Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Still Not Just Me
I don't know who this anonymous science teacher is. I don't know anything about his school. Here's what Mr. Lawrence noticed with a glance at the grade book:
As I said, all I know about this situation is what you see quoted above. What I can say is that the experience is familiar, and at least somewhat typical, at my own school. I don't know about every teacher's grades, but occasionally, from time to time, a coincidental peek can be arranged.
I've often wondered what to call this sort of distribution. The traditional bell curve doesn't seem to apply so much these days. I flirted with "hockey stick," shades of global warming and all that, but there's that dip that Mr. Lawrence noted. The no "D" dip. You get a majority of F's, and a scattering of A's, B's and C's.
How does this happen? Isn't it common sense that there are a few exceptional people at both ends, with the majority in the middle? Maybe it's time we accept that our society is changing, and the old rules don't apply. The old rules don't apply because the old values don't apply so much in many places. Some places where old values don't apply include inner city schools, and one of the values that doesn't apply is getting an education.
Enough with the philosophy; let's try something a little more tangible. How can fifteen out of twenty-three fail? You might as well ask how less than half of kids will do an assignment as simple as "Tell about your favorite movie." Is it getting clearer? The simplest, most basic assignments often have less than 50% completion rates. Mr. Lawrence asks if they are lazy. My answer is yes. How lazy? What if you have thirty-two kids in your class, and twenty-six of them refuse to bring their textbooks? Mr. Lawrence asks if the teacher is a hard case (or perhaps a head case)? My answer is still no.
Students often ask, "Hey teacher, why did you give me an F on my report card?" The answer is simple: students earn the grade they deserve. That's all there is to it. Students earn the grade they deserve. You can say it too; it doesn't hurt. Students earn the grade they deserve.
Let's start with a sample class of thirty-two students, with eighteen failing. One common cut-off point for grades is that 60% is a D- and anything below that is an F. The average failing student is not some poor struggling soul who turns everything in and is getting 55% on each assignment. A student like that is rare, with probably only one or two of them in our sample class. The majority of failing students, let's call it thirteen out of eighteen, are likely to be failing with something less than 30% on their grade. These students also do not turn in everything, and just get 30% on each assignment. These are students who turn in a few things here and there, but when you look at their line on the grade book, you notice that they have thirty to forty zeroes out of fifty assignments. They have turned in only the simplest assignments, almost exclusively assignments that were done in class and turned in the same day. Of course, for the student who refuses to bring backpack, book, pencil and paper, the notion of them being able to actually carry something home and return it the next day, or even the next week on longer term assignments, becomes rather laughable. Then you have the very special student who does bring paper and pencil in his backpack, but can't be bothered to take them out in class. Suddenly a fifteen out of twenty-three, or eighteen out of thirty-two failure rate doesn't seem so outlandish.
Students earn the grade they deserve.
Now, thirteen Do-Nothing F's, plus one or two Bell-Curve F's, still leaves me with three or four F's in our sample class. We might call them the High Functioning Lazies. The HFL's are kids who do most of the work, and would likely get C's or D's, with an occasional low B thrown in, except for one thing. They won't turn in an essay or term paper or long term project that counts for fifteen or twenty or twenty-five percent of their grade, and suddenly that comfortable 73% C becomes an uncomfortable 53% F. Please let me be clear. With the exception of the Bell-Curve F's, and I'm probably overstating their numbers, all of these other F's are just people who didn't feel like turning things in.
Now you'll say, "But Professor, little Billy says the work is too hard." Well of course he says that. And as any parent knows (and most non-parents, for that matter), kids will lie to get out of trouble. Mom and Dad sit Billy down to demand why he isn't doing his work. Billy knows which way the wind blows, and he's not about to tell them he didn't do the work because he was playing video games. So he says he didn't understand it. He says it was too hard. But if you ask Billy anonymously, he'll tell you he didn't feel like it. I will also submit to you that if you could secretly monitor students, you would find that "too hard" is equivalent to "didn't make an honest effort to learn, practice, and study." It's high school folks. Any kid that makes an honest effort will pass every class.
The wonder of it all is that we don't have more people like this science teacher. We've heard reports recently that SAT scores don't seem to correspond to GPA's anymore. Mr. Lawrence mentions grade inflation, which plays a part in this disconnect. Would you want to be stuck explaining why you gave Billy an A in math, only to see him get 300 on the math SAT? In this age of chronic lawsuits, do you want to be on the stand being questioned about how you passed Billy even when he can't read?
Just because many students honestly expect that by showing up, they deserve to pass with a D (after all, that's what we taught them with eight years of social promotion), doesn't mean you're obligated to give them that grade.
Science is, well, a science. It's not so much about emotions and expressing yourself and feelings as an art class or a language arts class might be. I will submit that while some (many? most?) teachers have some sort of a nurturing, nanny, mothering attitude about the kids, science teachers, being a little more grounded in the rational world, might suffer this effect to a lesser degree. Passing Billy because you feel bad for him doesn't help Billy. Passing Billy because your class is the one class he needs to graduate doesn't help Billy either. I know it sounds cruel and painful and horribly unfair, but the truth is that some kids simply will not pass.
And sometimes the truth hurts. No matter how much it hurts, pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it false.
One of the things you don't want to hear the kids say about you is that you're nice. Why? Because after "nice" comes things like "that teacher lets us talk all the time" or "we don't do anything in that class." It's the mean teachers who "never let us talk" and "make us do work all the time." Which teacher do you want your kid to have?
Let's look at an honest opinion about the teacher from a B student in the class:
Which do you think this student will value more, the B in this science class, or the easy A he gets in basket weaving class? Mr. Lawrence notes that if he were a student, for the sake of his GPA he would transfer to another class rather than take this teacher, which seems to lead to this unfortunate conclusion: your GPA is more important than actually learning something. Hmmm. Isn't that one of the roots of grade inflation?
This, however, really caught my attention: out of 23 students in the one science
class, fifteen were given "F"s. That means there were eight in the entire class
that actually were passing, and their grades ranged from "A" to "C."
As I said, all I know about this situation is what you see quoted above. What I can say is that the experience is familiar, and at least somewhat typical, at my own school. I don't know about every teacher's grades, but occasionally, from time to time, a coincidental peek can be arranged.
I've often wondered what to call this sort of distribution. The traditional bell curve doesn't seem to apply so much these days. I flirted with "hockey stick," shades of global warming and all that, but there's that dip that Mr. Lawrence noted. The no "D" dip. You get a majority of F's, and a scattering of A's, B's and C's.
How does this happen? Isn't it common sense that there are a few exceptional people at both ends, with the majority in the middle? Maybe it's time we accept that our society is changing, and the old rules don't apply. The old rules don't apply because the old values don't apply so much in many places. Some places where old values don't apply include inner city schools, and one of the values that doesn't apply is getting an education.
Enough with the philosophy; let's try something a little more tangible. How can fifteen out of twenty-three fail? You might as well ask how less than half of kids will do an assignment as simple as "Tell about your favorite movie." Is it getting clearer? The simplest, most basic assignments often have less than 50% completion rates. Mr. Lawrence asks if they are lazy. My answer is yes. How lazy? What if you have thirty-two kids in your class, and twenty-six of them refuse to bring their textbooks? Mr. Lawrence asks if the teacher is a hard case (or perhaps a head case)? My answer is still no.
Students often ask, "Hey teacher, why did you give me an F on my report card?" The answer is simple: students earn the grade they deserve. That's all there is to it. Students earn the grade they deserve. You can say it too; it doesn't hurt. Students earn the grade they deserve.
Let's start with a sample class of thirty-two students, with eighteen failing. One common cut-off point for grades is that 60% is a D- and anything below that is an F. The average failing student is not some poor struggling soul who turns everything in and is getting 55% on each assignment. A student like that is rare, with probably only one or two of them in our sample class. The majority of failing students, let's call it thirteen out of eighteen, are likely to be failing with something less than 30% on their grade. These students also do not turn in everything, and just get 30% on each assignment. These are students who turn in a few things here and there, but when you look at their line on the grade book, you notice that they have thirty to forty zeroes out of fifty assignments. They have turned in only the simplest assignments, almost exclusively assignments that were done in class and turned in the same day. Of course, for the student who refuses to bring backpack, book, pencil and paper, the notion of them being able to actually carry something home and return it the next day, or even the next week on longer term assignments, becomes rather laughable. Then you have the very special student who does bring paper and pencil in his backpack, but can't be bothered to take them out in class. Suddenly a fifteen out of twenty-three, or eighteen out of thirty-two failure rate doesn't seem so outlandish.
Students earn the grade they deserve.
Now, thirteen Do-Nothing F's, plus one or two Bell-Curve F's, still leaves me with three or four F's in our sample class. We might call them the High Functioning Lazies. The HFL's are kids who do most of the work, and would likely get C's or D's, with an occasional low B thrown in, except for one thing. They won't turn in an essay or term paper or long term project that counts for fifteen or twenty or twenty-five percent of their grade, and suddenly that comfortable 73% C becomes an uncomfortable 53% F. Please let me be clear. With the exception of the Bell-Curve F's, and I'm probably overstating their numbers, all of these other F's are just people who didn't feel like turning things in.
Now you'll say, "But Professor, little Billy says the work is too hard." Well of course he says that. And as any parent knows (and most non-parents, for that matter), kids will lie to get out of trouble. Mom and Dad sit Billy down to demand why he isn't doing his work. Billy knows which way the wind blows, and he's not about to tell them he didn't do the work because he was playing video games. So he says he didn't understand it. He says it was too hard. But if you ask Billy anonymously, he'll tell you he didn't feel like it. I will also submit to you that if you could secretly monitor students, you would find that "too hard" is equivalent to "didn't make an honest effort to learn, practice, and study." It's high school folks. Any kid that makes an honest effort will pass every class.
The wonder of it all is that we don't have more people like this science teacher. We've heard reports recently that SAT scores don't seem to correspond to GPA's anymore. Mr. Lawrence mentions grade inflation, which plays a part in this disconnect. Would you want to be stuck explaining why you gave Billy an A in math, only to see him get 300 on the math SAT? In this age of chronic lawsuits, do you want to be on the stand being questioned about how you passed Billy even when he can't read?
Just because many students honestly expect that by showing up, they deserve to pass with a D (after all, that's what we taught them with eight years of social promotion), doesn't mean you're obligated to give them that grade.
Science is, well, a science. It's not so much about emotions and expressing yourself and feelings as an art class or a language arts class might be. I will submit that while some (many? most?) teachers have some sort of a nurturing, nanny, mothering attitude about the kids, science teachers, being a little more grounded in the rational world, might suffer this effect to a lesser degree. Passing Billy because you feel bad for him doesn't help Billy. Passing Billy because your class is the one class he needs to graduate doesn't help Billy either. I know it sounds cruel and painful and horribly unfair, but the truth is that some kids simply will not pass.
And sometimes the truth hurts. No matter how much it hurts, pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it false.
One of the things you don't want to hear the kids say about you is that you're nice. Why? Because after "nice" comes things like "that teacher lets us talk all the time" or "we don't do anything in that class." It's the mean teachers who "never let us talk" and "make us do work all the time." Which teacher do you want your kid to have?
Let's look at an honest opinion about the teacher from a B student in the class:
He told me it was just "really tough" and the teacher doesn't "hand out" good
grades.
Which do you think this student will value more, the B in this science class, or the easy A he gets in basket weaving class? Mr. Lawrence notes that if he were a student, for the sake of his GPA he would transfer to another class rather than take this teacher, which seems to lead to this unfortunate conclusion: your GPA is more important than actually learning something. Hmmm. Isn't that one of the roots of grade inflation?
Monday, November 27, 2006
Once Again, It's Not Just Me
Mr. Lawrence is always a good read. I get the feeling that he and I might not agree on a lot of things, but I also get the feeling that in education, he and I see eye to eye a lot of the time. He's just a lot nicer about it.
I write about things like how schools are bad factories because the raw materials (students) aren't sufficient to produce the desired product, and even if you ship the raw materials to a "good" factory, the raw materials merely ruin the good factory too.
I write about things like the inevitable failure of some students, and the cluelessness of policy makers who are so naive (charitably speaking, extremely charitably speaking) that they seem to honestly believe all children are perfect, cannot fail, can do no wrong, and in fact can only have failure and wrongness imposed on them by corrupt, incompetent, willfully malicious teachers.
I write about things like rampaging students getting arrested, the sad but true fact of their subhuman, animalistic behavior, and the apparent determination of our system not to encourage any semblance of humanity among them, so as not to hurt their self-esteem.
Mr. Lawrence writes about things like a child who, upon learning that a former teacher died of cancer, and had cancer when that child was in her class, reflects that if only she'd known, she wouldn't have treated the teacher so horribly. He notes that it's "chilling," the sorts of things that go through kids' minds. He's at least charitable enough to consider this example as a random thought of an otherwise good kid. As you might guess, I would come to a different conclusion. At least he recognizes the disturbing nature of the whole thing.
Who knows? Maybe he'll get out before his soul is consumed by the system.
I write about things like how schools are bad factories because the raw materials (students) aren't sufficient to produce the desired product, and even if you ship the raw materials to a "good" factory, the raw materials merely ruin the good factory too.
I write about things like the inevitable failure of some students, and the cluelessness of policy makers who are so naive (charitably speaking, extremely charitably speaking) that they seem to honestly believe all children are perfect, cannot fail, can do no wrong, and in fact can only have failure and wrongness imposed on them by corrupt, incompetent, willfully malicious teachers.
I write about things like rampaging students getting arrested, the sad but true fact of their subhuman, animalistic behavior, and the apparent determination of our system not to encourage any semblance of humanity among them, so as not to hurt their self-esteem.
Mr. Lawrence writes about things like a child who, upon learning that a former teacher died of cancer, and had cancer when that child was in her class, reflects that if only she'd known, she wouldn't have treated the teacher so horribly. He notes that it's "chilling," the sorts of things that go through kids' minds. He's at least charitable enough to consider this example as a random thought of an otherwise good kid. As you might guess, I would come to a different conclusion. At least he recognizes the disturbing nature of the whole thing.
Who knows? Maybe he'll get out before his soul is consumed by the system.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Have You Taken A Look At The New 4-Door Jeep?
Well, I guess we could stand a bit of an update on the situation, but first, I guess I'd better try to figure out what new 4-door Jeep we're talking about here. Looking around the page, I think it might be this one. It's the only name I didn't recognize, and it seems to be somewhat reasonable. Thing is, my desire for some sort of Hummer is not reasonable. I don't need it, I want it. I don't do any sort of driving that the Kia Putt-Putt couldn't handle. I guess it's pretty much just conspicuous consumption. That might be sinful, but what's a little conspicuous consumption among friends?
We've managed to change directions though, because I'm a little dense sometimes. Our garage has a big door on the 2-car side, and the small door on the 1-car side. Currently, we jam out two cars into the big side, and jam all our junk we haven't found a place for or thrown away yet into the 1-car side. My estimates of available space were based on both cars parking on the big side, and I had concluded that the Hummer was just a pipe dream. However, because Miss Tori is not dense, she reminded me that I could always move all the junk out of the 1-car side, park a small car in the 1-car side, and still have room on the big side for the junk, and a Hummer. Did I mention she rules? So that's what we're going to do.
Thing is, neither of our cars qualifies as a small car that will fit comfortably in the 1-car side. That means that when we get rid of my current car, we'll have to go for the small car, and when we get around to replacing Miss Tori's car, then we can get the Hummer.
After an extremely irritating attempt to visit a local auto mall to check out all sorts of different cars, we've kind of become turtles, pulling in our heads and looking only online. How irritating? Well, if Miss Tori has a flaw, it's that she's too nice. I'm very good at cold-shouldering people. I just won't respond to them. Miss Tori often can't help but engage in conversation. I give you this setup so you can appreciate how shocked I was when she yelled at the Mazda guy. Even my cold-shouldering wasn't working, and I was ready to leave, but she hammered the guy. It really was ridiculous. He could tell we were in a bad mood, and he was so thick that he actually asked, as we almost ran to get away from him, if we were in a bad mood because car salesmen had chased us around all day and wouldn't leave us alone. I simply told him that he was the first one. Then Miss Tori went all Galvatron on him. She transformed and fired at will, possibly including some light profanity. We finally got back to the car, and even she couldn't believe what she had done.
You want to know the last thing the guy said to us? "It's been a pleasure talking with you."
So we're mainly looking online. We're looking for a car with a width of 70" or less, and it would be nice if mileage was 25/35 or better. Is that a retarded way to look for a car, based on how well it will fit in the garage? Oh yeah, we might make a cross-country road trip in the srping, so factor that in, if you dare!
Thanks Bill, for the Jeep tip. I do like it, but the big car purchase is now a ways off. Any thoughts on the new parameters?
We've managed to change directions though, because I'm a little dense sometimes. Our garage has a big door on the 2-car side, and the small door on the 1-car side. Currently, we jam out two cars into the big side, and jam all our junk we haven't found a place for or thrown away yet into the 1-car side. My estimates of available space were based on both cars parking on the big side, and I had concluded that the Hummer was just a pipe dream. However, because Miss Tori is not dense, she reminded me that I could always move all the junk out of the 1-car side, park a small car in the 1-car side, and still have room on the big side for the junk, and a Hummer. Did I mention she rules? So that's what we're going to do.
Thing is, neither of our cars qualifies as a small car that will fit comfortably in the 1-car side. That means that when we get rid of my current car, we'll have to go for the small car, and when we get around to replacing Miss Tori's car, then we can get the Hummer.
After an extremely irritating attempt to visit a local auto mall to check out all sorts of different cars, we've kind of become turtles, pulling in our heads and looking only online. How irritating? Well, if Miss Tori has a flaw, it's that she's too nice. I'm very good at cold-shouldering people. I just won't respond to them. Miss Tori often can't help but engage in conversation. I give you this setup so you can appreciate how shocked I was when she yelled at the Mazda guy. Even my cold-shouldering wasn't working, and I was ready to leave, but she hammered the guy. It really was ridiculous. He could tell we were in a bad mood, and he was so thick that he actually asked, as we almost ran to get away from him, if we were in a bad mood because car salesmen had chased us around all day and wouldn't leave us alone. I simply told him that he was the first one. Then Miss Tori went all Galvatron on him. She transformed and fired at will, possibly including some light profanity. We finally got back to the car, and even she couldn't believe what she had done.
You want to know the last thing the guy said to us? "It's been a pleasure talking with you."
So we're mainly looking online. We're looking for a car with a width of 70" or less, and it would be nice if mileage was 25/35 or better. Is that a retarded way to look for a car, based on how well it will fit in the garage? Oh yeah, we might make a cross-country road trip in the srping, so factor that in, if you dare!
Thanks Bill, for the Jeep tip. I do like it, but the big car purchase is now a ways off. Any thoughts on the new parameters?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
What Do You Call Six Kids In Handcuffs? A Good Start!
I like that riff on the old lawyer joke. Of course, when I first heard that six had been arrested, I said "Sixty more and you'd be off to a good start." The fact that this was greeted with a knowing smile by the other teachers tells you everything you need to know.
It's not that the end of lunch today was typical. I mean, sure, every year, we have several days of big fights at lunch. Just in case, let me review big fight. If you were born before 1970 or so, a big fight was a fight between two high-powered bad-asses. We might call it the more civilized, noble code. Sometime after 1970, we saw a more generalized crumbling of the societal code. Since many of our kids are little removed from animal behavior emotionally, socially, and in some instances, even intellectually, we might say that current kids live by the law of the pack. Now, a big fight is a group of twenty to fifty kids, pushing, shoving, punching and kicking their way across the campus, with as many as two hundred kids charging the scene to get a good view. Of course there are exceptions, and your school may vary; so might the timeline, depending on where you live.
So you have a big fight. Then you get the counter-attack the next day. And sometimes the day after that, and the day after that. One thing that usually seems to stop it pretty well is the weekend. I could not tell you if it's the fact of a two day cooling off period, or the fact that by the end of three or four days, by Friday most of the core instigators have been suspended for five days, or, perhaps, that over the weekend, there is plenty of time to settle scores, and by Monday, the issue has been decided.
As I said, the end of lunch today, the first counter-attack, was not typical; however, I don't mean not typical, in the sense that big fight days don't happen often. I mean not typical in the sense that even for a big fight day, this was not typical. Today we had at least six big groups of twenty to fifty kids surging around the campus. At least one student was knocked to the ground, but by some miracle not trampled.
It was also not typical in the duration. We have a five minute passing period. The end of lunch bell rings, you have five minutes to get to class, and the tardy bell rings. Most of these big fights are broken up, or at least dispersed, and the majority of kids to class, before the tardy bell rings. Today, the fights continued another seven minutes after the tardy bell. I know seven minutes doesn't sound like much, but it's an eternity for rampaging children.
It was also not typical in one other way. Out of eleven years, this was only the second time I felt like I had to lock my door to keep the kids in my class safe from something dangerous going on outside. I'm still not sure if twice in eleven years is something I should feel good about.
The irony of it all is that the fights began yesterday at lunch. Guess what came right before lunch? An all school assembly about violence and making the right choices in life. A lot of effort and time and expense went into that assembly, and it was wasted on the kids. It was the saddest thing in the world, the principal, after everything was under control again, standing alone on the quad, picking up an overturned garbage can. No wonder he tried to leave after two years and go back to his old school.
Six is not nearly enough. Our young people may be little removed from base animals, but even base animals have cunning. One of the rules of the law of the pack is that the pack can strike with impunity, without fear of penalty or retribution. Did I say sixty would be a good start? I should have said six hundred.
It doesn't take much to get to a tipping point at which any and all restraint from rising above purely animal behavior is lost. You may still have a chance, wherever you are, and if you do, good luck to you. Any doctor can tell you that sometimes, you just have to cut the cancer out. Unfortunately, too often, we've been deciding to kiss the cancer, and tell it how great it is, in the hopes that the tumor will cure itself. Why would it? If our only response to this sort of behavior is to tell the kids how wonderful they are, why the hell should they change?
The law of averages, or statistics, or something, should tell you that in a school of 2,500 students, the notion that only twenty-five of them are deserving of suspension is ludicrous. And if statistics doesn't tell you that, I'll tell you that. Every single day, way more than twenty-five should be out on suspension. Apart from simple anecdotal experience among the faculty, I'll give you some hard numbers.
The student body is divided among administrators by last name, alphabetically. One administrator has his name by twenty-one of the twenty-five suspensions. Another is named on two suspensions. Two other administrators have one suspension each. The lesson to be drawn from this example is not that one administrator is a trigger happy suspendaholic. The lesson is that the other three don't want the grief. The lesson is that those other three administrators ought to have twenty or so suspensions under their names. On any given day, we should have at least eighty kids out on suspension. I'll give you three guesses who gets in trouble in the above example.
Not in enough trouble, not yet. Not enough to make him change. Not enough to make him start counseling kids, telling them how great they are and how much we all love them. At least not yet. The district is unhappy with him. They think he has too many suspensions. They want fewer suspensions. You see, for the district, too many suspensions means a school that "looks bad" and is racist. To rational humans like you and me, too many suspensions means a school that enforces discipline, has high expectations of its students, and demands that they take their education seriously. To the district, too many suspensions might make the poor children feel bad. To rational humans like you and me, too many suspensions means we've created an environment of support and caring for the kids who do want to learn.
If only we can learn, before it's too late. In the meantime, I guess I can take comfort in the fact that our riots of impunity, unlike in Paris, don't feature a hundred or more burning cars each day. Now that's what I call ending on a positive!
It's not that the end of lunch today was typical. I mean, sure, every year, we have several days of big fights at lunch. Just in case, let me review big fight. If you were born before 1970 or so, a big fight was a fight between two high-powered bad-asses. We might call it the more civilized, noble code. Sometime after 1970, we saw a more generalized crumbling of the societal code. Since many of our kids are little removed from animal behavior emotionally, socially, and in some instances, even intellectually, we might say that current kids live by the law of the pack. Now, a big fight is a group of twenty to fifty kids, pushing, shoving, punching and kicking their way across the campus, with as many as two hundred kids charging the scene to get a good view. Of course there are exceptions, and your school may vary; so might the timeline, depending on where you live.
So you have a big fight. Then you get the counter-attack the next day. And sometimes the day after that, and the day after that. One thing that usually seems to stop it pretty well is the weekend. I could not tell you if it's the fact of a two day cooling off period, or the fact that by the end of three or four days, by Friday most of the core instigators have been suspended for five days, or, perhaps, that over the weekend, there is plenty of time to settle scores, and by Monday, the issue has been decided.
As I said, the end of lunch today, the first counter-attack, was not typical; however, I don't mean not typical, in the sense that big fight days don't happen often. I mean not typical in the sense that even for a big fight day, this was not typical. Today we had at least six big groups of twenty to fifty kids surging around the campus. At least one student was knocked to the ground, but by some miracle not trampled.
It was also not typical in the duration. We have a five minute passing period. The end of lunch bell rings, you have five minutes to get to class, and the tardy bell rings. Most of these big fights are broken up, or at least dispersed, and the majority of kids to class, before the tardy bell rings. Today, the fights continued another seven minutes after the tardy bell. I know seven minutes doesn't sound like much, but it's an eternity for rampaging children.
It was also not typical in one other way. Out of eleven years, this was only the second time I felt like I had to lock my door to keep the kids in my class safe from something dangerous going on outside. I'm still not sure if twice in eleven years is something I should feel good about.
The irony of it all is that the fights began yesterday at lunch. Guess what came right before lunch? An all school assembly about violence and making the right choices in life. A lot of effort and time and expense went into that assembly, and it was wasted on the kids. It was the saddest thing in the world, the principal, after everything was under control again, standing alone on the quad, picking up an overturned garbage can. No wonder he tried to leave after two years and go back to his old school.
Six is not nearly enough. Our young people may be little removed from base animals, but even base animals have cunning. One of the rules of the law of the pack is that the pack can strike with impunity, without fear of penalty or retribution. Did I say sixty would be a good start? I should have said six hundred.
It doesn't take much to get to a tipping point at which any and all restraint from rising above purely animal behavior is lost. You may still have a chance, wherever you are, and if you do, good luck to you. Any doctor can tell you that sometimes, you just have to cut the cancer out. Unfortunately, too often, we've been deciding to kiss the cancer, and tell it how great it is, in the hopes that the tumor will cure itself. Why would it? If our only response to this sort of behavior is to tell the kids how wonderful they are, why the hell should they change?
The law of averages, or statistics, or something, should tell you that in a school of 2,500 students, the notion that only twenty-five of them are deserving of suspension is ludicrous. And if statistics doesn't tell you that, I'll tell you that. Every single day, way more than twenty-five should be out on suspension. Apart from simple anecdotal experience among the faculty, I'll give you some hard numbers.
The student body is divided among administrators by last name, alphabetically. One administrator has his name by twenty-one of the twenty-five suspensions. Another is named on two suspensions. Two other administrators have one suspension each. The lesson to be drawn from this example is not that one administrator is a trigger happy suspendaholic. The lesson is that the other three don't want the grief. The lesson is that those other three administrators ought to have twenty or so suspensions under their names. On any given day, we should have at least eighty kids out on suspension. I'll give you three guesses who gets in trouble in the above example.
Not in enough trouble, not yet. Not enough to make him change. Not enough to make him start counseling kids, telling them how great they are and how much we all love them. At least not yet. The district is unhappy with him. They think he has too many suspensions. They want fewer suspensions. You see, for the district, too many suspensions means a school that "looks bad" and is racist. To rational humans like you and me, too many suspensions means a school that enforces discipline, has high expectations of its students, and demands that they take their education seriously. To the district, too many suspensions might make the poor children feel bad. To rational humans like you and me, too many suspensions means we've created an environment of support and caring for the kids who do want to learn.
If only we can learn, before it's too late. In the meantime, I guess I can take comfort in the fact that our riots of impunity, unlike in Paris, don't feature a hundred or more burning cars each day. Now that's what I call ending on a positive!
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Six Degrees Of Global Warming
Let's see. Starting here, that's one. Laura W's post at Ace of Spades HQ, that's two. Then to Blog Idaho, that's three. And on to the Telegraph, where you'll find part one, I guess that's four, and part two, which we'll call five. Yep, even a nothing blog like this is within six degrees of a refutation of global warming.
I'm no scientist, so I can't evaluate what he's saying. However, these two articles don't sound like the rantings of a crazy man. Check it out for yourself.
I'm no scientist, so I can't evaluate what he's saying. However, these two articles don't sound like the rantings of a crazy man. Check it out for yourself.
So What's A Good Car Nowadays?
An on-target observation from Instapundit:
Hopefully 25% of an article is still considered fair use. But the things he writes are often so short, you almost can't help but use a lot, even if you're only using a little (if you take my meaning). Besides, using those two sentences, on this little blog? It's like a flea on Godzilla. Come'on.
What makes it so on target is that Miss Tori and I are pondering our automotive futures as we speak. We may also be a bit insular in that I can't think of a single person I know who has only one car, unless it's an individual living by himself. I might also add that I would not consider us to be rich. We are very fortunate, but I wouldn't say we're rich. The notion that only those who have more money than you are actually rich is a discussion for another day.
Here's the thing. I've wanted a Hummer for years. The H2 would always be beyond my means, unless I really saved my pennies. Then the H3 came along, and was more reasonable. Still, in just a daydreamy way, I figured something like a Toyota Sequoia would be more affordable and get better mileage to boot. When we finally made a trip to the local (if you consider an hour drive to be local) Hummer dealership, then stopped at a Toyota lot, I was surprised to learn that they were essentially equal in both areas. So now what?
Well, they're still expensive, and I've been rather spoiled to always have a car payment less than $300/month. When I look at the payment calculators and see how easily they suggest paying $400 or $500 or even $600 or more per month, I get a new appreciation for the term "sticker shock." I'm completely leaving aside the issue of whether or not we could actually afford that much. I'm saying I'm not sure if I'm psychologically capable of spending that much money on "my" new car. It just seems so huge! I wonder if this is why my family always talks about what a tightwad I am?
Then I get depressed, and tell myself I'll be just as happy with some little Kia putt-putt mobile. Nothing against Kia! A good friend has one and raves about it. As far as he's concerned, they just don't have the branding to charge any more than they do, so they're in the unusual position of having to sell higher quality cars at lower prices. He certainly knows more about cars than I do.
I suppose in a dream scenario, I would be getting an H3 and Miss Tori would be getting a Sequoia (let's toss in the Kia Putt-Putt for the fun of it):
Of course, you're asking yourself how the Toyota can cost less, but have a higher payment. I told the calculator that I had ultra Fico 730+, and the best rate they could give me was 7.6%. Yikes! The Hummer calculator default setting is 5.9%. I wonder what the deal is there?
The biggest problem with the dream scenario is the garage. Both cars, whatever they are, have to fit inside. I've got about 168" to play with there, and these two cars come to 163.5", which leaves about four and a half inches to open the door to get in and out. Not happening. We considered a Hummer/Putt-Putt combo, which comes in at 152.2"; still doesn't quite cut it. The Sequoia/Putt-Putt team measures 144.7", giving us about two feet of door opening space. Or we could go with an all Putt-Putt fleet, in which case we could practically get three of them in there. If you haven't noticed, garage size is likely to be the deciding factor here.
I suppose we're likely to end up with some sort of SUV type, plus a smaller car that's likely to see most of the commute time. Any ideas?
I notice more and more people have multiple cars, a trend that's likely to expand as Americans get richer. Perhaps the notion of a one-size-fits-all car will become passe as a result.
Hopefully 25% of an article is still considered fair use. But the things he writes are often so short, you almost can't help but use a lot, even if you're only using a little (if you take my meaning). Besides, using those two sentences, on this little blog? It's like a flea on Godzilla. Come'on.
What makes it so on target is that Miss Tori and I are pondering our automotive futures as we speak. We may also be a bit insular in that I can't think of a single person I know who has only one car, unless it's an individual living by himself. I might also add that I would not consider us to be rich. We are very fortunate, but I wouldn't say we're rich. The notion that only those who have more money than you are actually rich is a discussion for another day.
Here's the thing. I've wanted a Hummer for years. The H2 would always be beyond my means, unless I really saved my pennies. Then the H3 came along, and was more reasonable. Still, in just a daydreamy way, I figured something like a Toyota Sequoia would be more affordable and get better mileage to boot. When we finally made a trip to the local (if you consider an hour drive to be local) Hummer dealership, then stopped at a Toyota lot, I was surprised to learn that they were essentially equal in both areas. So now what?
Well, they're still expensive, and I've been rather spoiled to always have a car payment less than $300/month. When I look at the payment calculators and see how easily they suggest paying $400 or $500 or even $600 or more per month, I get a new appreciation for the term "sticker shock." I'm completely leaving aside the issue of whether or not we could actually afford that much. I'm saying I'm not sure if I'm psychologically capable of spending that much money on "my" new car. It just seems so huge! I wonder if this is why my family always talks about what a tightwad I am?
Then I get depressed, and tell myself I'll be just as happy with some little Kia putt-putt mobile. Nothing against Kia! A good friend has one and raves about it. As far as he's concerned, they just don't have the branding to charge any more than they do, so they're in the unusual position of having to sell higher quality cars at lower prices. He certainly knows more about cars than I do.
I suppose in a dream scenario, I would be getting an H3 and Miss Tori would be getting a Sequoia (let's toss in the Kia Putt-Putt for the fun of it):
H3: $33,540 / Sequoia: $33,160 / Kia Putt-Putt: $11,350
H3 mileage: 15/20 / Sequoia mileage: 15/18 / Kia: 29/38
H3 (20% down): $517/mo / Sequoia (20% down): $595/mo / Kia (0% down): $230/mo
Of course, you're asking yourself how the Toyota can cost less, but have a higher payment. I told the calculator that I had ultra Fico 730+, and the best rate they could give me was 7.6%. Yikes! The Hummer calculator default setting is 5.9%. I wonder what the deal is there?
The biggest problem with the dream scenario is the garage. Both cars, whatever they are, have to fit inside. I've got about 168" to play with there, and these two cars come to 163.5", which leaves about four and a half inches to open the door to get in and out. Not happening. We considered a Hummer/Putt-Putt combo, which comes in at 152.2"; still doesn't quite cut it. The Sequoia/Putt-Putt team measures 144.7", giving us about two feet of door opening space. Or we could go with an all Putt-Putt fleet, in which case we could practically get three of them in there. If you haven't noticed, garage size is likely to be the deciding factor here.
I suppose we're likely to end up with some sort of SUV type, plus a smaller car that's likely to see most of the commute time. Any ideas?
Is Late Really Better Than Never?
Another Carnival of the Cinema has come to town. It's every Friday over at Nehring the Edge. Enjoy his movie reviews the rest of the week, and other people's reviews on Fridays. Get your submissions in by Wednesday for each Friday edition. Send them all here.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
The Day After (Election Day)
So we lost. Maybe not a total disaster, but certainly nothing to be happy about. All we can do is learn from this election and attempt to do a better job of getting our ideas out next time. However biased the media is against us, however they might slant things, it's our obligation to win elections. We can't blame them.
I may have joked elsewhere about consulting a Democrat concerning how long to wait before claiming that the election must have been stolen or rigged, but that is not a serious suggestion. Come to think of it, if Diebold rigged all the voting machines (according to Democrats), and Democrats won the election, does that mean Diebold rigged the machines so the Democrats would win? Or does Diebold only rig the machines in districts where Republicans win? I may be proven wrong, but I don't believe that the machines were rigged. The Democrats won their elections.
I hope that it is not a complete disaster for the country. I don't think it will be. The Democrats were out of power for a while, and the country didn't become a police state. Please think clearly about this. If you really believe we became a police state because Republicans were in power, how would you be free to read this? Why wouldn't you be in jail? That's what happens in a real police state, like China.
And can you believe all those stories about back alley abortions, and all the women who have died from them in the last six years? What? You haven't heard all those stories? Why not, if the evil Republicans have been in power? You guessed it. It hasn't happened.
That's all well and good then, but you've got to admit that being forced into church every Sunday at gunpoint is a real pain in the apse. No! You say that hasn't happened either? The Christofascist Republicans didn't impose their religion on you either?
Fine, so you can worship as you please, but what good does that do you when you're living in the back of a station wagon because of the bad economy. You're kidding! The Dow has been over 12,000 and unemployment is the lowest in five years? The price of gas has dropped by close to a dollar a gallon?
None of those bugaboo horror stories came true. I sincerely hope that the Democratic bugaboos don't come true. I sincerely hope that our failures in this election haven't doomed the country.
They say you shouldn't talk about politics or religion because people feel so strongly about them that it's difficult to have a friendly discussion. At the very least, this can be said: a divided government is beneficial because it works to keep both sides honest. I've said it, and I know other Republicans have said that as well.
Of course, we said it in the spirit of grown-ups who want what's best for the country. Therefore, unlike our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, we won't be whining about stolen elections and rigged voting machines. Too bad that the Democrats' behavior of the past six years doesn't instill confidence in the notion that they're also grown-ups who want what's best for the country.
I'm a grown-up. I won't be telling you all the things that will go wrong as a result of this election. I won't be predicting disaster and doom and gloom. I won't tell you that this is the beginning of the end for our country.
But, years down the line, I may very well be unable to resist the temptation to look back and say I told you so.
I'm not that grown up!
I may have joked elsewhere about consulting a Democrat concerning how long to wait before claiming that the election must have been stolen or rigged, but that is not a serious suggestion. Come to think of it, if Diebold rigged all the voting machines (according to Democrats), and Democrats won the election, does that mean Diebold rigged the machines so the Democrats would win? Or does Diebold only rig the machines in districts where Republicans win? I may be proven wrong, but I don't believe that the machines were rigged. The Democrats won their elections.
I hope that it is not a complete disaster for the country. I don't think it will be. The Democrats were out of power for a while, and the country didn't become a police state. Please think clearly about this. If you really believe we became a police state because Republicans were in power, how would you be free to read this? Why wouldn't you be in jail? That's what happens in a real police state, like China.
And can you believe all those stories about back alley abortions, and all the women who have died from them in the last six years? What? You haven't heard all those stories? Why not, if the evil Republicans have been in power? You guessed it. It hasn't happened.
That's all well and good then, but you've got to admit that being forced into church every Sunday at gunpoint is a real pain in the apse. No! You say that hasn't happened either? The Christofascist Republicans didn't impose their religion on you either?
Fine, so you can worship as you please, but what good does that do you when you're living in the back of a station wagon because of the bad economy. You're kidding! The Dow has been over 12,000 and unemployment is the lowest in five years? The price of gas has dropped by close to a dollar a gallon?
None of those bugaboo horror stories came true. I sincerely hope that the Democratic bugaboos don't come true. I sincerely hope that our failures in this election haven't doomed the country.
They say you shouldn't talk about politics or religion because people feel so strongly about them that it's difficult to have a friendly discussion. At the very least, this can be said: a divided government is beneficial because it works to keep both sides honest. I've said it, and I know other Republicans have said that as well.
Of course, we said it in the spirit of grown-ups who want what's best for the country. Therefore, unlike our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, we won't be whining about stolen elections and rigged voting machines. Too bad that the Democrats' behavior of the past six years doesn't instill confidence in the notion that they're also grown-ups who want what's best for the country.
I'm a grown-up. I won't be telling you all the things that will go wrong as a result of this election. I won't be predicting disaster and doom and gloom. I won't tell you that this is the beginning of the end for our country.
But, years down the line, I may very well be unable to resist the temptation to look back and say I told you so.
I'm not that grown up!
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Catharsis
One of the mottos of this website is "Slow on the Uptake." As long as we're thinking about the Carnival of the Cinema, I might as well go ahead and make some sort of movie post, even though the cinema is on Fridays and today is Saturday. Well, now that I look at the clock, I guess it's actually Sunday, very early, but still. Plus, Miss Tori is busy trying to drink me under the table. She may be winning.
So you'll forgive me if I don't know what I'll be writing about. What movie? What genre? What theme? What have I even seen recently? Oh wait. Now I remember. It's not a specific movie. I guess it is more of a genre, if it can even be called a genre.
It all dates back to Tombstone, the loose retelling of the whole Wyatt Earp/Doc Holliday/OK Corral mythology. It's not the Western genre that I'm concerned with here. It's the catharsis.
I noted it again when I saw Four Brothers. Four Brothers was the story of four boys adopted by a woman who adopts the unadoptable. She also happens to be a sort of neighborhood activist who irritates the corrupt types who inhabit her neighborhood and local potitical structure. When she gets killed in a staged store robbery, the four brothers go out for revenge. It's not the inner city gang warfare genre I'm concerned with here. It's the catharsis.
For all the complaints about, and faults of, movies, when they're done right, they have the power to affect us on deep emotional levels. One of those levels is catharsis: Catharsis, Latin from the Greek Κάθαρσις Katharsis meaning "purification" or "cleansing" (also literally from the ancient Greek gerund καθαίρειν transliterated as kathairein "to purify, purge," and adjective katharos "pure or clean" ancient and modern Greek: καθαρός), is a sudden emotional breakdown or climax that constitutes overwhelming feelings of great pity, sorrow, laughter or any extreme change in emotion that results in the renewal, restoration and revitalization for living.
So says Wiki at least.
The thing both these movies have is that wonderful feeling of catharsis. We live now in a world, a society, a time, in which revenge is a dish not best served cold, but never served at all. Righteous administration of justice is denied to the vast majority of us, who have been conditioned to live within the constraints of a civilized society. We're stuck in droning lives in which the best we can have is a vicarious thrill of actually being alive. Tombstone and Four Brothers give us that vicarious thrill, that catharsis, that reaffirms what we know to be right, even if we could never act on it ourselves in our real lives. For nine bucks, that's a pretty good deal.
So you'll forgive me if I don't know what I'll be writing about. What movie? What genre? What theme? What have I even seen recently? Oh wait. Now I remember. It's not a specific movie. I guess it is more of a genre, if it can even be called a genre.
It all dates back to Tombstone, the loose retelling of the whole Wyatt Earp/Doc Holliday/OK Corral mythology. It's not the Western genre that I'm concerned with here. It's the catharsis.
I noted it again when I saw Four Brothers. Four Brothers was the story of four boys adopted by a woman who adopts the unadoptable. She also happens to be a sort of neighborhood activist who irritates the corrupt types who inhabit her neighborhood and local potitical structure. When she gets killed in a staged store robbery, the four brothers go out for revenge. It's not the inner city gang warfare genre I'm concerned with here. It's the catharsis.
For all the complaints about, and faults of, movies, when they're done right, they have the power to affect us on deep emotional levels. One of those levels is catharsis: Catharsis, Latin from the Greek Κάθαρσις Katharsis meaning "purification" or "cleansing" (also literally from the ancient Greek gerund καθαίρειν transliterated as kathairein "to purify, purge," and adjective katharos "pure or clean" ancient and modern Greek: καθαρός), is a sudden emotional breakdown or climax that constitutes overwhelming feelings of great pity, sorrow, laughter or any extreme change in emotion that results in the renewal, restoration and revitalization for living.
So says Wiki at least.
The thing both these movies have is that wonderful feeling of catharsis. We live now in a world, a society, a time, in which revenge is a dish not best served cold, but never served at all. Righteous administration of justice is denied to the vast majority of us, who have been conditioned to live within the constraints of a civilized society. We're stuck in droning lives in which the best we can have is a vicarious thrill of actually being alive. Tombstone and Four Brothers give us that vicarious thrill, that catharsis, that reaffirms what we know to be right, even if we could never act on it ourselves in our real lives. For nine bucks, that's a pretty good deal.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Carnival of the Cinema: Episode Six
The Carival of the Cinema was recently brought into creation. If you like reading about movies, writing about movies, or even just killing time when you should be doing something else, head on over and give it a read. The Carnival of the Cinema is hosted over at Nehring the Edge, home of the hardest hitting short reviews since the Mayor of Munchkinland told Dorothy that her shoes clashed with her dress.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
"You Can Say Booger If You Want To"
It's a line from WKRP in Cincinnatti, one of my favorite TV shows. Johnny Fever was fired from a big time station for saying "booger" on the air, and ended up at WKRP. The new station manager, Andy Travis, tells Johnny he can say it. It was one small step in trying to turn around the underperforming station. A much larger step, noted to assorted consultants and Mother Carlson, the station owner, was that Andy also allowed the DJ's to program their own music. They could play whatever they wanted. So what's my point?
I just found it interesting that, twenty-eight years later, Dean Esmay voiced almost exactly the same thoughts about the bloggers who contribute to his website. I'm sure I've noted more than once that Dean's World is a must read for me. One big reason for that is that Dean's World is one of the most diverse and well-written blogs out there. You can find any number of opinions about any number of topics, and a post, or even a comment, that isn't well thought out is the exception to the rule. Dignified and intelligent discourse is the order of the day there.
Don't take my word for it though. Let Dean tell you in his own words.
I just found it interesting that, twenty-eight years later, Dean Esmay voiced almost exactly the same thoughts about the bloggers who contribute to his website. I'm sure I've noted more than once that Dean's World is a must read for me. One big reason for that is that Dean's World is one of the most diverse and well-written blogs out there. You can find any number of opinions about any number of topics, and a post, or even a comment, that isn't well thought out is the exception to the rule. Dignified and intelligent discourse is the order of the day there.
Don't take my word for it though. Let Dean tell you in his own words.
