Lately on the radio there's been a promo for the station's coverage of education issues where we hear what we presume to be an expert in the field talking about the latest legislation regarding teachers and the evaluation of the job they're doing. The comments are something like this "What we're trying to do, for the first time ever, is find out what good teachers do and share that with others". It sounds like a noble goal and is obviously aimed at making the idea of requiring principals to evaluate every teacher every year with a heavy emphasis on standardized test scores seem worthwhile. One problem is that the statement is completely false.
We know and have known for centuries what good teachers do. The fact that the scores on student's standardized tests may have very little to do with the quality of the teaching is bound to confuse some people who have been conditioned to think only in terms of numbers. Just as the nightly business report of the various stock indices has little connection to the overall economy, test scores value is limited.
So what do good teachers do? A good teacher cares about their students. They know their students as individuals and help them learn to work as a group. A good teacher has a wide range of experiences that they draw on seamlessly in the classroom. They can think of twenty different ways to introduce the concept of multiplication depending on the learning styles of the various students in their class. A good teacher leads a literate lifestyle, they are life-long learners. They don't only teach students about reading and writing, they are practicing writers themselves and reading is a central part of their life. A good teacher is the master of connections, a central skill in reading, they can demonstrate daily how to connect ideas from a lesson in science to a story being read aloud. A good teacher shows the connections between the news of the day and history and helps a student express themselves in writing with ever increasing style and sophistication. But mostly a good teacher cares.
Teaching is an art and like good art, you know it when you see it. There is no numeric rubric to tell you that Picasso's Guernica is brilliant and writing a paragraph about Van Gogh's Starry Night does nothing to increase it's power and beauty.
A good teacher may have students who score well on standardized tests. Assuming a student is coming from a literate home environment and has developed excellent study skills and has been applying themselves through their first years in school (since standardized tests don't usually start until third or fourth grade) then a good teacher can help shape those skills and develop their abilities, and maybe even improve test scores. The point is that the scores themselves don't measure any of the qualities that are essential to good teacher.
Apart from disrupting the schedule and taking time out of the learning day, standardized tests don't do any particular harm. They can even provide a limited snapshot of some skills that might be useful in designing instruction. The point I want to make is that we don't need new legislation to know how to recognize good teachers. Just because we can't apply a set of numbers to rank teachers like batting averages doesn't mean that you can't recognize quality work. Perhaps the most challenging element is the fact that the issues impacting young people's abilities to succeed in school and in society are complex and won't be solved by some arbitrary scoring system that can be used to eliminate teachers. Perhaps the most challenging aspect is the fact that you might not be able to find a scapegoat for the world's problems and that you might not be able to explain all the nuances of good teaching with a set of numbers. But don't worry, can you give me a set of numbers to explain why Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is stunning?
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Saturday, March 3, 2012
School Days
One of the subjects on the state standards for fourth grade in Colorado is "government". Students are supposed to learn how government works and be able to name the three basic branches of state and federal government. It's especially appropriate given how much influence those various branches have on the children's daily lives at school. We're in an era now of "enhanced government involvement" in education (sort of like "enhanced interrogation") perhaps more so than at any other time since the beginning of the public school system in America.
From my perspective it's primarily driven by fear which is a powerful motivator. The fear is an honest one, parents and community members see the job market tightening and hear frightening tales of tomorrow's students competing in a global market place filled with brainiacs from all over the world who do nothing but study day and night and have standardized test scores that reach the stratosphere.
Of course these brilliant children from other countries are primarily fictional characters. Reading any of the recent articles from Diane Ravitch or other reputable writers on education shows that it's more complex than that. Her recent article in The New York Review of Books http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/how-and-how-not-improve-schools/
is an excellent place to start to get a thoughtful look at education here and abroad.
While I can't claim to have all the answers, or even most of them I'm pretty sure that the current crop of political movers and shakers don't have the answers either.
Here is something I do know:
If a child grows up in a family where there are few books they will likely have problems in school. When we talk about reading on grade level, for example at fourth grade, we're not talking about a discreet skill we're talking about having an accumulated knowledge base that covers their life up to that point. In other words, "being on grade level" at fourth grade means you've been an engaged, active learner growing up in an environment where you're exposed to educated vocabulary for the past nine years. If you haven't had that experience there's close to nothing that can be done to "fix that". A good coach could probably teach you to throw a football five yards further than you have done before and with a couple weeks of practice you could probably do that. As a teacher, I can't teach you to be reading on a fourth grade level because that implies having that background described earlier. I can't inject you with an educated, engaged upbringing.
I can teach readers and writers to be better at what they do. As an upper elementary grade teacher I can guide students to writing quality essays or understanding more complex stories and connecting them to other texts but I can't give you a magic pill to change your life.
Imagine a patient coming to a doctor complaining of chest pains and during the exam it's revealed that the person smokes several packs of cigarettes a day and won't quit. We'd think the person was crazy to demand and expect a "cure" and yet current education policy is oriented around expecting a teacher to "cure" a student who comes into fourth grade reading at a first grade level with a background that has never included reading at home and whose daily life involves hours and hours of reality TV or video games.
If you want to improve students success in school work to eliminate poverty. Support programs that educate communities about the importance of early literacy. Searching for the elusive "bad teachers" who are holding students back takes a lot of energy that could be directed in more useful ways.
From my perspective it's primarily driven by fear which is a powerful motivator. The fear is an honest one, parents and community members see the job market tightening and hear frightening tales of tomorrow's students competing in a global market place filled with brainiacs from all over the world who do nothing but study day and night and have standardized test scores that reach the stratosphere.
Of course these brilliant children from other countries are primarily fictional characters. Reading any of the recent articles from Diane Ravitch or other reputable writers on education shows that it's more complex than that. Her recent article in The New York Review of Books http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/how-and-how-not-improve-schools/
is an excellent place to start to get a thoughtful look at education here and abroad.
While I can't claim to have all the answers, or even most of them I'm pretty sure that the current crop of political movers and shakers don't have the answers either.
Here is something I do know:
If a child grows up in a family where there are few books they will likely have problems in school. When we talk about reading on grade level, for example at fourth grade, we're not talking about a discreet skill we're talking about having an accumulated knowledge base that covers their life up to that point. In other words, "being on grade level" at fourth grade means you've been an engaged, active learner growing up in an environment where you're exposed to educated vocabulary for the past nine years. If you haven't had that experience there's close to nothing that can be done to "fix that". A good coach could probably teach you to throw a football five yards further than you have done before and with a couple weeks of practice you could probably do that. As a teacher, I can't teach you to be reading on a fourth grade level because that implies having that background described earlier. I can't inject you with an educated, engaged upbringing.
I can teach readers and writers to be better at what they do. As an upper elementary grade teacher I can guide students to writing quality essays or understanding more complex stories and connecting them to other texts but I can't give you a magic pill to change your life.
Imagine a patient coming to a doctor complaining of chest pains and during the exam it's revealed that the person smokes several packs of cigarettes a day and won't quit. We'd think the person was crazy to demand and expect a "cure" and yet current education policy is oriented around expecting a teacher to "cure" a student who comes into fourth grade reading at a first grade level with a background that has never included reading at home and whose daily life involves hours and hours of reality TV or video games.
If you want to improve students success in school work to eliminate poverty. Support programs that educate communities about the importance of early literacy. Searching for the elusive "bad teachers" who are holding students back takes a lot of energy that could be directed in more useful ways.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Politics in the season of Lent
My friends on Facebook already know that once again I have sworn off "snarky or snide" political postings and rants in general during Lent. I still comment on the passing show of politics but for this season of the year I try extra hard to be even handed in my wording. A fair question might be "What exactly are "snarky and snide" political comments?" It's like art, you know it when you see it or in this case, read it or hear it. I was at the local thrift shop yesterday (half price Saturday!) and noticed two books side by side on the shelf; Ann Coulter's "How to Talk to Liberals (If you Must)" and Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" In my opinion, one is snarky, the other not. They're both provocative titles to be sure, but to my mind Coulter's volume implies that people who don't share her views are somehow less than human, or at least objects to be avoided. Franken's title is so far over the top with an eye towards humor that I'm willing to give it a pass at least as far as the title goes. It's possible that reading both books might show the exact same treatment of opposing views, reducing the "other side" to something to be ridiculed and treated with disdain. That's what I'm trying to stay away from myself.
Does this mean I won't disagree with anyone for the next month or so? Not at all. For example back in New Jersey where I lived for three years there's a great debate going on about marriage equality. I believe the statements from the governor show a basic mis-understanding or ignorance of history when he suggests that if the major civil rights issues of the 1950s and 60s would have been resolved much easier if they had been put on the ballot instead of people marching in the streets and trying to have legislation passed to insure their rights.
As I see it, he's saying that unless a majority of people who vote (or are allowed to vote) in an election wish to grant equal rights to some minority the rights can and should be denied to those people.
I disagree with this idea completely. I believe that a quick look at world history would show that the rights of minorities, unless supported and directed by legislation tend to be trampled by the majority population. I believe that if Governor Christie were to study the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s he would see that a majority of the voting population in the southern states, and perhaps anywhere in the United States would have supported allowing segregation to continue. I grew up in Pennsylvania and I remember being taught that the Bible said that not only were people of different races forbidden to marry, but that African Americans were inferior to the white race. I also remember discussions in our neighborhood as to whether a black family should be allowed to buy a house, if anyone should ever be interested.
I believe most historians would agree that if we had waited until a majority of the population was ready to grant equal rights to African Americans we'd still have segregation laws in full force today. New Jersey's governor says that he's only challenging his opponents to prove their theory that "most people support marriage equality" by putting it on the ballot. I think that the argument is flawed from the start. In my opinion, you don't put basic human rights on a ballot.
So that's my non-snarky, snide-less response. It won't fit on a bumper sticker but maybe that's the way it should be, perhaps I'll really try to continue on this path after Easter. Part of me will probably want to return to the playground and start slinging those brilliant put downs I hear every day at school as students try their best to engage in verbal duels, but maybe not.
Does this mean I won't disagree with anyone for the next month or so? Not at all. For example back in New Jersey where I lived for three years there's a great debate going on about marriage equality. I believe the statements from the governor show a basic mis-understanding or ignorance of history when he suggests that if the major civil rights issues of the 1950s and 60s would have been resolved much easier if they had been put on the ballot instead of people marching in the streets and trying to have legislation passed to insure their rights.
As I see it, he's saying that unless a majority of people who vote (or are allowed to vote) in an election wish to grant equal rights to some minority the rights can and should be denied to those people.
I disagree with this idea completely. I believe that a quick look at world history would show that the rights of minorities, unless supported and directed by legislation tend to be trampled by the majority population. I believe that if Governor Christie were to study the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s he would see that a majority of the voting population in the southern states, and perhaps anywhere in the United States would have supported allowing segregation to continue. I grew up in Pennsylvania and I remember being taught that the Bible said that not only were people of different races forbidden to marry, but that African Americans were inferior to the white race. I also remember discussions in our neighborhood as to whether a black family should be allowed to buy a house, if anyone should ever be interested.
I believe most historians would agree that if we had waited until a majority of the population was ready to grant equal rights to African Americans we'd still have segregation laws in full force today. New Jersey's governor says that he's only challenging his opponents to prove their theory that "most people support marriage equality" by putting it on the ballot. I think that the argument is flawed from the start. In my opinion, you don't put basic human rights on a ballot.
So that's my non-snarky, snide-less response. It won't fit on a bumper sticker but maybe that's the way it should be, perhaps I'll really try to continue on this path after Easter. Part of me will probably want to return to the playground and start slinging those brilliant put downs I hear every day at school as students try their best to engage in verbal duels, but maybe not.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Public Displays of Spirit
Living here on the front range of the Rocky Mountains and being a football fan I am happy that Tim Tebow has come to town. As someone who appreciates a good debate on issues of society, politics and religion I'm even happier. A recent issue of the Wall Street Journal called Mr. Tebow "God's Quarterback", "Tebowing" has become a buzzword and if you needed any further proof that "something's goin' on 'round here" Saturday Night Live has aired a skit that features Jesus giving a pep talk to the Broncos in the locker room. That same skit used the phrase "in people's face" in reference to Tebow's public displays of prayer and that's not the first time people have expressed displeasure, upset or anger about his very open profession and experience of faith. For the record, I thought the skit was pretty funny and I'm willing to concede some use of humor short hand to get a laugh when the actual points are perhaps more complex than a sound bite. What I'm interested in is this idea of "in people's face". I lived for a time in New York City and almost anything that went on was "in your face". Walking down any street I encountered more people engaged in more diverse activities than I do in a week or a month here in Colorado. Now, I loved it and I understand that some people don't. I cherished the closeness of a Baptist church to a mosque in the area of Brooklyn where I lived and the chance that I might hear a solid gospel hymn pouring out of one while the call to prayer sounded from another, considering the sound systems that was really "in my face". I haven't had the chance to meet Tim Tebow (although if he wants to come visit the school where I teach sometime, I know several fourth grade boys who would love to have him play football at recess) so I can't say what he's like in person. If he were to badger me about accepting his particular definition of faith and Christianity (let's remember this is an incredibly diverse religion) being unrelenting in his single minded pursuit of gaining my acceptance of his beliefs then I'd consider that an unpleasant situation and inappropriate for public discourse. But, from what I see that isn't going on. He prays or meditates in public. So do I. As a Quaker, my quiet meditative seeking is a bit more stealthy I'll grant you, but so far no one is telling me that I'm "in their face" about my beliefs. I'm inclined to say "pray on dude!" and why not more people doing the same? I will offer an question or perhaps a challenge to us all however. If you are delighted by Tim Tebow's very public displays of a particular brand of Christian faith, are you willing to express the same joy at seeing someone bow towards Mecca in public? If you profess belief in some divine intervention on the part of the Broncos and are sure it comes from your idea of God, are you willing to accept divine intervention on the part of other's image of God when the brilliant athlete, scientist, musician or whatever is Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or a member of one of the thousands of different wonderful faiths and practices that make up our world? Or how about this? Tim Tebow has chosen, and I'm sure he'd be glad to tell you about how and why he chose, this particular lifestyle. If he is cheered for public displays of the faith that he chose, would you cheer the public display of affection between loving partners of the same sex who did not choose their orientation but are celebrating who they are at their core? What if we celebrated everyone's expression of who they are? What a wonderful world that could be.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
The Blank Canvas
As I continue to follow the news from my hometown of State College, PA I'm trying to make sense of it all. We, as humans, do this every day with any experience. We take in new data and fit it into what we already know, and from that point our understanding either grows to incorporate the new information of we create some sort of spin on the new data to make it fit what we already know, or more accurately, what we already believe. A wise bumper sticker reminds us "Don't believe everything you think" and that's worth remembering these days especially. I've read editorials this past week that assert without any doubt that the child abuse scandal may be laid at the doorstep of huge money making sports programs at our universities. The next article I read, from the sports page of course, stated that large money making sports programs were not the problem, far from it! but the problem lay with one coach becoming so famous and powerful that he lost his sense of reality.
I wonder if we use a story like this to express the beliefs we already have. Could it be that the story itself is a blank canvas that we project our fears and beliefs onto? Perhaps a paint by number canvas is more accurate, the story has set up some of the outlines before hand, and we fill in the colors. I can't help but notice that the stories I've read this week, that sports are out of control at large universities, that an aging legendary coach is suffering under the weight of a gigantic ego, that people living in a "cow town" (thank you for that description of my hometown Maureen Dowd) are too ignorant to know what's right, are the same stories I've heard before. The only difference is now there's a powerful story with a moral component that can be used to express those same ideas. I've noticed that "but we need to remember the victims" has become the way to end every news story on the scandal. Why is that? Why isn't the focus on the victims there from the start? I wouldn't say that those editorial writers and TV talking heads don't care about the victims, and I do believe people are genuinely interested in making sure this doesn't happen again, but I will pose the question "What steps do we need to take, and can we look for those steps with anything less than a completely open mind?"
Penn State University has taken several steps to address the scandal involving former football coach Jerry Sandusky. Most of the principal players in the story have either been fired or placed on leave. As much as PSU is a place of higher learning, it is also a multi-million dollar business. Of course there are plenty of costs involved with being a place of higher learning so the mere fact that money is a factor shouldn't surprise anyone. There is, however, a large gray area where the need to raise money to pay for buildings, professors and other operating expenses and the branding and marketing of a product. I make these points because I believe that the steps taken thus far are primarily about the business side of the university. Protecting the bottom line or the product is paramount and the people who have been fired or placed on leave were considered detrimental to that product. The steps taken so far are not, however are not going to solve the issues that aided and abetted the abuse that occurred. Looking around our society, it seems that this kind of abuse is sadly not uncommon. The Catholic Church has been struggling to find some direction forward with this, and the political arena is full of issues of harassment and abuse so there's no shortage of lessons to study. If there's any one thing we could take from the lessons laid out already I would think it's that hiding or covering up never works. It does seem to be a driving motivator in any of these scandals, that to have allowed justice to prevail would have compromised the institution. I believe that this is a larger issue than can be solved by firing a few people no matter how iconic they might be. I believe that this is a time for thoughtful people to think, and to share and engage in conversation. I think it's fair to say that accepting"conventional wisdom" is part of the problem that has brought us here. What kind of solutions could we come up with if no ideas were out of bounds? What kind of world might we create if stretched the definition of what's possible.
I wonder if we use a story like this to express the beliefs we already have. Could it be that the story itself is a blank canvas that we project our fears and beliefs onto? Perhaps a paint by number canvas is more accurate, the story has set up some of the outlines before hand, and we fill in the colors. I can't help but notice that the stories I've read this week, that sports are out of control at large universities, that an aging legendary coach is suffering under the weight of a gigantic ego, that people living in a "cow town" (thank you for that description of my hometown Maureen Dowd) are too ignorant to know what's right, are the same stories I've heard before. The only difference is now there's a powerful story with a moral component that can be used to express those same ideas. I've noticed that "but we need to remember the victims" has become the way to end every news story on the scandal. Why is that? Why isn't the focus on the victims there from the start? I wouldn't say that those editorial writers and TV talking heads don't care about the victims, and I do believe people are genuinely interested in making sure this doesn't happen again, but I will pose the question "What steps do we need to take, and can we look for those steps with anything less than a completely open mind?"
Penn State University has taken several steps to address the scandal involving former football coach Jerry Sandusky. Most of the principal players in the story have either been fired or placed on leave. As much as PSU is a place of higher learning, it is also a multi-million dollar business. Of course there are plenty of costs involved with being a place of higher learning so the mere fact that money is a factor shouldn't surprise anyone. There is, however, a large gray area where the need to raise money to pay for buildings, professors and other operating expenses and the branding and marketing of a product. I make these points because I believe that the steps taken thus far are primarily about the business side of the university. Protecting the bottom line or the product is paramount and the people who have been fired or placed on leave were considered detrimental to that product. The steps taken so far are not, however are not going to solve the issues that aided and abetted the abuse that occurred. Looking around our society, it seems that this kind of abuse is sadly not uncommon. The Catholic Church has been struggling to find some direction forward with this, and the political arena is full of issues of harassment and abuse so there's no shortage of lessons to study. If there's any one thing we could take from the lessons laid out already I would think it's that hiding or covering up never works. It does seem to be a driving motivator in any of these scandals, that to have allowed justice to prevail would have compromised the institution. I believe that this is a larger issue than can be solved by firing a few people no matter how iconic they might be. I believe that this is a time for thoughtful people to think, and to share and engage in conversation. I think it's fair to say that accepting"conventional wisdom" is part of the problem that has brought us here. What kind of solutions could we come up with if no ideas were out of bounds? What kind of world might we create if stretched the definition of what's possible.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Morality in Business
Most of the world probably only sees the unfolding story in State College, PA as a minor blip on the radar or just another incomprehensible fanatical football fueled frenzy. I grew up there, I followed Penn State football and later worked in radio with the football network so I'm hoping you'll excuse my deep feelings for what is going on. I don't claim to have all the answers, or even a few of them but I think that's okay because I do believe that asking questions and thinking about them is often more useful than coming up with a specific answer to fit each question. I've followed the outrage following Coach Paterno's firing by the university board of trustees on Wednesday night. Many friends who still live back in the old hometown have expressed great anger at not only the trustees but also the press that descended on Happy Valley for round the clock coverage. One friend joked that now ESPN stands for "Every Second Paterno News".
Why did the board fire the legendary coach? People are asking in a shocked tone "How could this be?" I can't say I'm surprised. A board of trustees is charged with maintaining the status, reputation and in particular how those factors translate into money for a university. Like a corporation, the bottom line is the key factor, anything that might endanger that will be gone quicker than you can say "Joe Pa"
The board kept Paterno as a coach even as many called for his retirement (and they were calling for that twenty years ago) because his image put people into the seats at the stadium and sold t-shirts, hats and any number of other branded items. When the idea of someone who was accused of not doing enough to stop child abuse being seen on the sidelines of the school's football team continuing to receive the accolades of his amazing career started to look like something that would damage the image of the university the cold hearted business mind took over.
I don't think we should be surprised. Corporations or boards are amoral by definition, they exist to safeguard the bottom line whatever examples of moral behavior there are occur because of the decisions of people. Of course a board of trustees or a large corporation is made up of people but those people have to choose to make decisions, especially if that decision might impact the business model. What would that have looked like in this situation? The board could have chosen to let Paterno finish out his final season as coach. Would that have been the right decision? That's one of those questions that might be worth thinking about, not to answer per se, but to see where it takes you.
As I wrote in my last posting, often there are two sides to the coin, and one is directly connected to the other. Consider this idea, the same business first process has kept Joe Paterno the head coach of Penn State's football team for years even as university administration sought to have him "retired". That same system fired him by phone late at night when he no longer served the bottom line. I'm sure a lot of my friends who are savaging the press now, loved the fact that Joe Paterno became such a recognizable figure over the past twenty or thirty years. Could it be that when we make that kind of deal (with the devil perhaps?) and accept the fame, we must also accept the chance that the fall will be that much greater due to the heights that you've grown accustomed to.
This story is full of questions about what was the right thing to do? Coach Paterno says he wishes he had done more, so he's obviously thinking about that. What should the board have done? If they felt they needed to make a clear statement that they were serious about change, there's nothing that could telegraph that intention any clearer than taking down the symbol of Penn State, which I'm fairly sure most people would say was Joe Paterno. What should they do next? Do they need to remove everyone who was involved with this? At the moment, several of the principal players in this story are still employed by the university. Can the university have a re-birth and re-invent itself? How clean does the slate need to be for this to happen?
Why did the board fire the legendary coach? People are asking in a shocked tone "How could this be?" I can't say I'm surprised. A board of trustees is charged with maintaining the status, reputation and in particular how those factors translate into money for a university. Like a corporation, the bottom line is the key factor, anything that might endanger that will be gone quicker than you can say "Joe Pa"
The board kept Paterno as a coach even as many called for his retirement (and they were calling for that twenty years ago) because his image put people into the seats at the stadium and sold t-shirts, hats and any number of other branded items. When the idea of someone who was accused of not doing enough to stop child abuse being seen on the sidelines of the school's football team continuing to receive the accolades of his amazing career started to look like something that would damage the image of the university the cold hearted business mind took over.
I don't think we should be surprised. Corporations or boards are amoral by definition, they exist to safeguard the bottom line whatever examples of moral behavior there are occur because of the decisions of people. Of course a board of trustees or a large corporation is made up of people but those people have to choose to make decisions, especially if that decision might impact the business model. What would that have looked like in this situation? The board could have chosen to let Paterno finish out his final season as coach. Would that have been the right decision? That's one of those questions that might be worth thinking about, not to answer per se, but to see where it takes you.
As I wrote in my last posting, often there are two sides to the coin, and one is directly connected to the other. Consider this idea, the same business first process has kept Joe Paterno the head coach of Penn State's football team for years even as university administration sought to have him "retired". That same system fired him by phone late at night when he no longer served the bottom line. I'm sure a lot of my friends who are savaging the press now, loved the fact that Joe Paterno became such a recognizable figure over the past twenty or thirty years. Could it be that when we make that kind of deal (with the devil perhaps?) and accept the fame, we must also accept the chance that the fall will be that much greater due to the heights that you've grown accustomed to.
This story is full of questions about what was the right thing to do? Coach Paterno says he wishes he had done more, so he's obviously thinking about that. What should the board have done? If they felt they needed to make a clear statement that they were serious about change, there's nothing that could telegraph that intention any clearer than taking down the symbol of Penn State, which I'm fairly sure most people would say was Joe Paterno. What should they do next? Do they need to remove everyone who was involved with this? At the moment, several of the principal players in this story are still employed by the university. Can the university have a re-birth and re-invent itself? How clean does the slate need to be for this to happen?
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Long Ago, Far Away
This week I've been reading numerous articles about the town I grew up in and the university I attended. The fact that they are essentially one in the same makes the experience all the more powerful and potentially confusing. I grew up in State College, Pennsylvania, a town that while some might not want to admit it exists because it's the home of the main campus of Penn State University. As a child abuse scandal unfolds and threatens to take down many top officials in the university and it's football program there has been a lot of ink split, or data entered on the idea of lost innocence. Many times I've read that "The town I knew is gone" or "This isn't my alma mater any more".
I have not felt this loss of innocence. I've not felt like my hometown has been taken away. I'm still a Penn State alumni and my feelings about the university haven't changed. And so I've asked myself, "Why not?"
One thing that comes to mind is that when I think of Penn State I think of the people I knew there, teachers and fellow students and my day to day life. I think of walking to class across the leaf strewn fields of autumn. I remember late nights working on paintings in the studio or those early morning classes in winter when we'd stumble into a large auditorium looking like zombie extras from the latest horror movie. I never looked at the university as a sacred idol, it was a series of experiences good, bad and every point in between.
If the president of the university resigns tomorrow Penn State will still be there. The bells from Old Main will still ring four times an hour and students will still walk through the same hallways as I did back in day. As much as I admire the football talents of Coach Paterno if he leaves there will still be people playing football. The sun will still rise in the east and set over the western edge of Beaver Stadium on a perfect, brisk autumn afternoon.
Perhaps these feelings of losing something essential and un-replaceable is connected to what may have motivated the people involved in the scandal. It seems that many large and profitable entities have grown over time to a point where people will willingly sacrifice the most vulnerable and needy to preserve the institution. Church officials who hide sexual misconduct or re-assign priests, corporations who cover up pollution or other practices that impact the local community or in this case (it appears) university leaders who either ignore or cover up abusive treatment of children. Perhaps people are doing this without even thinking. If something good can come from this I think it would be that the punishment is strong enough to erase any doubt in anyone's mind as to what are the appropriate actions to take when a child is being abused, sexually or any other way. Those, of course, are to notify police immediately. If that message came out clearly then this would be a great lesson learned and after all isn't what places of higher learning are all about?... learning?
From the details that have emerged so far I question the judgement of Coach Paterno but still admire his skill as a football coach. The memory of the many games I watched from the stands or listened to as I helped run the radio broadcasts are still there and still wonderful. It may well be that he needs to leave his position at the university as a result of these incidents, but again the world will continue. My love for my hometown and undergraduate university have not diminished because of what some people have done even though they hold powerful positions within that institution. It's the same as my love of my country which is not diminished by the many horrible actions it's committed over the years. The treatment of Native Americans, imprisoning Asian Americans during the 1940s, anything from slavery right on up through the invasion of Iraq, our history is full of shameful events but I believe it's still possible to love something while you work to make it better. If you've made your country or your church or your college an idol or some kind of sacred ideal then it's almost impossible to acknowledge any human frailty or mistake. Again, this kind of worship seems to bring about the horrible actions we're reading about every day now in this particular scandal. I don't believe that my country or school is absolutely right all the time and so while I will work to make things better I'm not surprised when people turn out to be... well, human.
I have not felt this loss of innocence. I've not felt like my hometown has been taken away. I'm still a Penn State alumni and my feelings about the university haven't changed. And so I've asked myself, "Why not?"
One thing that comes to mind is that when I think of Penn State I think of the people I knew there, teachers and fellow students and my day to day life. I think of walking to class across the leaf strewn fields of autumn. I remember late nights working on paintings in the studio or those early morning classes in winter when we'd stumble into a large auditorium looking like zombie extras from the latest horror movie. I never looked at the university as a sacred idol, it was a series of experiences good, bad and every point in between.
If the president of the university resigns tomorrow Penn State will still be there. The bells from Old Main will still ring four times an hour and students will still walk through the same hallways as I did back in day. As much as I admire the football talents of Coach Paterno if he leaves there will still be people playing football. The sun will still rise in the east and set over the western edge of Beaver Stadium on a perfect, brisk autumn afternoon.
Perhaps these feelings of losing something essential and un-replaceable is connected to what may have motivated the people involved in the scandal. It seems that many large and profitable entities have grown over time to a point where people will willingly sacrifice the most vulnerable and needy to preserve the institution. Church officials who hide sexual misconduct or re-assign priests, corporations who cover up pollution or other practices that impact the local community or in this case (it appears) university leaders who either ignore or cover up abusive treatment of children. Perhaps people are doing this without even thinking. If something good can come from this I think it would be that the punishment is strong enough to erase any doubt in anyone's mind as to what are the appropriate actions to take when a child is being abused, sexually or any other way. Those, of course, are to notify police immediately. If that message came out clearly then this would be a great lesson learned and after all isn't what places of higher learning are all about?... learning?
From the details that have emerged so far I question the judgement of Coach Paterno but still admire his skill as a football coach. The memory of the many games I watched from the stands or listened to as I helped run the radio broadcasts are still there and still wonderful. It may well be that he needs to leave his position at the university as a result of these incidents, but again the world will continue. My love for my hometown and undergraduate university have not diminished because of what some people have done even though they hold powerful positions within that institution. It's the same as my love of my country which is not diminished by the many horrible actions it's committed over the years. The treatment of Native Americans, imprisoning Asian Americans during the 1940s, anything from slavery right on up through the invasion of Iraq, our history is full of shameful events but I believe it's still possible to love something while you work to make it better. If you've made your country or your church or your college an idol or some kind of sacred ideal then it's almost impossible to acknowledge any human frailty or mistake. Again, this kind of worship seems to bring about the horrible actions we're reading about every day now in this particular scandal. I don't believe that my country or school is absolutely right all the time and so while I will work to make things better I'm not surprised when people turn out to be... well, human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)