Sex at school

     The other day I told my Creative Writing students, "Your job is to make your topic interesting. The only subject that's interesting by default is sex. No other topic is interesting until you make it interesting."
     The point I was making was valid, but I almost regret putting it that way, because simply mentioning sex in class gets them thinking about sex, rather than about writing. Case in point, right? It's such a powerful part of human existence. Those who treat sex casually are at war with the bulk of human societies and civilizations since the dawn of time.
     (I suppose I just enjoy being unpredictable. How often does a high school teacher mention sex? It's nice to be absolutely sure now and then that your students are actually listening to you.)

     Today I started the most ambitious instructional unit of my career -- sexual ethics. It's coming at the tail-end of a semester of ethics, starting with ethical issues relating specifically to young people, then environment, education, war and politics. It's been a great class. However, our school district has failed our students insofar as it does not require each of them to take a course on sex, sexuality and gender. This is my chance to fix that grievous error.
     Unfortunately I've only left myself two weeks to cover the material, so we'll have to move fairly quickly through some of the most controversial issues that will be raised this year. Homosexuality. Premarital sex. Age of consent. And once again, I think I will be able to hold my students' attention without too much difficulty.
     Of course, the challenge of an ethics course is to let the students arrive at their own conclusions instead of being told what to believe. Not only is it the ethical way to go about instruction -- as opposed to taking advantage of your position of authority and trust to preach your personal viewpoints -- but it will also result in a far more lasting impact on the way the students think.
     This is basically what distinguishes a teacher from a parental figure. Parents are keen to pass on their values and beliefs to their children. I, however, cannot adopt one hundred teenagers for 180 days, and repeat the process from scratch every year. For one, I'd probably kill myself. But the larger issue is the fact that they are not little mes, in any sense. Some might respect me and some might hate me, some will idolize me and others filled with disdain and scorn. Yet their background is not mine, their home life is not mine, their past is not mine, and although I can impact their future, it is not irrevocably tied to my own.

     Sex and sexuality is sort of like religion and tradition. It's hard to break away from your roots. Students learn math, English, history and science at school, but when it comes to sex, they come with a set of presuppositions, sometimes hardened by specific theological premises. In the United States, anyway. In more secular countries  -- Britain comes to mind -- would have many parents who tell their kids, "Think about it, and go with what makes sense." Americans are more dogmatic. And by extension, whereas in Britain a teacher could have a full curriculum about sex, that's not true in Oklahoma. It's safer to skirt the most important questions, lest an instructor call down some serious parental wrath.
     Still, I don't deny that I have an agenda. My devious plan is to get them to reflect on their own assumptions, the traditions they've inherited, the biases the embrace as part of their subconscious endeavor to be accepted by their peers. Strong opinions in controversial matters are part of the adolescent experience and the search for one's personal identity. I get that. But they can't stay teenagers forever.
     When I was a high school student, like them, I had strong opinions about many hot topics. Then I grew up. At university I experienced the process of letting go of my purported wisdom, and much to my dismay, I was wrong on pretty much everything. Is it egotistical to want my students to similarly reject the simplicity of their youth? Do I claim that a phase of intellectual rebellion is necessary to internalize one's values and thus ensure that one is not merely a creature of habit but an empowered individual?
     I suppose so. And frankly, if a teacher can get a kid to rethink what she thinks she knows about sex, then pretty much everything is up for grabs.

Diversity in education

     It is often said that no two people are exactly the same. At the same time, it is also true that most children have a lot in common, whether it be the stages of cognitive development, generational social trends, or cultural thinking patterns. And it is on this very basis that teachers teach diverse classrooms as a single unit. While modifications per student are provided as needed, differentiation takes a back seat to the homogeneous modeling, scaffolding, skill-mastering and assessing that characterizes the bulk of what takes place in the classroom.

However, as the world shrinks and multicultural communities form in urban areas, schools invariably become increasingly diverse. Teachers are continually challenged to teach larger groups of students who give the impression of uniformity – whether due to age, dress code, or trends in language and behaviorisms – while in fact significant differences only multiply. As these differences become more apparent over time, educators determine whether to group students by specific characteristics – academic competence, language fluency, cultural background, special needs – or to let the chips fall where they may.

      The landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS emphasized that the desegregation of public schools would be a great boon to the American education system. The natural interaction between students despite their differences results is academically beneficial, as research and reason both demonstrate.

      Sadly, diversity can also be attempted thoughtlessly and may easily result in depressed education standards and increased conflict between distinct communities. The story of Erin Gruwell and her LA-based "Freedom Writers" is a case in point. Woodrow Wilson High School in Long Beach implemented a voluntary integration program that only aggravated the high level of tension between the African-American, Asian, White and Latino neighborhoods.

     Social engineering carries inherent risks and must be executed carefully.   Educators must be prudent not to promote students of different backgrounds in a way that reduces individual children to certain characteristics, whether sexual orientation, ethnic heritage, or learning style. Healthy interaction between diverse student groups demands equality, unity, and an environment where intimate peer relationships may be developed safely.

      At Santa Fe South High School in Oklahoma City, for example, a complex urban environment coupled with ethnic prejudices results in a unique situation that requires care and attention. The Latino demographic in Oklahoma City and southwestern United States generally is one that experiences social, and recently legal, prejudice, due to the ongoing complications of illegal immigration and related issues. SFS HS is predominantly Hispanic, with about 10% African-American and 10% White. These minorities, while economically and socially dominant (the former clearly less so) as a national ethnicity, now experience a turning of the tables on campus. Strained relations between these groups create ongoing prejudice on campus, but due to the clear dominance of the Latino community, conflict is minimal. Every school experiences its own issues relating to diversity and no educator has the privilege of ignoring its relevance to the success or failure of public education.

      The classroom teacher must understand and sympathize with these larger population trends if he or she is to create a venue where diversity can be expressed and embraced in the context of a broader and singular vision. And the same rules apply in the case of any significant student groupings. If students of different academic levels, for example, are to work together productively and safely, teachers must address the prejudiced treatment of students, whether by themselves or by other students. Different expectations for stronger or weaker students will not foster resentment or embarrassment if the teacher clearly articulates a common vision of growing in skill and knowledge of the subject matter. If the student's goal is to get a certain grade, and the teacher expects more of one student than another to get the same grade, then equality in assessment is lost, and the students will not trust the teacher, nor will they build healthy, intimate relationships with each other. However, if a growth model is adopted and students are consistently assessed on the basis of individual growth, equality is maintained.

      Indeed, successful diversity in public education is the best way to prepare our children to continue the American democratic tradition, to be responsible global citizens, and to let their world grow beyond the locality in which they were born.

Put down that E-Reader and pick up a pen!

     Read How to Mark a Book by Mortimer Adler here. Adler was the co-founder of the Great Books foundation and published this magnificent essay in 1940. I discovered it through one of about.com's many treasure troves while searching for teaching resources and I'm confident I'll find many more gems like it soon.
     Adler goes to great lengths to persuade his reader that marking up a book with lines, stars, notes and cross references is not an act of mutilation but of love. Such annotations are the gateway to serious reading, remembering, and creating an intellectual diary of your conversation with a brilliant author that can continue again at the drop of a hat.
     Ten years ago there were two books whose subject matter concerned me enough to write in them: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, a conservative Christian apologist's wet dream, and the Bible. In my early college years I scored the woodpulp of many other works of non-fiction. My first two years after high school I spent at an ultra-conservative Bible College, and my thirst for theological knowledge drove me to spend quality time reading deeply, actively, and wrestling with the ideas I was presented.
     Sadly, that time came to an end. I remember walking into the library of Providence College for the first time. Row upon row of books were laid before me, and I walked between the shelves, my eyes dancing from spine to title to author to Dewey Decimal number. I was nauseated and knew immediately that not in my whole life would I have the time, energy and ability to consume the sum of human knowledge. It was simultaneously thrilling and devastating.
     Every semester I was assigned hundreds of pages to read, mostly highly complex research texts using the technical language of linguistics, philosophy and literary criticism, each with its own set of a hundred bibliographic references in the index in the back. I was trained to read quickly and broadly, to get the gist and move on. In fact, I utterly forgot the importance and method of reading deeply.

     After graduating from college I was set free from this endless academic burden and was granted another instead - the eight-hour day, the five-day week, the eternal countdown to vacation, the inauguration into a system designed to wrest your very best energy, digest every muscle and fiber, and spit out the lifeless remains. I still loved to read, but lacked the energy to do so, I believed, being exhausted from my daily marathon that constitutes my current vocation.
     Partially true, I still maintain. However, the greater truth lies in my forgetfulness. I forgot how to read seriously. When I tried to read the great philosophical, historical and intellectual works in my library as if I were reading a New York Times best-seller, and failed, the whole guilt fell upon my job, and none upon my method. Falling asleep, eh? Not able to read more than a few pages, eh? Sheesh. Pick up a pencil, for Christ's sake, and stop whining.
     I'm not saying I'm going to read everything seriously. There's a place in my life for leisure - much more so for the next six weeks! - and there always will be. I don't need to spend five minutes a page in a work of contemporary fiction, or even The Great Gatsby. But I sure as hell will if I want to read some well-written non-fiction or some well-thought-out philosophy. Poetry, even, maybe.
     I can't leave it to professional educators to drive me to read deeply. Frankly, not only can I not afford to be a perpetual student, more than that, I don't need to be. I know how to read. I know what I want to read. I know I want to skip the bullshit bureaucratic formality that we call college education. The books are there. Smart people to talk to? Yes, they exist off-campus.

     Marking up a book is so much better than the mnemonic techniques of the World Memory Championships - which despite reading a new release on the subject, still seems awfully gimmicky to me. (The subtitle should read, "Remembering anything," not "everything.") Paper was a revolutionary invention, not the mind map. I'm not denying the historicity of such methods, but I challenge anyone to demonstrate them to be a primary intellectual habit of any great thinkers and writers. It's a good tool for the tool belt, but it's not the bread and butter of critical thought.
     The scary part of this is how difficult it is to properly annotate a digital text. One of the more popular apocalyptic prophecies in the past decade has been the end of the printed word. I've always been a nay-sayer - and how much more so in light of the most important method of active reading! This is not to say we couldn't have a digital equivalent, but I expect it will be watered down on many levels. So much of the natural memory depends on the spatial physicality of an object (says Boer of Moonwalking, referenced earlier) and here we are, giving all that up without a fight!

     No, no and double no. Raise your Nay to the Nook, Kindle and Kobo. Throw them into the fire! Ok, maybe a bit dramatic. E-read your way to relaxation on a Caribbean cruise or a quick jaunt up to the chalet. But don't stop building your library. For God's sake, don't stop buying the books that could change your life. Believe that as little as a pen in hand could make all the difference in the world.

No Child Left Behind, left behind

     It's the end of an era.
     The 2002 law dubbed No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which mandated states to set measurable standards for public school education and rendered federal funding contingent on achieving them, is no longer binding. As 2014 looms ever nearer, states may apply individually for relief from NCLB provisions, providing they demonstrate they are on track to improving education even if they won't attain freakishly high proficiency levels tomorrow in English and Math. On February 9 ten states (including Oklahoma) were granted such wavers.
     Thank God, right?
     NCLB asked every state to find a way to climb Mount Everest without telling them how or giving them any equipment. Only two years after the bill was signed into law, a series of meetings were held to identify its flaws and pave the way to its reform. 135 national organizations originally signed the Joint Organizational Statement, which recommended we:
     1. emphasize academic growth alongside objective and universal standards;
     2. move from relying solely on standardized testing to employing multiple types of assessment;
     3. find effective ways to increase accountability on all levels;
     4. design effective methods of assessment and decrease the frequency of national tests;
     5. increase quality of professional development for teachers and administrators;
     6. apply sanctions only if they don't undermine existing, effective reform efforts, and otherwise replace them with constructive interventions;
     7. ensure necessary state funding to meet federal requirements, especially with respect to schools serving low-income populations.
     20 more organizations appended their signatures since the statement was originally published.
     It's been eight years since then. With all these great recommendations and practically the whole country in agreement on them, it should be a fairly straight and sunny path to reform, right?
     Wait. What exactly has Washington done since 2004 to address the education crisis and salvage NCLB?

      2009: Race to the Top. Over $4 billion dollars of Obama's Stimulus were allocated to reward states able to execute specific educational policies and demonstrate high quality education through testing. Result? Most importantly, nearly every state adopted common national standards. Monies were split between twelve winning states, each receiving between $75 and $700 million. Certain states changed their education policies to be more competitive in the Race. (By the way, the Race is over, in case no one told you.)
     And... that's it? Sorry, President. Big speeches don't satisfy me here. The DREAM Act was never signed into law. And even if it had been, it would have joined a painfully short list of approved bills that address secondary issues. Student loans. Various re-authorizations and extensions of older legislative material. Nothing revolutionary.
     Of course, due to the current political climate, Obama has no choice but to remain largely inactive with respect to his grand promises to reform education. In this, he follows in the footsteps of those before him -- every president since... Nixon?... has promised to deliver in this area, and nevertheless, in every term education continues to stagnate. One by one, countries around the world pass the United States.
     NCLB will remain my generation's cautionary tale for education. Everyone's optimistic right now, because the general consensus is NCLB was a Big Mistake, and that admission creates possibility for the future - at least on paper. NCLB, we say, reacted impulsively and even destructively to a disappointing reality. It saw the problems, yes - but did it understand them? Did it take the time necessary to see the true nature behind the nation's failings? Like doctors, a law can address symptomatic pain or structural problems. If you see a long line of infants floating down a raging river toward a waterfall, you can wade in a save a couple babies from certain death, or you can head up the bank and stop the one who's sending them down the river in the first place.
     As an inner-city educator, what do I see? I see a lot of frustration in our students and in our teachers. I see huge administrative paychecks and little accountability. I see lot of people so used to failure that they have lost the confidence needed to step forward without stumbling backward. I see a broken network between families and schools. I see a lot of passing the buck and finding someone else to blame. I see children (who were, legally, considered property of their parents not long ago) rebelling openly against those whose vocation it is to oversee their transformation into adulthood, whose hands are tied, who are thus unable to effectively direct their own institution.
     And what, then, is the solution? As educators, we've been patient but not pragmatic. We've been dedicated but not diligent. We need to raise the teaching profession to the same level of dignity and expertise as doctors and lawyers. This, in turn, requires a complete overhaul of the way teachers are trained, and the kind of people hired to teach. Earning the responsibility to oversee the development of the mind should be no less taxing than earning the responsibility to oversee the health of the body. (After all, don't these two areas together constitute the chief evidence of a truly civilized society? Why isn't Obama putting the same energy into education that he put into health care?) Let master teachers be supported by apprentice teachers still studying for full certification. And so on.
     In terms of ongoing bureaucratic issues, well, I don't think the problems caused by unions and lobbyists and poorly-constructed hierarchies and departments can be addressed satisfactorily until our political system is reformed. Until then, money will continue to have more power in deciding the fate of our children than it deserves.
     This is my gut instinct. I'll be the first to admit that I'm still pretty ignorant about the systems that determine who and what gets funding and what rules the games are played by. When I look at countries with higher student academic achievement, the same frustrations exist but on a significantly smaller scale.
     The Joint Organizational Statement is something I'd sign, but unless we find people strong enough to create a road map of how to get there, and give them the resources and authority to do so, it's not worth the paper it was written on.