School must be a safe place.

Recently we’ve seen some fairly high profile examples of bullying, in schools. With the tragic case of Asher Brown in Texas to the case of this girl who has cerebral palsy, most of the kids who are bullied have something in common, and that is that they are not “like the other kids.” Take for instance Asher’s case, a 13 year old who just came out as gay. Shortly after he did, he ended up taking his own life, after being bullied mercilessly about his sexuality. He must have been in a very dark place where he didn’t think that the treatment that was being directed at him was likely to stop, and that he had no place to turn. Below is an interview with parent who stepped in under different circumstances and tried to stop it the wrong way. I understand his frustration, but clearly his methodology was misguided.

That’s where we, as educators, need to step in. School and the bus ride to and from school must be a safe place for children and teens. Just like there is a zero tolerance policy for weapons in schools, I believe that there should also be a zero tolerance policy for bullying in schools as well. Teachers need to be absolutely consistent about how they react to bullying and get treatment for the bullied and the bully. Here are a couple of links, one from Fox News, and another from Stop Bullying Now, an anti-bullying website with some specific measures that should be taken to help mitigate the problem.

If a child is freaked out about coming to school, filled with anxiety about what's going to happen to them at the end of the day, during lunch, P.E. or even math class, how on earth are they going to function well in your class? Bullying doesn't just affect their self-esteem, but also their ability to learn, and that is something that can adversely affect their future.

Don't ever think that just because you "got through it" that bullying is in some way an acceptable rite of passage for young people. There are a lot of things that used to be commonplace that are now considered backward and unacceptable. Bullying should be treated the same way. And just because it you can't eliminate it entirely, doesn't mean we should allow an "acceptable level." We must always be vigilant and take the problem seriously.

You study wrong.

There was a great interview about study habits and the debunking of some of the accepted wisdom. There were several obvious ones like "cramming doesn't work." By "doesn't work" it isn't that you can't cram for a test and pass the next day. What is meant by cramming not work is that there will be an incredible loss of content that evaporates from your memory fairly quickly. What you should do instead is break up learning over the longer term, quizzing yourself. Another piece of advice that I found particularly fascinating is that you should not only break up study by subject, but also break up the study within a subject, moving from area to area. For example: in a foreign language maybe you should practice a little on learning verb conjugation, then vocab, move on to something else. Long periods of studying just one thing will be counterproductive.

Take a listen. It was a very instructive and eye-opening segment.

School shouldn't be a factory

Sir Ken Robinson talks about the larger structural problems with education. He believes that ADD isn't necessarily a real epidemic, but does see its correlation with the rise of standardized tests and the dismantling of alternative classes like art, drama, music and others that aren't "core" classes. He believes that we are drugging, boring and fragmenting our children in their education when we should be doing the opposite. Brilliant!

Waiting for Clark Kent

Superman's real identity.

Until the 80s, when the famed comic book writer/artist John Byrne helped to completely change the famous Kryptonian's mythology, Superman was a fundamentally different character than he is now. Yes, he still had all of the powers, the enemies, and the famous weaknesses to most kinds of Kryptonite. But until then, the character was the "real" person, and his alter ego just a charade. Happily, Byrne turned that all around, making the mythos far more interesting. He made it so that even though Superman is defined substantially by his alien birth, he's even more defined by his earthly parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent. As we all remember, Clark grew up in Smallville, Kansas. He had to keep his gifts a secret, and he must have had the most understanding parents ever. Anyway, in the new mythology, he probably wouldn't be the man, the "super" man that he is if it weren't for those parents. Clark invented "Superman" as a way to protect his identity, but also be able to fully integrate the values he grew up with and protect "truth, justice and the American way."

So, why am I chattering about Clark Kent. Well (without seeing the movie, but knowing the premise) the new film "Waiting for Superman," posits that we need extraordinary people to go into education and be valued and allowed to use those extraordinary gifts to improve schools, students' lives, and bring America from a second-rate first-world country, a follower, back to being a leader in education. I believe that America needs more Clark Kents, rather than Supermen. We need extraordinary people who are grounded in real values and put on the uniform of Superman when in the classroom. Clark doesn't leave his identity behind when he's out saving the world, he's the same moral creature that he is when he isn't in his costume, though he does act appropriately to the situation. Superman gets all of the accolades, but he isn't the entirety of who Clark is. What Clark does is to de-emphasize his humanity (though he's an alien) and play up the alien parts of his resume to be better in both of his professions.

Teachers are really more like Clark. They become a version, perhaps a stylized and slightly exaggerated "boy scout" in the classroom, but they don't cease being human. They use their gifts in ways to make a difference in the lives of young people. So if you want to be an extraordinary teacher, I say this:

Be like Clark. Act like Superman.

Lewis Black said what I was thinking...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Back in Black - Education Crisis www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

...in a much better way than I ever could. But I have been thinking about this for a while. Because we are still near the beginning of the school year, the president, the media, and others are focusing on education. It seems like education is the newest fad again, and politicians of all stripes are tripping all over themselves and others to pay lip service to education. 

Though I'm happy with the new attention that education is getting, I hope that it doesn't fade back into the background after those who seek to exploit it as an issue find something else to focus on. With that, I can't write anything to improve upon Mr. Black, so I'll let you watch. 

School segregation is "back."

Source: Decent Schools for California
(http://www.decentschools.org/)

I heard an interesting interview on the NPR program, Here and Now (October 4th 2010) about the problem of segregation in the schools.  As we remember, legal segregation was the based on the already standard practice of the separation of the "races." It was enshrined in law due to the monumentally stupid Supreme Court decision of Plessy v. Ferguson in the late 1890s. The law now required facilities to be "separate but equal." Of course, that didn't happen that way, with minorities, especially African Americans getting the shaft having to make concessions with unequal facilities and being denied rights.

Fast forward to the famous case of Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education. The Supreme Court handed down the beginning of antidote to Plessy v. Ferguson in my parent's home state of Kansas at exactly the time they would theoretically be affected by it as they were both in high school in 1954. Segregation in the schools was now illegal, but that didn't stop some states' townships, legislatures and governors from trying to continue the practice. Eventually state sponsored segregation disappeared and desegregation became a priority. For a time.

It turns out that segregation isn't such an easy thing to fix. Bussing of students from underprivileged to the more affluent schools, minority to white, has lost its luster. (If it ever had it to begin with. Bussing was quite controversial, not just on the wealthier, white side) Plus, there are practical matters to discuss. As most children do, if you do not have a parent or a friend to take you to school, you ride some kind of bus or transit. Obviously already a challenge. Now double, triple or quadruple the time that a child is on this bus. It's not the ideal place to study. By the time you get home, you're already beat by the commute. Plus, if both of your parents work, (if you have two parents) then it's quite likely that you'll end up serving as a surrogate parent to younger siblings. That's a lot of pressure on someone who's top priority should be that of getting an education.

So, bussing isn't the answer. What is? That seems obvious. Improve local schools. I'm not ready to say that we've solved the race problem, not even close, but one thing that is clear is this: parents will be thrilled to send their children to schools that have a reputation for success and high standards. The answer is to make the formerly failing inner-city schools more attractive to everyone. When a school is able to be successful, divorced from place, then the segregation problem will not evaporate, but it will diminish to an extent that it is now only the racist hangers-on who self select.

But it's hard choices time. How do you make an inner-city or an other such failing school successful? It's not only resources, though that's important, but also about changing the cultures of these schools. Negative attitudes and a history of failure feeds upon itself. It only takes a few bad apples to poison the barrel. Disparate and non-cohesive action plans, lack of discipline, lack of parental involvement (that's a hard nut to crack) as well as many problems must be solved as a team effort. Everyone must be on board. I've heard it said that getting teachers to agree on anything is like herding cats. I'm a huge supporter of a strong central administration with buyoff from the teachers. A good administrator is able to get teachers on board and help them to understand why school policy is important.

Plus, more money to struggling schools wouldn't hurt. I'm okay with robbing from Peter to save Paul.

Our crisis moment...

My generation finally got our war, and we got our depression, but will we and our Gen Z children have it affect us the way that it did previous generations? Who will be most defined by this crisis? 

My parents were too old to be baby boomers, they're part of what's known as "The Silent Generation," the people who were the parents or Aunts and Uncles of the the Baby Boomers or Gen-Xers. My brother and I are both X-ers with him being right on the X/Boomer Line. After my generation came Y (Millennials), then Z (The Net Generation).

I want to talk about X-ers and Zs. The former because that's who I am, and the Zs because those are the kid's I'll be teaching. X-ers are what are referred to as a "baby bust" generation where the birth rate compared to the previous generation is much lower. We're supposed to be cynical, self-directed and the first truly postmodern generation. We're reflections of the Lost Generation after World War I. The Zs are similar to my generation in many ways (after all, they are our children) they are similar to my parents, sometimes referred to as a new Silent Generation, a generation that is less team oriented (boomerish) and more individualistic. That they will concentrate less on big ideas and more on what they can accomplish. Lastly, Zs are supposed to be less concerned with fitting into a group, and more into acceptance of the other.

As a student of history, I am finding many parallels with previous generations. The Lost Generation (the X-ers of the early 20th century) gave birth to the Silent Generation (the Zs of the mid-20th century.) The Lost Generation lived through a war and depression, but weren't active participants in either. Having thought about this, I realize now, that I will be teaching the 21st century's equivalent of my own parents!

But the thrust of this message gets to the heart of what defines a generation? My generation didn't really have a war, we didn't have the idealism like the Boomers. We had everything and felt like nothing. The world could end at any moment, but we felt a void. X. X, signifying nothing. And Z, the new Silent Generation. The children who will turn back to family and concentrating on getting by and getting back to basics.

Who will step up to the plate and advocate for strengthening our country, improving our schools, rebuilding our infrastructure and solving the larger problems? If history has any guide, it won't be Gen-X, and it Won't be Gen-Z, but those in-between. The youth who believe that they can do everything. But the question is, will they eventually become the same disillusioned people their parents, the Boomers are if they don't accomplish everything they think they can.

In the end, what is it better to be. Idealistic and have your hopes dashed? Or better to be realistic and silent, hoping for the best, but planning for the worst? Do we have to make a choice? I choose to be realistic and idealistic.