Intruding Administrator?

Back to the controversy of whether or not the Obama Administration bungled in its earnestness to give face time to the President during school hours. I seem to hear more about the "outraged parents" whose children were "deprived," if not by racist, then by partisan school officials. What I don't hear enough of (why are they silent?) is the reaction of teachers themselves. What did they think of the administration's suggested lesson plans?

As a teacher at the community college level, I enjoy a certain amount of autonomy and independence. I am at once both principal and instructor of my classroom. There's very little oversight, other than a five-year evaluation in which someone (either a fellow English professor or the head of the English department) sits in on a class, takes notes, sends me out of the room and distributes student evaluations, and then meets with me later to discuss her observations and give me a printout of the student comments. I'm not told which text to use for my classes. I'm provided information about the standards my course is expected to meet but given freedom and latitude in how to meet those standards. I am gloriously free from the "hot breath" (down my neck) of oversight.

How would I feel, then, if some higher-up--a department head, say, or worse, the college president--sent out an announcement saying he had prepared a speech and would like all professors to air the speech to their classes, and oh, by the way, there are accompanying lesson plans as a follow up assignment. Which of us--be honest now--would actually welcome such an intrusion on our space? Remember, this is my carefully crafted world. My "lesson plans" are constructed around certain outcomes, specific objectives. To what degree would the administrator's speech and supplemental lessons fit within that construct?

This, to me, is what's at the heart of my aversion to the Obama Administration's recent foray into the classroom. Those who are protesting or crying "foul" over school boards' decisions to delay or not air the speech seem to assume that classroom teachers all around the country welcomed the intrusion. I can't imagine why they would welcome it, especially if you mentally substitute "Principal Smith" for "President Obama." Would classroom teachers really welcome the idea of their school principal "suggesting" lesson plans as a follow up to their motivational speech? I'll go on record of saying, Of course not. It's inappropriate, it's intrusive, and it's insulting, just as it was when the Department of Education did it.

My best and only reaction was then and still is: A firm but polite "Butt out."

First Day Haiku

Tried something new this semester (Fall 2009) on my first day of English 100.

After going over the regular spiel--introducing the course syllabus, demonstrating how to use Blackboard, discussing assignments and projects, and talking about required materials, and so on--I ended class (early) by asking students to take a few moments to reflect on what they'd learned so far by writing a "First Day Haiku." I reviewed the haiku form and read mine aloud (already on the chalkboard), and then invited them to write their own haiku.

Here's a sampling of some of the better ones (mine's at the very end):

Sitting and waiting.
First class came and went quickly.
Enjoyable time.
(Sarai V.)

After many years
I sit here, hungry to learn.
Do I still have it?
(Martha M.)

English is a rose
Where words bloom from pen, and grow
To life on paper.
(Michelle K.)

Better topics here,
Much easier than last class.
I am in my place.
(Sammy S.)

When I go to class
I try my best and listen.
Sometimes it pays off.
(Makenna W.)

The school year is here.
Summertime is over now.
Time to get in gear.
(Keegan D.)

Students did not show
While others waiting got in.
Let the class begin.
(Jacob H.).

Sign in to Blackboard.
Read the assignment today.
Create your journey.
(Jonathan V.)

My first day of class.
I wonder if I will pass.
Hope and pray I will.
(Jon B.)

Many students come.
Some stay; some will disappear.
Who is here to learn?
(Elaine Minamide)

Note: thanks to Perry for this great idea that I stole!

Calm Down, Everyone

Big uproar emanating from the La Mesa-Spring Valley area, apparently. Today's San Diego Union-Tribune writes about how two school board trustees have now publicly apologized for voting not to air Obama's pep talk live to students in their district (they instead recorded the speech for later viewing), and a group of angry parents plans to confront the board at its next meeting. One board member (Penny Halgren), reacting to a parent's accusation that the decision was racist (sigh...will use of the race card never end?) actually broke down in tears during an interview.

One can't help but wonder if this reaction is "organized." To have a school board buckle under the tirade of indignant parents whose children were deprived of the opportunity to hear the president's speech the second it was delivered is pretty impressive. Nice PR for our poor, maligned president who only wanted to inspire and motivate school children. Yet I still maintain it's the president who's to blame for all this fallout. School boards across the nation were having to deal with the question of how to "require" (or not) their teachers to interrupt regularly-planned scheduling and carve out a spot in their curriculum for the president's message and accompanying lesson plans. There was very little time to analyze, evaluate, and decide. I agree with Trustee Rick Winet who stands by his vote, arguing that "public school curriculum is supposed to be reviewed and approved at the local level."

The parents need to calm down, and the school board needs to stand by its decision.  The mistake is the Obama administration's, not the school board's.

Educator in Chief?

This first entry may as well be our first joint unpublished Letter to the Editor since the L.A. Times didn't publish it. The letter was in response to an op-ed by Tim Rutten on September 5th (here's the link Calls to Boycott Obama's Speech Offer a Disturbing Lesson in Paranoia). This whole issue definitely spiraled out of control, and in the end, the conservatives who objected did begin to look a bit foolish. Our letter focused not on the fear of indoctrination but on what precipitated the outrage in the first place. Here's what we wrote:

Dear Letters Editor,

Enough with the "tsk, tsks" about conservative reaction to Obama's scheduled speech to schoolchildren nationwide. Their backlash is justified. Tim Rutten conveniently forgets to mention what precipitated the reaction in the first place, which was not the speech per se but the timing of the speech (the middle of a school day), the presumption of participation, and the accompanying lesson plans supplied by the Department of Education (children would have been asked to respond to prompts like, "Write a letter to yourself about what you can do to help the president.") These questions have since been "revised" to appear more innocuous, but the damage was done. It's bad enough that classroom teachers are now in a mad "race to the top" in order to meet federal education standards. But to ask them to set aside class time and adjust their lesson plans for an "inspirational message" from the president says more about how out of touch the Obama administration is with what's going on in the so-called trenches than what it says about conservatives.

Now, of course, any of these original concerns have been eclipsed because Obama, back-pedaling in response to the conservative outcry, gave what amounted to a pep-talk to students, so harmless that even rabidly partisan conservatives like Newt Gingrich commended it. I feel our comments reflected the views of the average classroom teacher and it would have been nice if the Times had included at least this perspective rather than focusing on the "paranoia" aspect.