Dogs and Turtles and Porcupines

Many are the pets I have had, mostly dogs. I have had dogs and cats and turtles and snakes and fish and hamsters. Never had a porcupine, and know of no one who has. The animal companions I like the most are dogs.

Many are the people I have known and learned from and taught with and cared for and avoided. I deeply believe that all humans are precious and flawed. I believe we should honor the preciousness and forgive the flaws. With some folks, that is more difficult. And I grow weary of dividing folks into dichotomies, black or white, good or bad, sinner or saint, giver or taker, Mars or Venus. Hence, a metaphorical trichotomy: dogs and turtles and porcupines.

The dogs I have known and loved are without guile. If you are lucky enough to be chosen by a dog as a member of his or her pack, then you will receive great blessings. No matter what you do or say, the dog will forgive you. In fact, if you grow angry at your dog, he or she will approach you, wagging tail, licking face, doing tricks to get you to like him or her again. Dogs can be stubborn and obstinate and set in their ways. Your loving obedient dog will take off as demon possessed should they see a cat or a squirrel or your new pair of shoes, forgetting you entirely in pursuit of their own instincts. But if they love you and you return that love they will be man or woman’s best friend. They will protect you, they will come to you when you hurt, they seek your approval always, forgive you no matter what you do and seek your forgiveness no matter what they do. I have sat alone and cried only to be aroused from my stuporous pout by the wet nose, wagging tail and long wet tongue of my dog, seeking to make me better.

Turtles are really weird creatures, all hard shall, leathery exterior and very soft insides. I had a couple of pet box turtles, found in the yard when I was a youngster. Their hawkish face, beady eyes and silly little tails always warmed my heart. But, I expected less and received less from a turtle. Turtles come equipped for defensive posture. They take care of themselves first. When threatened they retreat into a shell, depriving us of even a hint of their interior. I could not turn to my turtle for solace. I could thump its shell and watch it retreat. My turtles were unforgiving because they are designed for self defense and have only their own survival in mind. I know there are species of turtles that are aggressive, but your basic box turtle stumbles along seeking to gratify its own needs, and quickly withdraws allowing its incredibly hard exterior to protect it from all things without. I grew quickly bored with my pet turtles. They have great, hard boundaries. No matter how much I cared for them or held them or talked to them, they always sought their own gratification and retreated from me when I wanted to interact. If you want a companion, turtles are not a good choice.

I really know very little about porcupines, and that is OK. What I do know is that to even pet one is extremely painful. Their bodies covered in bristly quills speak volumes: stay away, do not touch, do not approach or I will hurt you. I cannot imagine a cuddly porcupine. They must mate, but I expect there is little foreplay. I see them as solitary mammals, rooting in the dirt, living a lonely bristly life. I wonder if they feel lonely or hurt, but that is just an anthropomorphism.

I am sure you are well ahead of my keyboard. You and I know people who tend to be more like dogs or turtles or porcupines. Dogs like other dogs and run in packs. Dogs like humans too. However, if a dog and a turtle become friends, the dog will eventually feel rejected and try harder to win over the turtle, while the turtle will retreat further and further into its shell. No one is friends with a porcupine, those folks who bristle at the first approach, who always seem angry and avoid affection and friendship at all costs. Two turtles could get along, but always apart. Turtles and porcupines make an interesting couple, the porcupine always bristling and turtle always in his or her shell. I know couples like that.

I see people as a combination of these animals, capable of the behavior of each, but with a tendency toward one. I guess we are all dogurtlepines. I think I am more dog-like. My dearest friends are dog-like as well. I have good friends who are more turtle-like. I avoid folks who are more porcupine-like. When I am threatened in a relationship I wag my tail, do tricks, and beg. That works with other dogs, not always with people. At first my defenses are down, my boundaries are shot and I have no turtle-like self-protective shell. Eventually I grow weary of the offer of affection, the lack of response, and the rejection and become turtle-like withdrawing while resisting the urge to become a porcupine.

I think porcupine people may need dog people in their lives the most, but will not allow it to happen. I think turtle people want to be close to dog people, but are afraid of what that means so they remain covered and protected unwilling to stick their necks out. We dog-people just keep running around, wagging our tails and hoping someone will pet us in return for our devotion.

Woof, woof!

Transformers

I liked the Transformers movies. I liked the toys and the cartoons. They remind me of a history of great mythology around changelings, all of which is fascinating to me. Wouldn’t it be fun to simply change to something else, or become someone else, or whatever? I know I’m a great grandma, but I can imagine a few people I would like to be able to change into if I had the Allspark. Not so sure I would want to become a car or a truck or a tank, but becoming Jennifer Aniston whenever I wanted could be really cool – unless she really is pregnant!

We hear a lot of talk today about school transformation and frankly, regardless of the camp, I am not impressed. Everyone is looking for the Allspark for public education. No one seems to be thinking outside the box. All the visions, plans, strategies, etc. are grounded in the current organization of schools by grade levels in little boxes with an adult per group of kids using the old industrial model and funded in the same old ways. Here are just a few out-of-the-box suggestions that I believe could radically alter public schools:

1. Churches and their ilk are all tax exempt. And yet, we know preachers preach politics. No telling how many Tea Party members get their political leanings from the preaching of the gospel of conservatism. Public schools are tax exempt and forbidden from lobbying. Isn’t that interesting? Why not do the same for churches? If a preacher takes a political position from the pulpit or in the Sunday school class, then he or she has violated the notion of the separation of church and state and that church begins to pay taxes. Revenue for schools goes way up, or preachers return to philosophical and theological discussions rather than political ones.

2. Implement a state income tax in Texas. Foolish that we do not have one. It could even be a flat tax, though I totally support the notion of a graduated tax. We would all save a ton of money on our federal income taxes if we paid state income tax.

3. Eliminate compulsory attendance. All the nonsense we hear about schools of choice, vouchers, etc. disappear if kids do not have to come to school. For the first time, public education would have the same choices regarding kids that charter schools and private schools have. If you do not study and do the work and behave we will send you home. We could eliminate charter schools totally as every school now becomes a school of choice. And, with the drop in enrollment, schools and taxpayers will save money. Public education will increase in value, still available to all, but not required of all. Professional educators will increase in status as they will have the ability to refuse service to anyone who does not value the gift of free education. To really make this work, all government subsidy programs to the poor would be contingent on whether the children of the recipient were enrolled in school if they are under the age of 18. If your child is removed from the public school then you lose your subsidy. Simple.

4. Change teaching to a year round profession and operate schools year round. Ideally, teachers would teach about half a day and plan and learn the other half. The additional expense would be funded by all the additional revenue and cost savings in numbers 1, 2 and 3 above. Teachers would be better prepared and outcomes, however we measure such, would improve. Teachers would be paid much more money, commensurate with their professional status. If we implement number 3, we will need fewer teachers for fewer students.

5. Stop playing I’ve got a secret with standardized tests and stop using the durn things for high stakes accountability. If teachers are in any way held accountable for what is on the test then they should see the test. Can you imagine teaching drivers’ education and the state does not let you see what your students will be asked to answer on the test? Ludicrous. I have ranted enough about why these tests should not be used for accountability and will not repeat it here.

OK, that’s my quick 2¢ on transforming public education. I may even have a nickels worth of additional thought on each of the above and other ideas to change the system from within. I believe these five simple ideas, however, would get the ball rolling and would radically transform public education. All schools could focus on preparing students to be successful adults and live in our democracy.

Sadly, all teachers cannot be Jennifer Aniston.

Well, that’s probably a good thing.

I Love You,

and a good rare beef fillet, my dog, and a nice Pinot Noir. Amazing that we use the same word to describe how we feel about a variety of people, pets and things. As a dowdy octogenarian you might think I am not interested in love, but I am! I love and have loved many people in many ways and recently have engaged in dialog here at the home regarding what love means. (Admittedly, this conversation was triggered by those among us who first turn to the obituaries and sadly read of another lost friend. With heavy sighs I hear, “I really loved that guy.”) I have a very young friend, (that means around 30 something), who refuses to use the “L” word because I think she thinks it carries commitment. So sad. Many of us here perceive we are beyond the possibility of romance and that may qualify us as experienced and objective observers of the various loves we have all had in our rich lifetimes. The following are the fruits of our love talk.

I was blessed to have a father who was a Greek scholar. I remember many discussions around the dinner table as he would pontificate on New Testament interpretations based on the original Greek. Sadly, English has but one word for love. The Greeks had at least 4. (Wow. A culture that gave us Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, democracy and Zeus, plus a richer understanding of the word “love”! Wish I liked the food more.) Each of those 4 had very special meanings and it is difficult in our culture today to use our one measly word for a variety of complex and important emotional feelings and relationships. I will not do my father justice or the ancients, but I will share my sense of those various words and how I currently use them. This is to help all the little old men here relax and stop worrying that I am looking for husband number 5, or is it 6?. (Though, I might be! Time and gravity may have caught up with my externals, but inside I believe we all remain 21.)

Eros is the romantic, lustful love of those couples in the first stages of love. It is the love that quickens the heart and pulse; the infatuation, the “I can’t keep my hands off” love. It is passionate, it can be obsessive, and it triggers swoons and flushed cheeks. It is the Hollywood love, the romance novel love, the “there is only one love for me” fairy tale love. But while in the throes of it, Eros is wonderful! I "Erosed" all my spouses at first.

Philia is brotherly and familial love. It is a dispassionate virtuous love. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. In ancient texts, philia denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity. I Philia a steak dinner with friends. I Philia my friends.

Agape is the most commonly used word for love in the Bible. It means general affection, it means holding someone in high regard. It is the word Jesus used to describe his love for his disciples. It is the word that was used by Paul when writing to the factious church in Corinth. In fact, the famous verses in I Corinthians 13 about love were not at all addressed to a newly wed couple. They were addressed to members of a church with internal conflict, to men and women at odds: Agape is patient, agape is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Agape does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. This is the love of deep friendships. There is no Eros in agape, just deep general affection.

Storge means natural affection, affection between parents and children, between siblings, among family members. By definition I "Storge" those people, my son and daughter, their spouses, my grand kids, etc. It is a different kind of love, a love inherited by blood, kith and kin.

I felt Eros and agape for every spouse I ever had. I feel Philia for my community, service organizations, my church, and the friends with whom I meet for red meat and wine. I deeply celebrate all the agape I have felt for co-workers, neighbors, friends and partners. I have a friend named David for whom I feel a great deal of agape. We can go months without talking, and then pick right up where we were. There are no secrets, no hidden agendas. He wants the best for me and I want the same for him. We do not compete and not only does no one feel jealous of this love, his wonderful spouse celebrates our friendship. He is the one I call if I have had a little too much to drink, if I am in pain, if I am feeling unloved. I love David. No Eros.

And as to my young friend who will not use the “L” word? I agape her too, I just can’t tell her for fear she will not understand. She’s stuck with that one measly English word.

This posting was triggered by another dear friend who sent me a digital poster today that said, “I believe in the separation of Church and Hate.” I could not agree more. In this world we do not need more hate or more Eros. We need more Agape. When you receive some, return it and pass it on. Never pass on it.

Love to you all.

The C&I Dog

I started teaching in the second half of the last century. Teaching was different then. We had to share overhead projectors as they had yet to finish the total 30 year transition from bowling alleys to classrooms. To duplicate materials we used purple ditto masters and cranked machines from which the duplicating fluid either made you high or sick. Xerox was around, but only in the principal’s office and only one copy at a time. Chalk boards and text books were the staple of the day and I went home each afternoon with a headache from the duplicating fluid and fingers covered in chalk dust, transparency pen ink and purple ditto ink. There was no standardized testing, there was no accountability for dropout rates, there was no state description of what should be taught, there was no state required system of teacher evaluation, and there was no universal state system of holding teachers, schools and districts accountable. There was no real curriculum. The curriculum was what the teacher said it was, period. Grades were what the teacher said they were, period.

I reported for work at the ripe old age of 23, was given a text book, teacher edition of same, and keys to my room. The principal wished me good luck. I discovered later that I was being evaluated by a check list that included how many kids I sent to the office, whether I called in sick too much, and whether I faithfully fulfilled the duties of turning in lesson plans and potty patrol. Women had to wear dresses and stockings, and men had to wear ties.

Ah, were these the good old days of public education? Kids who misbehaved were simply encouraged to drop out because dropping out was not a problem, it was a solution. Kids with needs and disabilities beyond what we were equipped to serve were sent home. Kids who chose their parents poorly and arrived at our door with the wrong amount of skin pigment were sent elsewhere. And there was absolutely no provision for the kids who arrived at the door not able to speak English. They sank or swam.

I digress.

I was fortunate to work in a district where some of the folks read professional books and journals. There was this growing notion about aligning curriculum, stating an objective, teaching to that objective and measuring whether your kids successfully mastered such an objective. Emphasis was on decoding the curriculum to identify the key learnings inherent in each discrete body of knowledge now known as the core subjects. Additional emphasis was placed on both planning lessons to meet and achieve those objectives and on developing assessments that in fact measured what one taught. In other words, I was very lucky to participate in staff development on the topic of curriculum and instruction.

I remember a large committee composed of parents, members of the community, principals, teachers and central office “experts” who convened to review my particular curriculum. The goal was to write our curriculum. We read authors about curriculum writing. We scoured research on our particular area, and we looked at the text book. As our curriculum took shape it became clear to all of us that the book did not cover all that we wanted, and the sequence of chapters did not match our own intuitive design. The book became a resource in my classroom. The curriculum became my guide.

But there were others who had years of files and folders to supplement the book and they had not participated in the process of writing the curriculum. I had ownership because I did. Others did not and simply wanted to be left alone. The blessing for me was that I now had some knowledge beyond writing the objectives I was required to write for lesson plans. I understood scope and sequence. I understood scanning research to identify the essential components of teaching this subject. I was thrilled with the new curriculum, locally developed and implemented, for the most part. I was just beginning to read books on instructional strategies and planning instructional episodes to maximize student success when after 10 years in the classroom I was bumped into administration.

Years and degrees later, I was hired as an assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction. Oh boy, I thought. Now I can get back to the classroom and instruction that I have always loved. The month before taking the job I read recent authors and former authors on curriculum and instruction, assuming if I were to serve as an assistant supe for C&I I ought to know the best thinking about C&I. I read Glatthorn, De Vore, Taba, Erickson, Levy, Wiggins, Costa, Jacobs, Marzano and Vygotsky. When I showed up for work I was ready. I was a C&I guru. I quickly discovered such expertise was not needed.

The state had assumed all the expertise for curriculum and instruction. Committees of folks in Austin had written Essential Elements (EE’s) of all the subjects taught in Texas. Step 1 in the curriculum development process. The state was mandating a standardized test to measure whether those essential elements were taught. Step 3 in the process. What the state had not mandated was the instructional episodes (step 2) to fulfill the goal of teaching the EE’s. The state also had developed systems to hold teachers, schools and districts accountable based on these tests, and accountable for dropout rates, and accountable for special needs kids and non-English speaking kids. The wisdom necessary to write such documents had clearly shifted from classroom and district to Austin. We now had a standardized curriculum and standardized testing to assess our kids and schools. I could be dumber now, because they state had gotten so smart.

We know the state is not so smart. We know that curriculum decisions in Texas are not made based on expertise, collaborative input and best practice. They are made for political reasons. The State Board approves our curriculum, now called TEKS (I pronounce that acronym TEX, though some, with a lack of English background I suspect, call it TEEKS). The State Board engages in huge political uproar over the TEKS, especially in science where we dare teach evolution and not creative design (yes, when we know truth we continue to subjugate truth to belief. Galileo would be right at home. Next, we’ll teach that thunder is caused by gods bowling – using an overhead projector to keep score.) In economics and government we must stress free enterprise for all the good that has done us, and the conservative interpretation that less government is best. There are level heads at the state level, but when those good people identify themselves they tend to be solidly defeated by those who have a given perspective and cannot tolerate anyone else thinking another way. God Lord, that would be democratic.

After what appears to be constant revision of the TEKS we revise our standardized test that measures these itty-bitty curriculum bites. Pearson is thrilled because they are making a fortune revising, field-testing, administering and publishing the results of such tests. The content frequently changes and the test follows suit. Not only are C&I folks aiming at a moving target, they do so unarmed because the state plays “I’ve got a secret” with the test and no one knows what the questions will look like. A far cry from good instructional practice wherein teachers know what they want the kids to know, tell the kids, teach the kids, and then administer an assessment aligned with all of that so that no one is surprised.

The other really new component for C&I folks is private vendors. Yes, the free enterprise system wants to cash in on tax dollars aimed at public schools. (Wonder if they have really thought that through, however. If we continue to cut budgets we will have to cut vendors. One would think those who produce for and sell to the education market would be staunch supporters of increasing public ed. dollars. Nope, they vote and contribute to the group who wants less money and more accountability.) C&I people now have become software vendor evaluators and trainers. This company can teach your kids if your teachers cannot. This company can organize your curriculum if you cannot. This company can provide sample lessons if your teachers cannot. This company has a strategy that will improve test scores, etc., etc. I am amazed that newly hired C&I folks spend most of their early days on the job learning software, not C&I and not what goes on in the classrooms. That has become irrelevant. Though the issue should be instructional coaching, C&I people are more in the business of assessment and vendor product implementation. If you want to stump a C&I person when they make their next report at a board meeting, raise your hand and ask if they think the TEKS are philosophically more attuned to Glatthorn or Levy. If they know of these two fine researchers I would be amazed. One might also ask if we need C&I anymore given that all those functions are driven by the state. We need an assessment coordinator, we need a compliance coordinator, we need a federal programs coordinator, but what the heck does C&I do anymore? One person clearly cannot become the instructional coach for all subjects K-12.

All of this has led to the dummy down effect on teachers and C&I folks. If the state knows best what we should teach, and how we should teach, and how we should measure what we should teach, then where are my professional credentials and what are they worth? Teachers no longer engage in an analysis of their own content and struggle to write scope and sequences. They get trained in the state requirements. And since C&I folks have lost the real expertise implied in their positions they spend more time learning the state requirements than critiquing and standing up and saying this is poppycock and balderdash.

For political reasons the state has become head of C&I in Texas. It is the dog that leads us around. We blindly follow the C&I Dog.

Sadly, that dog don’t hunt.

Oxy and Other Morons

Consider the following fictional headlines:

“Jane Fonda named Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff”

“Sierra Club gains major share of American timber companies.”

“Greenpeace President named CEO of BP”

“Michael Williams named Commissioner of Education in Texas”

Oops.

The last headline is real. If you want to know why Texas educators are angry about Governor Perry’s pick for commissioner, perhaps the fictional headlines will help. Mr. Williams is not pro public education. He is in favor of vouchers, charters, reduction in funding, and higher accountability. Mr. Williams is philosophically diametrically opposed to the notion of public education. Naming him as commissioner is a huge slap in the face to the hundreds of thousands of public school educators in this state, and sadly, some of them, some of the good folks who show up every day to do all that they can to educate all kids, will support Governor Perry and his ilk.

Under the banners of “transparency”, “accountability” and “choice” those forces hostile to the notion of collecting taxes from everyone to promote the education of everyone have been in control in Texas for some time now. Each of the above banners sound great, sound reasonable, sound supportable. However, each of them is a buzz word for the slow process of making public schools look bad, finding ways to shift tax dollars to options other than public schools, and promoting the notion that public schools are too expensive to support as they currently exist. Frankly my dears, it is poppycock and balderdash.

We already know Mr. Williams’ ethical structure. If I were asked by Shell Oil to serve as head of their petroleum engineer division, I would decline. I am not qualified for such a position. If I were asked by NASA to begin training as an astronaut for the first human trip to Mars (notice I did not say “manned”) I would decline. I am not qualified nor will I likely live long enough to see it happen. (Besides, there are those who already accuse me of simply taking up space.) If I were asked to serve as interim superintendent in a neighboring district I would likely accept. I am qualified, I have such experience. Anyone who accepts a position for which they are not qualified and are hostile to the nature of the organization lacks ethical fortitude.

So, what should we (professional educators past and present and parents and communities who support public education) do about this philosophy and the kind of crazy policies and practices that we are seeing out of state government? How do we reveal to the general public what is really going on? I have a few suggestions and it is my hope that members of Texas media find an opportunity to ask such questions and print the answers:

“Mr. Williams: Once named Commissioner of Education let’s assume you do a stint as a high school building principal. Given state and federal funding formulas and accountability requirements, what would you start doing that has not been done, and what would you stop doing that is being done?’

“Mr. Williams: Same question, but this time you are a school superintendent?”

“Mr. Williams: It appears that you support charter schools, vouchers, school choice, etc. Those strategies only make sense in the context of compulsory attendance, the law that requires kids to go to school. If choice is so important to you, would you promote giving public schools the same choice that charters and private schools have by eliminating the compulsory attendance law?”

Three simple questions. He will not know the answer to the first two because he does not want to know and because he is not interested in public schools being successful. The most telling question for me will be the third. That will reveal what he really thinks and believes.

And, of course, we should vote in November.

Yes, Jane Fonda, Sierra Club, Greenpeace and Michael Williams. All oxymoronic appointments, only one is real. Please help us save public education from the oxy and other morons.