which is called “the DC Public School budget."

The next time you hear someone say our public schools are underfunded, keep that $28,000 figure in mind.

Shortage of Female Public School Administrators?

Mark your calendars! August 31st is the deadline for applications for the first time ever, Women in School Leadership Award, sponsored by the The American Association of School Administrators (AASA). From the AASA website:

Recognize an exceptional female administrator in your school system! This first-time offered AASA Women in School Leadership Award, sponsored by Farmers Insurance and AASA, pays tribute to the talent, creativity, and vision of outstanding women educational administrators in the nation’s public schools. http://www.aasa.org/WomensLeadership.aspx

In my own career, I've taught under eight principals, five women and three men. The women only AASA award is discriminatory, divisive, and unnecessary in an age when females make up a good percentage of public school administrators. Summarizing the results of the 1999-2000 Schools and Staff Survey conducted by National Center for Educational Statistics, Susan M. Gates, et al. of the Rand Corporation noted that the overral number of female public school principals had trended upward since the eighties. While the percentage of female principals in public high schools was still low, and while the percentage of principals was less than the rcentage of women in teaching, nevertheless 43.7% of all public school principals were women. According to Gates:

After years of concern about the representation of women in the principalship,the 1990s saw dramatic progress. By 1999–2000 . . . nearly half of all public school principals were women, as were over half of all new public school principals and all private school principals. "Who is Leading Our Schools? An Overview of School Administrators and their Careers," by Susan M. Gates, et al. (2003)
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1679/MR1679.ch3.pdf

I was unable to find references to any Schools and Staffing Survey more recent than the 1999-2000 survey. If anyone can point me to more recent data concerning the gender composition of public school principals and/or administrators, I'd be much obliged. Until then, my take on the AASA's Women in School Leadership Award is that it's a bit late to the party.

It's Not Rocket Science

So if teaching's not rocket science, what is it like? If it's not, in the words of educational psychologist Lee Schulman, "the most complex, most challenging, and most demanding, subtle, nuanced,and frightening activity that our species has ever invented," then what is it like?

The best answer I've heard is that teaching, parenting, and counselling are alot alike. That observation comes from my sister, a homeschool mother of five who also has a master's degree in psychology and extensive experience counselling people with eating disorders. Another excellent description of teaching comes from Norman Atkins in his foreword to Doug Lemov's outstanding new book, "Teach Like a Champion." Atkins describes Lemov's study of outstanding teachers this way:

For the past dozen years, he has been standing in the back of hundreds of classrooms, watching thousands of hours of teachers' game films, analyzing their teaching moves with more enthusiasm and attention to detail than virtually anyone else in the history of American education . . . .

What he discovered is surprising for its simplicity and portends good news for the teaching profession . . . what he repeatedly saw and captured on video,beyond the no-shortcuts preparation and an essential mind-set of high expectations, were highly skilled individuals, working with a common, discrete set of tools, building systems of classroom culture and instruction, brick by brick.

We need to be realistic when we talk about teaching. A false view of teaching leads to unrealistic expectations and is a recipe for failure. When school superintendents and leaders such as Charlotte Danielson compare teaching to rocket science and claim that it is the hardest thing on the planet, bad consequences follow. The "teacher as rocket scientist" view of teaching allows administrators to set unrealistic expectations, to make everything harder and more complex, to disable, make dependent, and micromanage teachers, and to delegitimize common sense and personal experience.

Doug Lemov's new book, "Teach Like a Champion," is must reading for any teacher and is a welcome antidote to those who compare teaching to brain surgery or rocket science.

Are Teachers Really that Insecure?

While researching the District of Columbia Public Schools' new IMPACT teacher evaluation system, I came accross the following quote from Charlotte Danielson, whose work, Framework for Teachers was cited by the developers of IMPACT:

Educational psychologist Lee Shulman (2004) illustrated the complexity of teaching by comparing the fields of teaching and medicine. He noted that teachers have classrooms of 25–35 students, whereas doctors treat only a single patient at a time. Even when working with a reading group of 6–8 students, teachers are overseeing the decoding skills, comprehension, word attack,performance, and engagement of those students while simultaneously keeping tabs on the learning of the other two dozen students in the room. "The only time a physician could possibly encounter a situation of comparable complexity," Shulman pointed out, "would be in the emergency room of a hospital during or after a natural disaster" (p. 258). He concluded that classroom teaching "is perhaps the most complex, most challenging, and most demanding, subtle, nuanced,and frightening activity that our species has ever invented" (p.504). http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/summer09/vol66/num09/A-Framework-for-Learning-to-Teach.aspx

This got me thinking, are teachers really that insecure? Must we be told that teaching is the hardest thing on the planet? I've taught in the lower grades (K-3rd) for twelve years, and I'm here to tell you that teaching little ones is alot more than wiping noses and zipping zippers. But I'd be exaggerating just a tad if I said it was the most complex, challenging, nuanced, demanding, and frightening activity ever invented by the human species.

A similar exaggeration came from one of my heros, Harry K. Wong. I love Harry and Rosemary Wong's classic book, The First Days of School: How to be an Effective Teacher, but always thought Harry's dedication was over the top:

Dedicated to my father and mother,
Who wanted me to be a brain surgeon.
I exceeded their expectations.
I became a scholar and a teacher.

-Harry K. Wong

In fairness, Harry is using hyperbole and that's fine. Nothing wrong with a bit of hyperbole, but if you listen to what other educators are saying, you can't tell if they're merely using hyperbole or if they really do have an unrealistic view of teaching. Exhibit A comes from Marion Brady, author of numerous articles and books on education, who wrote of teaching, "No other profession, not brain surgery, not rocket science, not politicking, is as difficult as is altering the images of reality in young minds." According to Brady, the "inherent complexity" of teaching is what attracts the best teachers to the field - not a love of children, not a desire to help others, not a passion for the subject matter. http://www.marionbrady.com/PrimerForReformers.pdf

And then there's the Superintendent of schools where I used to teach first grade. She recently told an assembly of several hundered teachers that "teaching really is rocket science." That teaching "really is rocket science" was the theme of her speech, which had to do with how critical every moment in the classroom is and how difficult the teacher's job is. But why would any teacher compare himself or herself to a rocket scientist?

Our work as teachers is important and hard and nobody is questioning that, so spare us the comparisons to brain surgery and rocket science. Or do we suffer from an inferiority complex? (My wife tells me that at her college,"bunny classes" was a common pejorative for education courses. Perhaps those who compare teaching to rocket science and brain surgery are raging against the idea that education courses are nothing more than "bunny classes?")

In 1999, the American Federation of Teachers published an article entitled, "Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science: What Teachers of Reading Should Know and be Able to Do."
//http://www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers/rocketscience0304.pdf

That's embarrassing, frankly.

Failure is Information

"Failure is information." I'm going to remember that little gem the next time I have a child complain about getting the wrong answer in my classroom.

The quote comes from Carol Deiner, who as a graduate student in psychology worked with Carol Dweck, author of the book, Mindset, the New Psychology of Success. (2006) What Deiner and Dweck are saying is that we can view failure with a good or bad attitude. The bad attitude says something like, "I'm not smart enough to do this." The good says, "This didn’t work, I’m a problem solver, and I’ll try something else.’” Think Thomas Edison and his endless lightbulb experiments. (Okay they weren't endless, but don't be a nitwit - you know what I mean!) Failure is information.

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/features/dweck.html

According to Deiner and Dweck, our level of success depends on which of these two attitudes we take. If we view ourselves as not smart enough, not capable enough, or just inherently limited in some way, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. But if we view failure as information to use in solving a problem, our chances of ultimate success are so much the greater.

Dweck's book, Mindset, is listed as one of the sources consulted by the drafters of the District of Columbia Public School's new IMPACT teacher evaluation system. I am intrigued by Carol Dweck's research and intend to read her book, Mindset. I'll also be interested to see just how her research fits into the IMPACT system.

DC Public Schools Fire 241

The District of Columbia Public Schools, headed by Michelle Rhee, recently fired 241 teachers under its new teacher evaluation system known as "IMPACT" which is noteworthy in that, for the first time, teachers' job status is tied to students' test results. According to the Washington Post, 165 teachers were fired for poor evaluations under a new teacher evaluation program called "IMPACT." The remaining 89 teachers appear to have been fired over licensing issues. The Post notes that those fired for poor performance represent about 4% of the DC Public School system's 4,000 teachers. Rhee also announced that an additional 737 teachers were rated as "minimally effective" under the new IMPACT teacher evaluation system, and that they had one year to improve or be fired. Thus, according to Rhee, about 22.5% of teachers in the DC system was minimally effective or worse.

On his blog, "Inside DC Schools," Washington Post education reporter Bill Turque highlights some of the misgivings many people have with the firings and the new IMPACT system. He quoted one teacher who responded to a survey conducted by the teacher's union, "I think the only thing the IMPACT system has provided DCPS teachers with is an atmosphere of fear and rejection."

Turque quoted another teacher:

IMPACT is an out-of-touch and convoluted corporate construction which has no validity in the gritty reality of teaching in DC public schools," wrote another. "It seems designed by political aspirant edwonk self-aggrandizers who have little or no real teaching experience or any respect for the heroic job DCPS teachers do every day.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcschools/2010/07/impacts_impact_fear_and_reject.html?sid=ST2010072303662

Of course, these are only two voices amid many on both sides. From what I've learned so far, I have major qualms with IMPACT. In my next series of posts I'll attempt to explore them in a fair and helpful manner.

Jaywalking with John Hinderaker (Part II)

I recently linked to a post by Powerline's John Hinderaker, in which he describes how an encounter with a young desk clerk at a gym left him wondering about the state of education in our country. Hinderaker had asked the clerk if she recognized the man on the $50 bill. She didn't. Then he asked her if she had ever heard of Ulysses Grant. She hadn't.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026773.php

Hinderaker acted boldly in giving the young clerk a pop quiz in history, and so did Jay Leno in his "Jaywalking" routine. My hunch is that Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" routine made a lasting impression on many people as to the state of education in America. I have no idea whether Hinderaker was inspired by Jay's routine, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was. If we were to construct a timeline of major events in the public consciousness of education in America, Jay Leno's Jaywalking deserves to be there, just as suredly as Rudolf Flesch's 1955 book, Why Johnny Can't Read, the launch of Sputnik in 1957, and the 1983 report, "A Nation at Risk," by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. But I digress.

The very next day I had my own Jaywalking encounter, but unlike Hinderaker, I did nothing to initiate it. Meek and mild as I am, I am a milquetoast to all the young people who serve me at the restaurants and stores I visit. I would never set out to - in the lingo of today's pedagogists - conduct "a probe" into an unsuspecting person's knowledge of history, geography, or any academic area. Unlike Hinderaker, I wasn't going to be giving any pop quizzes. Nevertheless, I found myself confronted with "another sign of the apocalypse" as Hinderaker would put it.

I walked into a McDonald's in Rice Lake, Wisconsin. The computers had just crashed and the cash registers weren't working. A young lady took my order, but she wasn't sure what to do after that. Her supervisor told her to figure the cost with pen and paper. The employee looked flabbergasted. "I can't do that," she said, loud enough for everyone to hear. Her supervisor told her it was easy, that all she had to do was add the amounts and multiply by a decimal to get the tax. At that, the employee became very upset. "I don't know anything about decimals," she stammered. "I can't even add. I was in retard math." The young McDonald's employee was genuinely upset, almost beside herself, and I felt really bad for her. But I didn't ask her any questions. All I did was smile and wish her a nice day. If I wasn't such a wimp, I would have asked her whether she had a high school diploma.

Then again, that would have been pointless, as it's safe to assume she was in school long enough to have learned how to add. And the stories are legion of newly minted high school graduates who lack basic reading and math skills, never mind Ulysses Grant.

Jaywalking with John Hinderaker

The most memorable thing Jay Leno ever did on the Tonight Show, at least in my mind, was his Jaywalking routine. You probably remember it well. Jay would walk up to people on the street, generally young people in their teens or twenties, microphone in hand, and ask them simple questions about current events or history. We were supposed to laugh as these people would be stumped by such questions as, "What happened in 1776?" or "Who was President during World War II?" etc . . . It was all supposed to be just a gag, but I think Jay performed a valuable public service in opening people's eyes to the state of education in America.

Sometimes the people on the street were faking it. You could tell they knew the answer but wanted to go along with the routine so they pretended to be ignorant. My dad once told me about a time he saw a guy hypnotize people on stage. He'd asked for volunteers from the audience and after weeding out most of them, had a few saps left who would do anything. One guy barked like a dog, another pretended to be a houseplant. My dad thought they were all faking.

I can see how that would happen. Put yourself in their shoes. Nobody wants to be a wet blanket. Suppose you're at some performance. You raise your hand without thinking, now you're up on stage. Pretty soon you're one of the only one's left and it's up to you to pretend you're in a trance, or the act dies and no one has a good time. Same thing with Jay. You're walking down the street on a beautiful day. There's a commotion. "Wow, is that . . . " you say to yourself, "Jay Leno?" Next thing you know he's standing right in front of you. You can't believe you're actually face to face with Jay Leno himself! You're nervous, excited, everybody's laughing, he pops the question, "Who was this man?" he asks. [He shows you a portrait of Ben Franklin.] You know it's Ben Franklin, but you don't say that because it wouldn't be funny, so you say something else. (laugh, laugh)

That happened, but most of the time people weren't pretending to be so ignorant. For me at least, that's what was so disturbing and revealing about the Jaywalking routine. These people really didn't know what ocean is to the west of California, whose image is on our penny, or some such thing.

John Hinderaker of Powerlineblog.com has a recent post about his own Jaywalking experience. http://powerlineblog.com/ "Another Sign of the Apocalypse" Hinderaker tells about how he showed a $50 bill to a desk clerk at a local gym, asking her whose image it was on the bill. She didn't know, so he proceeded to tell her. "Do you know who he was?" Hinderaker asked. "You don't recall ever hearing of him?" he asked. She didn't. I have been reading Powerline for years, and I admire Hinderaker a great deal, but in this case it strikes me as rude what he did. I think he stepped over a boundary just as surely as though he'd asked her how much money she had in her pocket. "It's none of you're damn business!" could have been her rightful reply.

Whether or not Hinderaker overstepped his bounds, the point remains that the young clerk probably didn't have a clue as to who Ulysses Grant was. We can thank Jay Leno for helping to open our eyes to the crisis, and for propmting ordinary people like Hinderaker to take matters into their own hands and test the premise behind Jaywalking, which is that many of today's young people really are that ignorant.

www.kids: It's About Time

The July issue of National Review contains a great piece by Jonah Goldberg and Nick Schulz, in which they propose the creation of a new "top-level domain" reserved exclusively for material appropriate for children under the age of eighteen: www.kids.

http://article.nationalreview.com/437945/gated-or-x-rated/jonah-goldberg-nick-schulz

Currently there is a growing handful of top-level domains: .com, .gov, .edu, etc . . . . Goldberg and Shulz give a chilling (if you're a parent) account of just how easily a child can be exposed to harmful content on the Internet:

But even on YouTube things are not so safe for children. For example, one of the more infuriating gags is to re-dub the voice tracks on clips from children’s cartoons. A friend of the authors’ once let his very young daughter watch a YouTube clip of Thomas the Tank Engine while he worked at his desk nearby. He had to shut the computer off when one of the characters brought up oral sex. On another occasion, one of the authors tried to play a YouTube clip of the opening song from the old 1980s Transformers cartoon, only to have to pretend there was a technical problem when the profanity started to fly. Even browsing the undoctored content on YouTube, a child is merely a click or two away from something offensive or otherwise ill-suited for kids.

Goldberg and Shulz make the case for a children's domain persuasively. It's likely to draw support from everybody but the "frontier culture voluptuaries," who are always on high alert for any form of encroachment on the Internet's "Wild West" atmoshpere.

"Cyberspace," says Godberg and Shulz, "is a big place, with plenty of room for the Wild West saloon and the gated community." In discussing Apple's successful App Store approach, they relate an exchange between one such voluptuary and Apple CEO Steve Jobs:

By reserving the right to decide what third-party programs can be sold or used on their platforms, Apple has introduced a kind of zoning to the Internet. Ryan Tate, a tech blogger, wrote in a now-famous e-mail exchange with Jobs: “If [Bob]Dylan was 20 today, how would he feel about your company? Would he think the iPad had the faintest thing to do with ‘revolution?’ [sic] Revolutions are about freedom.”

. . . Jobs’s reply: “Yep, freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery.” And finally: “Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom. The times they are a changin’.”

Tate was horrified. “I don’t want ‘freedom from porn,’” he complained. “Porn is just fine!”

To which Jobs replied, “You might care more about porn when you have kids . . .”

School Nurses on Splinter Removal: "No We Can't"

It seems to be standard practice in many schools that school nurses don't remove splinters, or even attempt to. The following account from a parent posted on webmd.com is illustrative:

DD1 got a splinter in her hand while playing at school yesterday. She told her teacher who sent her to the school nurse. The nurse cleaned her palm where the splinter was, put a band air on it and sent her home (with the splinter still inside her palm). When dd came home and told me she had a splinter and that she went to the nurse and got it fixed, I didn't worry too much. Later in the evening I took the band aid off to look at the wound and found the splinter still inside.

I took it out with a pair of tweezers - this is a feat because I'm the most squeamish person imaginable. I am not good at these kind of things. So, if I can do it, why couldn't the nurse do it?

http://forums.webmd.com/3/parenting-elementary-ages-exchange/forum/886/8

Now I'm not saying all splinters can be removed. If a splinter's in too deep, that's one thing. Nor would I expect, as one parent responded to the above entry, for a school nurse to physically restrain a child and wrestle a splinter out. But to not even try? I'll never forget the little boy in my own second grade class, Dalton, who came back from the office with a bandaid over his splinter. It was a fairly large splinter, just under the skin. Anyone with a pair of tweezers could have easily removed it. The little boy even stood patiently and bit his lip a time or two as I tried removing it with a pair of needle nosed pliers I'd fished out of my desk. As another parent noted on webmd.com, "Splinters hurt & can be quite bothersome. I know for my kids they complain continuously until it is removed."

Our school did not have a licensed nurse on staff. Instead, bandaids were administered by the attendance secretary, who was a loving, intelligent, and always helpful person who had raised a number of children. She would probably have been more than happy to remove Dalton's irritating splinter had she not been prevented by our District's policy. I have told Dalton's story to at least two licensed school nurses, and neither was surprised. If I remember correctly, and it's been a while, both of them told me they were prohibited from removing splinters.

Whenever someone asks me why I think our public schools are dysfunctional, I tell them the story of Dalton and his splinter. I also think of Little Loewy from Darkness at Noon. Little Loewy was a disillusioned Bolshevik, a true believer whose eyes were opened by the seemingly corrupt and counterproductive actions of his superiors in Moscow. The problem was, Little Loewy only thought of his communist ideals. He had no broader vision, no realpolitic. That's why he felt betrayed when Moscow began secretly shipping arms to Nazi Germany. In the story, he's just finished telling Rubashov, the protagonist, some bitter tale of woe about some incomprehensible thing the Party leaders in Moscow have done. "What are you telling me this for?" Rubashov asks. Little Loewy responds:

"Because it is instructive . . . because it is a typical example, I could tell you of hundreds of others. For years the best of us have been crushed in that way. The Party is becoming more and more fossilized. The Party has gout and vericose veins in every limb."

There is a parallel here. Just as Little Loewy couldn't understand the broader vision of realpolitic that led the party leaders in Moscow to do what they did, many parents and teachers don't understand why school nurses can't remove a splinter from a child's palm. But just like Little Loewy, we too lack the broader vision of our superiors. All we see is the face of the little hurting child, imploring us to do something about that splinter. We lack the broader vision, which is the fear of lawsuits that those who run our public schools are all too aware of.

Attorney Phillip K. Howard, author of Life Without Lawyers (2009) says that fear of lawsuits has upturned our society's "sense of balance on ordinary life choices."

Broward County decided to ban running in the playgrounds after it got a report showing that it had settled 189 playground awsuits in the prior five years. "To say 'no running' on the playground seems crazy," said a member of the Broward County School Board, "but your feelings change when you're in a closed-door meeting with lawyers."

The child with the splinter in his palm and the school board that feels compelled to ban running on the playground are of the same piece. What seems crazy is not crazy after all, esecially if you've been "reeducated" during a closed door session with lawywers. That's where you learn that you must remove all risk, no matter what the cost. "Sorry kid, I can't take that splinter out, and be sure you don't run on the playground when you get back out there."