When I wasn't looking...

A week or so ago at Essential Left-Overs, Family Foundation of Kentucky popularist Martin Cothran solved the charter debate. He says let parents decide. He doesn't say which parents, but I have a suspicion he has certain parents in mind.

Richard Day's continued attacks on charter schools are indicative of the wider public school establishment's disdain for them. Day and other fixtures of the education establishment want the same kind of accountability that has failed the public school system for years: that is to say, no accountability other than to themselves.

That Cothran thinks looking critically at both sides of an issue constitutes an attack, says more about him than it does about me.

For the record, I am in favor of a strong charter school law in Kentucky. I supported Commissioner Terry Holliday's call for local school board control over them.

Cothran's comments are inaccurate and, if he is a man of integrity, they should be retracted.

What I'm not in favor of are shallow, sweet-sounding, bad ideas that would rob the public schools while returning Kentucky to the days when (often poorly educated) local trustees built good schools for some and poor schools for others.

The public schools can rightly be criticized for myriad failures with America's most difficult students. Those who espouse local control over all things can be rightly criticized for myriad instances of not even trying. At the same time, the public schools can be credited for developing the bulk of the American workforce; a workforce that built a great nation.

Local control over the schools existed in Kentucky for 162 years before KERA and left the state at the bottom of most measures. For most of that time the state operated a separate system for blacks and women were treated as an afterthought. There are still a lot of difficult problems to be solved, but in the 20 years since KERA, the state's standing has risen into the middle third. It is unlikely Cothran would consider such data since it refutes the veracity of his comments.

Kentucky spent many decades tolerating middling schools with strong local control exercised by trustees who feathered their own nests and used the schools as a jobs program for their families and supporters. The increase in state control over schooling was, in fact, a direct reaction to this lousy non-system, one that left many Kentucky children behind.

The growth in state involvement was attributable to the public's loss of confidence in local schools' ability to provide high-quality education. In addition, in the mid-1960s, new interest groups drew the nation's attention to such issues as civil rights, women's roles, student rights, and bilingual education--issues that had been overlooked by local politicans.

Federal and state categorical aid programs were established to meet the needs of underserved populations while local entities such as the PTA gradually lost their influence. Local initiatives were further eroded in the 1970s by the failure of communities to support property taxes to improve the schools, and court decisions concerning student rights and due process - issues that would likely yield to "higher" priorities, if Cothran had his way.

Sex, Religion and Politics

The other day, I posted an item from Merlene Davis announcing the local screening of the documentary film Straightlaced: How ­Gender’s Got Us All Tied Up. At the heart of the film is an underlying question. What kind of disciplinary code ought to be employed in the schools?

Davis's piece drew a protracted response from Martin Cothran on his blog - which used to speak truly, but now is clinging to the vestiges of western cultural domination.

Cothran makes final policy decisions and manages strategy for the Kentucky Family Foundation. According to their writings, the Family Foundation apparently believes in Mom and Dad, more Bible than Jesus, and hopes to “encourage, equip and empower educators according to Biblical principles” through its Christian Educators Association.

He opens with a little innuendo,

Merlene Davis of the Lexington Herald-Leader doesn't miss her chance to promote the movie, which was shown this weekend and sponsored by the Central Kentucky Council on Peace and Justice.

Similarly, Cothran doesn't miss his chance to detract.

The film is about a boy named "Josh," an openly gay student at Lexington, Kentucky's Paul Lawrence Dunbar High School who committed suicide and a fellow student name "Hannah" who was his friend and who later died in a car accident. Josh is described as having a "flamboyant personality," which attracts the negativity of his peers. It's never stated outright, but you get the definite impression that Josh's death is to be laid at the feet of anyone who has a traditional view of human sexuality.

A traditional view of sexuality? Really?

Is Cothran suggesting that the nail that sticks up will be hammered down; or should be; and somehow, that's OK? ...because it's majority rule? ...it's traditional? ...because the kid's asking for it by daring to be different? Shipman seems to be cast as having caused his own torment.

Hummm. I had the idea that Josh was repeatedly bullied by stronger kids acting in concert.

Now, let me quickly add that I have not seen the film. But my limited research reveals a very mixed picture of Shipman that is likely to defy the kind of easy (predetermined) conclusions we bloggers love.

Shipman's young middle school friends decried his school experience on the Josh Shipman Foundation MySpace page. It's pretty much what you'd expect.

Many of You Knew Him. But For Most of You Not In A Good Way. Most of You Picked On Him and Called Him Names. Most of You Called Him "Wierd" or "Fag". Joshua Shipman died Thursday night. He hung himself in his room and his father fount him...people called him a queer and a fag. Why do you care about his sexual life unless your involved in it? Seriously!

In the 7th grade he would come to school everyday with bruises...He tried so hard everyday for people to like him. He would talk to you and you'd laugh. He'd smile at you and you'd look away. He'd claim you were a friend and you would deny him. It's really sad that it takes someone losing their life for people to get the hint.

...i knew josh during my 6th-7th grade year...i considered him a friend to me and i always tried to be there for him whenever he was teased...after he left winchester, i never saw or talked to him...but i always remembered who he was...i will never forget him...

...you was my friend since the 5th grade you was the first person to talk to me .. when i moved here to winchester.. you was always nice to me 7th grade before u moved away i told u bye .. and never saw u agian ... until i was told what u have done i dont blame u .. its everyone else u treated you the way they treated you.

Middle school is no place to be too different.

But Shipman made it to high school, and following his suicide in November 2006, Raviya Ismail wrote in the H-L (no longer available at H-L but reprinted here):

Josh Shipman made an impression. From his tightly wound corsets to his dark clothing, he was both an enigma and an open book.

He'd strut the halls of Paul Laurence Dunbar High School in his signature black boots and fluorescent pink hair. Goth and colorful, gay and Wiccan, open and reticent, Josh was a walking contradiction. But friends best remember him for the kisses and tight hugs he gave so freely. Those friends crowded into a funeral home recently to pay their respects to Josh, who committed suicide at home on Oct. 5, a week before his 16th birthday. Many dyed their hair pink and wore gay-pride ribbons in remembrance.

Was it a fear of those who are too different that caused Shipman's pain and prompted these traditional kids to torment him - when they might have chosen, rather, to love their neighbor or at least leave him alone? Were they allowed (or encouraged) to bully the quirky student? Did Shipman, by virtue of being different, invite his tormentors - or was there something more?

Shipman had every citizen's right to be whatever his creator made him. Shipman's father told H-L it was pretty clear that Josh was gay from the age of 4 or 5. That does not sound like a choice to me. It sounds more like a natural inclination.

Straightlaced is described as being about the acceptance of others regardless of their dress, sexual orientation or desire to wear a particular color. But Cothran's not buying any of it.

What, exactly, does "acceptance" mean here? Is this, like, some neutral kind of acceptance that just means I'm supposed to recognize and respect others as human beings despite the fact that I think their lifestyle is abnormal and in many cases self-destructive (and in some cases just silly)? Wait. Self-destructive?

How could I say that? That's so insensitive and intolerant. Am I not ashamed of myself for saying this?

Well, actually, no. I know that in modern liberal secular society, which has constantly championing social policies that contribute to the disconnection of people from real cultures and real relationships, we are supposed to have compassion for people we don't know.

Cothran is a smart guy and I sure he understands Shipman's rights. But here he subordinates them in order to better assert his own. Then he gets mired in his defense of traditionalism. Cothran makes it sound like there is only one culture - his. One lifestyle - his. ...the traditional western civilization WASP heterosexual culture, one supposes. (Hey wait. That's my culture too.)

It ought not escape us that suicide has traditionally been considered a crime in that tradition. Ireland, for example, decriminalized suicide as late as 1993. (I never really understood what good it did for a secular government authority to criminalize the last act of a dead man. Is there money in it for someone somewhere? Does it make church leaders politically stronger somehow? I don't have a clue.)

But all of this assumes that Josh's suicide was a simple matter of bullying. As I learned a long time ago, people are very complex and there's almost always more going on than appears on the surface.

Ishmail reported other serious complicating factors - Shipman's self-mutilation problem, feeling rejected by his mother and battles with his dad. "Josh was diagnosed with ADHD, bipolar disorder and an attachment disorder -- characterized by becoming overly close to people who expressed even a minor interest in him. Josh was medicated for some of these problems." In September 2005 Josh was placed in a group home in Louisville, which he ran away from; he eventually spent 10 months at the Barnabas Home in Annville getting treatment and counseling for his problems.

The living now speculate on what really caused Josh's life-ending decision. He left no note.

But Cothran knows. It was another of his regular strawmen who did it - the "modern liberal secular society" which is "constantly championing social policies" that allows folks to be different. That's the problem.

I disagree.

I think it is the modern liberal Christian society that contributes to Cothran's consternation. It seems to me that those who think Jesus trumps the Bible have a much clearer notion of what the Golden Rule means in practice. These mainstream Christians would make the Golden Rule the foundation of every school's disciplinary code. If the Family Foundation finds fault with Christ's teachings, Cothran will have to let us know.

Now, it matters not at all what Cothran (or I) believes, but any scholar ought to get his attributions straight. There is a long-standing (dare I say, fairly traditional) Christian impulse that is alive and well in America. These mainstream Christians don't think Jesus was kidding and might not appreciate Cothran misnaming their motivations for some perceived political gain. The entire social gospel movement is clearly not secular. Many Christians see it as obedient. Many are writing checks to Haitian relief today.

Behind all of this is an underlying attitude at the crux of traditional western civ thinking. It is superiority. Cothran is sure that, if he had known Shipman, he would have "felt very sorry" for him. And there's his notion of "an exercise in tolerance" which, as Washington understood, presupposes that one is superior and may tolerate his inferiors, or not, at his choosing. If that's not a secular view, I'm not sure what is. What lesson from Jesus have I missed that promotes intolerance and injustice?

I wonder if part of the issue involves how folks see human sexuality. Many heterosexuals, it seems to me, see sexuality as a dichotomy. You have "outdoor plumbing" - you're a man. Act like it. Indoor? Get in the kitchen. Fix me some meatloaf.

I wonder if it isn't more of a continuum, albeit bimodal.

The sooner we realize that someone will always defy our categories and yet still maintain their rights as citizens, the sooner America will approach the teaching of Jesus.

But maybe I have misjudged the Family Foundation's idea of what it means to follow Christ, or be a Christian.

Isn't it a secular impulse to use religion for one's own political purposes?

Now this is a lot of religion talk from a public school guy, so let me be clear about where I'm coming from. I am NOT arguing in favor of establishing Christianity as the basis for discipline in the public schools. But I am suggesting that the central principle of Christianity should undergird the disciplinary code in all American schools, including Jewish schools, Muslim schools....all.

No ancient law or prophesy could possibly be more "Christian" than the direct teachings of Jesus himself. Clearly "the Golden Rule" is central to Christianity. A public school disciplinary code that keeps the Golden Rule, keeps the faith.

But that's NOT why it should be the basis for student discipline in the schools.

The Golden Rule should be the basis for all student discipline because it is also central to all other major religions as well - and I've never heard an atheist or agnostic object to its principles either.

Because of its wide-spread acceptance among the world's religions, it does not establish religion the way that posting the Ten Commandments would. ...or requiring daily reading from the Qur'an would. ...or requiring transcendental meditation would. ...or teaching transubstantiation would. Those acts would be specific to a particular religion, and would therefore be unconstitutional.

Our schools, and our world, would be better if more of us followed the Golden Rule - and if it was enforced in the schools, just maybe, Josh Shipman would still be alive and getting the help he needed.

Martin Cothran: Logic in Defense of the Irrational

Over at opinio loqui, Martin Cothran waved his hand and spawned from the primordial ooze a delightful Darwinian reverie that equates public school folks to caged apes – at least, those folks who may consider the prior creationist views of one of the state’s finalists for education commissioner to be an issue worth mentioning.

It's a fun read. But it is also a total twistifycation of the facts that does some amount of disservice to both the Rev Dr Dennis Cheek, and those who believe that a finalist’s background - in total - is important in determining who is best qualified to become Kentucky’s next commissioner.

Channeling Jane Goodall, Cothran alludes to his experiences among those lower life forms known as “Kentuckians.” He asks:

Is Dennis Cheek fit enough to survive the vetting process for education commissioner?

It’s a good question - one that applies equally to all four finalists. Although for some reason, Cothran seems only concerned with Cheek.

Cothran acknowledges Cheek’s academic prowess, and correctly remarks that he,

once wrote a paper that questioned the evidence for whether human beings evolved from apes.

That’s part of what Cheek said. The other part was,

The Scriptural view, that man and these other creatures were created separately, is fully as much in accord with the evidence, and is more credible on other grounds.

Is that worth mentioning?

To be clear, Cheek’s current position is very different – about 180 degrees. He told KSN&C,

I concur fully with the very well-reasoned and well-articulated opinion of the judge in [Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in [Pennsylvania] that these positions have not led to anything yet that qualifies as science. Deciding precisely what is or is not science is admittedly a bit hard to pin down fully since the demarcation arguments regarding science are still quite robust among professional philosophers of science. The judge found that the [Intelligent Design] views are fundamentally religious (I would also add metaphysical) in nature and do not belong in the science classroom as part of the formal scientific curriculum.

Cothran calls me out saying,

Richard Day, a dominant male in the education community and the one who dug up the old creationist paper, displayed openly aggressive behavior at his blog "Kentucky School News and Commentary" in response to the revelation about what he considers Cheek's checkered past.

Flattery will get you nowhere, Martin.

Is it possible that Kentucky’s next education commissioner – if he or she maintained creationist views - might promote programs or act in ways that put the state at odds with the Constitution or established court rulings? Would the state end up wasting time and paying more money to ACLU attorneys?

The fact is we’re just now getting to know Cheek. Since the sole purpose for vetting candidates is to learn more about them, upon discovering potentially controversial views, should they have been kept secret – as a pseudo scientist might choose to do? Or does the public have a right to know and evaluate such claims for themselves before turning over the keys to the schools?

Cothran is correct to suggest,

The revelation has caused a great deal of chattering among some in the education bureaucracy who wonder why he did not divulge this to the Board of Education, which is looking into his background.

Yes, we chimps chatter. Pick fleas, too. (Small self-serving correction to Cothran’s piece: KSN&C reported its findings on July 7th. The Courier-Journal editorial ran on the 8th.)

But if it is truly “aggressive behavior” to quote someone directly then Cothran should cease publication immediately – along with all those other endangered media species.

Cothran, for example, recently exposed the fact that US Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor is an “Ivy League judge.” Was that openly aggressive behavior on Cothran’s part; a little bait to rouse up the “intellectual deletes?” Or was he just sayin’.

The fact of the matter is, if something germane showed up in the public record, whether potentially helpful or hurtful to any candidate, KSN&C would have posted it anyway. Just as was done with Barbara Erwin. Just as was done with the other finalists.

It has been, and will continue to be, KSN&C’s practice to present relevant information regardless of whether that favors or disfavors an individual. That has been true for school administrators we respect. It is true for commissioner candidates.

For example, KSN&C also posted the revelation that finalist, Michael Sentance, once became sufficiently riled up at a youth soccer game that he not only got a yellow card, and a red card, but whatever color he got when he was suspended for the balance of the season. You want dominant male? I give you Michael Sentance.

But there are a couple of differences. Sentance immediately acknowledged his mistake, took full responsibility and served his suspension. He followed that up by returning to coaching and behaving himself. More to the point, sources tell KSN&C that he also alerted the board of education to the occurance in his interview - so that there would be no unpleasant surprises, misunderstandings, or potential embarrassment to the board.

So I’ll ask again:

Why didn't Cheek alert the board that he had an old paper out there that is inconsistent with his present views?

Did he roll the dice and hope his former views would not come to light? If so, why?

Having underplayed Cheeks original statement, Cothran finishes his piece by reducing Cheek’s present position to one of human descendancy from apes.

Believe what you will, but I think it is a misdeed to reduce Cheek’s nuanced considerations to some kind of slogan. Any fair researcher must acknowledge that it is not simply about apes and man to Cheek. His thoughts run much deeper than that.

But Cothran does make one troublesome observation. He rallies against “the professional education community” for its alleged “unfriendly behavior…[displayed] toward the common cultural beliefs of their students and their families.”

One supposes that the Family Foundation, for which Cothran “makes final policy decisions and manages strategy” stands ready to let us know which families are within that common culture and which are not – a luxury denied those obliged by the Constitution to serve all of the public, in all of creation’s variety.

Cothran recalls “the role Christianity has played in our nation's history” and the good old days when teacher led prayer and regular Bible readings posed no obstacle to any Protestant children whose parents chose to send them to school. Heaven forbid a Catholic family might have wanted the same consideration paid their faith. They simply were not within the common culture. After decades of frustration parochial schools went their own way. The notion of a “common culture” in this increasingly diverse nation is fast becoming a thing of the past.

Cothran closes by taking a shot at the Courier-Journal for raising (unsupported) questions about the Templeton Foundation, for which Cheek once worked, and by inferring that Cheek’s views on creationism changed due to his exposure to public education.

But Cheek says it was growth in his “own knowledge and experience in many domains” that led him to find his earlier work to be in error. He no longer finds “the views labeled young earth creationism, old earth creationism, [or] Intelligent Design … compelling theologically or scientifically.”

Cothran is an evolved man who knows he is reducing Cheek’s explanations to fit his own preferences, but it makes for a clever ending. And Martin’s a much better author when he adds humor.

On the Templeton Foundation: That topic is well outside my area of expertise, and perhaps the C-J has specific evidence to support their claims of Templeton’s cultural divisiveness that has escaped me. But a cursory glance at Templeton’s website shows a long-standing and well-balanced engagement on issues of religion and science encompassing the world’s major religions. I see no problem with that.

The first amendment to the Constitution not only forbids laws "respecting an establishment of religion" it also prohibits any infringement on the free exercise thereof. Cothran will become a better American when he understands that those rights are neither given, nor taken away, by majority rule, on a community by community basis.

Little Marty Cothran's Magic Dragon

Over at the Prichard Blog, Susan Weston goes all literary on Martin Cothran, spinning a tale of magic elixirs and a dragon that ate teachers, set fire to an entire Kentucky village and lived forever.

By living in the real world, Weston just doesn't see imaginary dragons; but not so little boys. To Cothran, the dragon is real.

In simply doing her best to "build up the public schools of our beloved commonwealth," Weston is totally lacking in an evil enemy to slay.

In Martin’s looking-glass commonwealth, the KERA-dragon cast educational spells far beyond the skills of the left-wing sorcerers of Berkeley, California, and Cambridge, Massachusetts.

In our real state, our elected leaders (from places like Richmond, Prestonsburg, Liberty, Burkesville, and Danville) voted in the Kentucky Education Reform Act. KERA delivered stronger and fairer school funding, reduced political corruption, and vastly improved facilities and technology. It nurtured more focused teachers, better instructional leaders, and a big step up in justified pride in public education.

Audit shows CATS Assessment Challenges Persist

Martin Cothran of the Family Foundation issued a challenge to the reliability of including writing portfolios as part of the CATS accountability process. In doing so, he points out a persistent problem.

His claim focuses on the soft underbelly of the CATS assessment, an accountability process that relies on reasonable minds to agree on what constitutes good writing. It's certainly not a perfect science.

In a press release posted on his blog, vere loqui, Cothran reports that "closely held" 2005-2006 audit results show Kentucky's frustrations with inter-rater reliability when it comes to assessing writing portfolios.

“The audit seems to suggest,” said Cothran, “that about 75 percent of the portfolios ranked as “distinguished” in 2005-2006 were graded too high, and almost half of portfolios rated “proficient” were given higher grades than they deserved...

The Family Foundation supports the use of portfolios for instructional rather than assessment purposes. They also support Senate Bill 1 which proposes to test writing mechanics without asking students to write.

Cothran's suggestion that the audit reports are "closely held" seems to lack justification. KSN&C asked for and received the current 2006-2007 report from KDE without objection or inquiry within an hour this morning. By law, KDE must audit portfolios annually to monitor the degree of inter-rater reliability and the report is public record.

There is broad agreement that writing is an important skill. But, accurately assessing such a complex skill is challenging at best. It is unlikely that such an assessment would ever produce reliability numbers that rival, say, mathematics exams. It's the nature of the beast.

And, as Cothran accurately points out, most of the difficulty lies in scoring the best portfolios.

KDE spokeswoman Lisa Gross told KSN&C,

As students become more refined writers, it is sometimes more difficult for two scorers to agree completely on their ability levels. The complexity of their work can cause a score to be "on the edge," meaning that another scorer could consider the work to be of slightly higher or slightly lower quality...What the overall audit results tell us is that we need to enhance scorer training and ensure that everyone is comfortable with the analytic model.

The results, and human nature, might also imply that close calls get bumped up. The only way to even approach reliability is through carefully described process.

Since the 2005-2006 audit Cothran refers to, the scoring methodology for writing changed from holistic to analytic scoring. KDE says this was done in order to provide more feedback on student performance at the local level. Each piece within a portfolio was assigned scores at the subdomain levels of content, structure, and conventions. The subdomain scores were summed to provide a raw score for each of the 10,000 portfolios audited.

It should be noted that the new audit did not affect school scores, but provided research data. Audited schools received reports regarding their scoring, but school scores were not changed.

The scoring methodology included 100% double-blind scoring where any discrepant scores were overridden by an independent third read. Quality control measures included "read-behinds" on all readers at a rate of 10%. Scoring supervisors conducted read-behinds of the read-behinds, also at the rate of 10%.

KDE reports the overall percentage of inter-rater reliability with a tolerance of + or - 1; what they call exact or adjacent scoring. The results for 2006-2007:

More Kentucky blogs begin to moderate comments

When Kentucky School News and Commentary began there was a problem to resolve. How does one manage the natural conflict between free speech (a very good thing) and the abusive name-calling (a bad thing that detracts from the public debate) that can dominate the comments section of a blog.

Should KSN&C allow anonymous comments and take whatever we get? And if we do, would that drive the tone of the blog into the mud and undermine legitimate authority?

Or is it better to require all commenters to identify themselves, perhaps stiffling legitimate comments from insiders who may have something to lose when commenting on matters of public policy, or politics?

I chose to moderate the blog.

Recently, I've noticed several other blogs ("liberal" and "conservative") following suit.

Over at PolWatchers, John Stamper wrote,

"We've had to spend way too much time the past few days deleting comments that don't comply with our comment policy. It's getting old. Therefore, those who comment must now submit a valid e-mail address before their comment will be published."

Pat Crowley noticed the same problem at his Northern Kentucky Politics blog and wrote,

"I busted five posts this morning. I'm going to do my best to kill the comments [w]here public officials and potential candidates are called "morons" and are the focus of gossip and rumors. Not going to happen. I'll allow criticism all day, but every comment I busted made some decent points except for the name-calling and rumor-mongering. It's a few days before Christmas folks. Make your points, but don't be so darn nasty."

Earlier in the week at vere loqui, Martin Cothran said,

"I'm instituting a new policy on comments, which is that I'll let your comment run as long as you don't needlessly insult someone or call into question someone's honesty or integrity without some kind of justification. There are people who want to post on this blog without giving their names and want to hide behind their anonymity while calling other people's integrity into question.

What's particularly ironic is when, while using anonymity to avoid responsibility for their own behavior, they accuse me or someone else of hypocrisy. I'll just call it hypocrisy squared."

Naturally, I applaud these decisions - much as I applaud anyone who agrees with me on just about anything. My hope is that the overall tone of public debate in Kentucky will achieve a kind of civility that is far too often missing on too many blogs. Rather than advancing useful ideas, "flaming" seeks the most outrageous expression of dissent, that is often personally destructive, whether it advances a legitimate argument or not.

Will this kind of decision reduce the sum of comments received on the blogs? Probably. But I'm OK with that, if in turn we get a more reasoned tone that creates a free space for expression without creating fear that one's comments might produce personal retaliation.

KSN&C continues to invite comments whenever a reader is moved to contribute one. Make a strong point if you wish - all we ask is a professional tone. We also invite tips, copies of official memoranda or other documents that illustrate official practice. Feel free to email the moderator - but take care to indicate if you wish your identity to remain anonymous on the blog.

Some may consider this censorship -not government censorship - but censorship nonetheless. In a literal sense, I suppose that's true. There are blogs out there that seem to invite personal attacks. If that's what you're looking for, you can find it. But not here.

I wish I could say they were wrong ...but I can't

Mark Hebert can't wait to see "how the state school board is going to screw up the selection of an interim commissioner."

Martin Cothran (not a fan of Mooneyhan) doesn't think Mark has to wait.

Has anyone noticed that the posting for the open position and the call for applications was posted on the same day that Board Chairman Keith Travis began "negotiating" with Mooneyhan for the position--Tuesday, July 17?

Maybe we've struck on just why it is that the State School Board is starting to look like he Keystone Cops in the process of finding good talent to fill the post at the helm of Kentucky's schools.

Is it really a good idea to limit your options while you are looking for the right person? What does this do for the other well-qualified candidates we ought to be taking a look at out there who might otherwise consider the job now that they have found out that it was done deal from the get go? Do you think these people are going to go to the trouble of applying now that they know the Board has probably already made its pick? And if we knew who we were going to hire, then why did we make the posting in the first place?

If there is a process that is supposed to be followed in the hiring of the interim commissioner, why aren't we following it?

Good questions.

The [Erwin] fiasco happened because there were things about [Erwin] that Board members should have known, but didn't. Exactly how does moving more quickly in the hiring process help to solve that problem? Doesn't it, in fact, actually increase the chances of that kind of thing happening again?

I'm not sure Martin and I would share a vision of where the schools should be going. But we do agree that this board isn't getting us anywhere.

The real lessons to be learned from the Barbara Erwin episode

More from Martin...This from vere loqui.
~
There are a lot of lessons to be drawn from the Barbara Erwin debacle. Erwin was the short-lived Kentucky School Commissioner who never even served her first day because she was run out of town for padding her resume. Among these lessons are:

• It's a good idea for a school board to hire a search firm that actually does background checks of candidates
• It's a good idea for a governor to appoint a school board that acts swiftly when it's clear it needs to cut its losses
• It's a good idea for the governor to exercise his will over his own appointees...

...But listen to this somewhat less than perspicacious [Here, Martin is being less than obvious. It means "shrewd."] observation from the Courier-Journal:

It [the Erwin episode] leads one to believe the speculation that Gov. Fletcher was focused on appointing a board that would quietly share a right-wing fundamentalist school agenda, not one that could function properly.

Huh?

To say that this observation comes from outer space would be an insult to extra-terrestrials everywhere. How could you possibly derive this observation from what has happened? In fact, how could you conclude this from anything the board has done? ...
~
I'm guessing I like C-J a bit more than Martin does - but he's right here.

C-J is probably justified to be suspicious, but there is enough evidence to reject C-J's suspicion in this case. Among the Commish finalists last time around, the right-wing nut job of the bunch would have been Richard La Pointe, who served George Allen in Virginia.

Erwin gets a clean bill of health on that score.

The 'campaign" for Kentucky's next Education Commissioner begins

What? You thought the Board of Education was going to select the next commissioner? I heard that too. But apparently that doesn't prohibit a selection campaign.

Afterall, rumors are swirling now - legislative intrusion - anyone close to leadership of the Council for Better Education OUT - hand picked successors - why not a campaign?

Penny Sanders has a track record of tough-mindedness, knows the Frankfort terrain and served Kentucky well in the early days of reform. Penny deserves a look. But shouldn't the board at least review a few folks first?

This from Family Foundation head Martin Cothran's vere loqui blog:

Penney Sanders for State School Commissioner

While the State School Board was scouring the country looking for someone to fill the post of State School Commissioner, they apparently didn't notice (or chose to ignore) an obvious candidate.

After the Barbara Erwin fiasco, maybe one of the things they need to do anyway is look a little closer to home. Penney Sanders, the former head of the Legislative Research Commission's Office for Education Accountability, would be an excellent choice for this position.

Here are some reasons for considering Sanders for the post:

• She knows the educational lay of the land better than any other candidate the Board could find
• She has established relationships with state lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, many of whom know her well
• She is not afraid to take on the educational establishment when she needs to
• She knows not only the policies of Kentucky education, but the politics
• She not only hasn't padded her resume, but doesn't need to
• She's available ...

Martin and me: More discussion of the Meredith aftermath and KERA

The other day, I responded to a post from Martin Cothran, Senior Analyst for the Family Foundation on his blog, vere loqui, regarding the Meredith decision. In the blogosphere, you get a response for that. I'm not sure how far I want to carry this, but for now...

To recap:

Martin asserted schools have "sacrificed children to the idols of egalitarianism and diversity..." I think equality is guaranteed by the Constitution and diversity is part of the human condition. Generally speaking, tribalism is fear. I think we are called to do the harder work.

He's pleased with the Meredith decision. Me, not so much.

...warns that districts may find other means to accomplish it's purposes. I agree and pointed out how. Socio-economics.

...awards the Prize for the best sound bite to Chief Justice John Roberts: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Yep. He gets my vote.

...asserts the media has avoided using the words "busing" and "social engineering." True but why would they? "Busing" focuses on the means. "Diversity" focuses on the ends. As for "social engineering"...I see that on both sides of the argument. Keeping our children apart (segregation) or putting them together (desegregation)...anytime we used children to solve adult problems, that's social engineering.

...encourages us to use the words as often as possible. OK by me.

And he points out that claims that busing increases student achievement is not supported by evidence. I suspect he's right. I think diversity in society is good for other reasons. I was taught to love my neighbor...and believe it's good for folks to get to know each other as a general rule. But I don't expect test scores to go up as a result.

This morning Martin responded to my post in...

"The Education Gods that Failed: A Response to Richard Day."

(In the interest of time - so I can do a little scraping and painting around the house on this beautiful day - I will take the liberty to intersperse my comments, in maroon. I recognize it's easier to deconstruct someone's arguments piece by piece, so I hope I'm not being unfair. I do think this is an important topic for discussion.)

In Richard Day's response to yesterday's "The 'B' Word" post, in which I hailed the U. S. Supreme Court's decision striking down forced busing as the simple application of common sense, he asks, "What would Jesus do?"

Now I have searched my Bible concordance, and I am having a heck of a time finding the word "busing" in the Good Book. (Me neither. But I think you're looking for the wrong word. Try "neighbor.") But apparently there is some sort of religious imperative to put children on buses for long rides across town so they can be in the same geographical vicinity as other children in some other part of town, while the children from that part of town are bused to the part of town where the first bunch of children were bused from so they can be in a different geographical vicinity than the first bunch of children before they were bused from that location themselves to be in the same geographical vicinity as the others. (Nice. And, some schemes are even worse. Louisville used to use a plan that created a complete turnover of the student population in every elementary school - every three years! From the school's point of view, that's horrific.)

I mean, it's obvious isn't it?

But wait: I thought religion had no place in public schools? Does this mean we can we start Bible classes now too? (Uh oh. This is a really long discussion, but at the risk of offending folks on both sides of the issue, here's my view: Religion does have a place in the school. But, No, you can't teach the Bible, per se. "The state" (teachers) may not "establish" religion. But I don't see how expressions of faith, coming from students and delivered in an appropriate fashion, harms the Constitution. I thought the Bullitt County principal who freaked out because a student chose the Book of Acts for his required book report, was off base to prohibit it.)

If busing contributed to better education, then, after instituting busing, shouldn't we have seen evidence of children being better educated? (As far as I can tell, it' doesn't.) Well, we instituted busing. So where is this boom in educational achievement following the court order? In fact, hasn't one of the big stories about education in Kentucky (including Jefferson County) been the achievement gap between black and white students in recent years? How can this be after all these years of forced busing? (The achievement gap is another long story. But it's not really a mystery to us, is it?)

Could it be, perhaps, that busing HAS NO RELATION TO BETTER EDUCATION? (Well, this is a definitional argument. "Better," as in higher test scores? No. But does an education that teaches my children about their "neighbors" in the process add other kinds of value? I think so.)

Now if busing does not actually improve education, what does it do? What busing does is make liberals feel better about themselves because they have Done Something. It doesn't matter what they have done, or whether what they have done actually does any measurable good, or even whether it is positively detrimental. No. All that matters is that they have Done Something. And once they have Done Something, then they not only feel better about themselves, they can also look down on other people, especially those people who oppose busing because it HAS NO RELATION TO BETTER EDUCATION. (OMG! The L-word? No, not that one...the other L-word! Liberal! Willingness to act is important. Doing the right thing is more important. The problem is figuring that out, in a way that doesn't harm anyone. I'm not sure that's possible. As for me - I was reared by an independent Democrat and a Goldwater Republican. I think that makes me a moderate....but I was also reared to believe I was no better than anyone else...thus, the social liberalism.)

One must say these thing several times for the educational establishment, which can be very hard of hearing. (At times deaf. Single-minded. Pig-headed. Convinced of it's own authority... Shall I go on?)

So what is the Something that makes liberals feel good about themselves? It is the bringing about of Equality and Diversity. At the altar of these two things that you can count on liberals to sacrifice everything else. You can destroy the community of whole neighborhoods by taking away their neighborhood schools. You can you can even put students at risk--physically and educationally (for quite a number of reasons)--by placing them on buses for hours a day--all because of Equality and Diversity.

Equality and Diversity not only trump community, education, and safety, they even trump good government. Why was it exactly that judges had the authority to do this in the first place? Was there a Constitutional mandate for such things? (Maybe because the good people of the United States shirked from our most basic tenets - liberty and equality for all - and needed a little nudge...or was it a kick in the pants?) Did a court even have a right to mandate it? (Sure. That's a settled issue that Roberts did not argue.) Wasn't this the legislature's prerogative? (The legislature's prerogative to ignore the Constitution?) Isn't there such a thing as separation of powers? (Yes, but I hope it did not escape your attention that this was an activist decision.)

But these are all Constitutional questions, and the Constitution, like so many other things, has found itself hauled to the chopping block to be offered up in pieces to the gods of Equality and Diversity. (I only claim one God.)

Where is the evidence that forced busing increases academic achievement? (Dunno.) Not some goofy study with a handful of anecdotes that passes for scholarship in teachers colleges, but real honest to goodness research evidence that students get better grades or test scores when they are taken out of their neighborhood schools and set down in some other part of town whether parents like it or not. (I would be offended by the "what passes for scholarship" crack if the implication wasn't quite so true.)

Where is it?

Forced busing in Louisville did have one good result: it created a burgeoning private school community that thrives to this day. Of course, most of the students who attend private schools are from families who can afford it, leaving most of the kids from families who can't afford it in failing public schools. (True, in too many cases.) This could be changed, of course, by implementing school choice programs to make it more affordable for these families to take advantage of the better private schools, (I doubt it. We're talking about all of the same kids, right? ...all the same locations?) but the education establishment opposes this too. (Apoplectic.) It's too bad that in their Equality and Diversity zealotry, liberals have harmed the very people they feel so good about having helped.

If we're really concerned with improving education, we'll do things that have been demonstrably successful. I was at in the Capitol Annex in Frankfort one day several years ago on the day that a round of CATS scores were being announced by state education officials. They were particularly proud, they said, about Lincoln Elementary School, which had increased its reading scores by about 65 percent, and its science scores by about the same amount. This, they said, was evidence that the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) was succeeding. (Yeah, they get paraded out this year...most are gone the next.)

Now Lincoln Elementary is not known as good school. What had happened here? I walked out of the committee room and into the hallway. I called Lincoln Elementary and got through to the lady in charge of the reading program and asked, "What are you doing down there?" "We are doing Direct Instruction," she said. "We are teaching systematic, intensive phonics in our reading program."

Whoa.

Direct Instruction? Phonics? These things were anathema to the KERAites. School were being told to do exactly the opposite of what Direct Instruction called for. I heard officials testify before legislative committees running down traditional techniques like Direct Instruction, and attended some of the in-services where they were ridiculed. My oldest son was also in a "model KERA classroom" where the alternative ideas, like whole language and "best guess" spelling, were practiced (until we finally, like so many other parents, pulled him out). (Too true. At Cassidy, we blew them off and stayed with phonics, and direct instruction for special needs children; more. Schools that followed the "conventional wisdom" at the time returned to phonics once they found the cohones to do so.)

But the fact that they had opposed the very programs that were the reasons for Lincoln Elementary's success wasn't preventing state officials from taking credit for it anyway. (That's how they roll.)

Later on, I found out that Lincoln Elementary was one of three schools that had gotten a grant from the Jefferson County School District to implement Direct Instruction programs. That was big of them, I thought. As it turns out, the legislator who had managed to get the grants, Sen. Gerald Neal, had had to do everything but threaten the district (actually, I think he did that too) to get grants. Pulling teeth without Novocaine was apparently a less painful procedure for district officials than implementing a demonstrably good educational program. (I don't think most folks appreciate the pressure school principals who consider alternatives find themselves under these days. And - significantly - principals are EAST TO GET RID OF. They have no protection for demotion at a moments notice. Really. That causes...shrinkage.)

Then just as quickly and quietly as the program had come, it apparently left, the victim of indifferent and even hostile district officials. Last I heard, they were talking about closing Lincoln Elementary. A program that actually worked, and they let it go. What does that say about our schools and the people who run them?

Well, if you look at KERA (the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990), you see the same idols: Equality and Diversity. Remember the nongraded primary program? (Ouch. You've found it.) We had to have young students of different ages and ability levels all mixed together in one class. Diversity. And we had to make sure that all students succeeded at the same level, even if the older ones had to take time out from learning themselves to help teach the younger ones. Equality. (The primary program was, and to some extent still is, a big honking bunch of stupidity based on scant, and very equivocal, research that did much more harm to Kentucky's schools than good. Talk about feeding a private school movement! We [and this time I mean "they"] took our youngest students and their parents and confused the stew out of them with an arbitrary construction that held little promise for improved achievement. It wasn't evil exactly. With a lot of PD and teacher support it might have become as effective as what we already had. It just wasn't worth the effort.)

The tragic thing about it all was that, as a result of this nonsense, ESS (Extended School Services) participation in 4th grade--after the nongraded primary had done its damage-- skyrocketed. (Actually, the research support in favor of "exrta time for instruction" is decent, and benefits low-income kids disproportionately, which is what you need to close achievement gaps.) What did the geniuses in our education establishment do? They hailed it as a success. That's right. More kids were now getting help. That was a good thing. Of course, they had been to education college, the academic equivalent of receiving a lobotomy, (That hurts. I'm pretty sure a lobotomy is even worse.) so they missed the fact that more kids now needed it, a sign that something had not worked. (C'mon. Low-income kids always needed it...long before KERA. We used to call it "cultural deprivation." Remember? Of course for decades, we didn't do anything about it.)

The nongraded primary seems to have died a slow death, (I wish.) but that won't prevent the education establishment coming back with more ridiculous ideas any time now, undoubtedly founded on the same failed ideas. (Check out "Depth of Knowledge," and the dumbing down of the test this year.)

That any children get a decent education in public schools at all in a system like this is a miracle. Some actually do get a good education, somehow escaping the ritualistic sacrifice demanded of so many at the liberal altar of Equality and Diversity, ("There you go again." - Reagan.) probably because of a few good teachers (Good teachers will absolutely save you.) and administrators who still, despite the fact that they pay verbal obescience to the false gods of education, care about children and have some clue of what actually works. (It's all about the love.)

My understanding is that Day was one of these, and that he somehow succeeded at Cassidy Elementary in the face of the KERA nonsense. As I recall, he was one of the few voices within the establishment brave enough to point out, on the issue of the nongraded primary, that the emperor had no clothes. (Thank you. We complained loudly, were forced into it and bailed out the first chance we got. It helped that the idea was so stupid.)

One only wishes, on the issue of busing, that he saw as clearly. (Perhaps. What's the alternative? School choice isn't the answer for the whole nation. It might work for you and me. but, tell me how we end up with quality schools in every neighborhood - schools where everybody gets to play...and I'll sign on. We used to have a system of highly localized schools - public and private. But only some of them were adequately supported. It didn't work out so well.)

By the way, I think Jesus would look at every school child as his neighbor - the least of them - and would seek ends that lift them up. I have no idea what means he would employ. I wish I knew.

~

OK...I've got to share this one since "busing" wasn't in my concordance either.

What is the first automotive reference in the Bible?

(Answer at the end of this post.)

~

Well, after my response to Martin Cothran, I got a couple of comments from readers. One for; one against.

But particularly devastating was a comment from "solarity," a 1970 Beechwood High School graduate telling me I was wrong. He accused the federal courts after Brown of "perhaps the greatest acts of judicial malpractice in American history."

That wasn't the devastating comment, however. That came in a PS:

PS: As a 1970 graduate of Beechwood, we may well have sent more kids to college (about 2/3d’s as I recall) but Ludlow almost always beat the crap out of us in sports!

I think solarity was trying to be nice, but instead, probably unknowingly, delivered the unkindest cut of all.

Not only does solarity underscore the relative unimportance of academics when compared to athletics, but also surfaced a deep-seeded torment I have carried inside me all these years hence.

Here's the story:

The Ludlow "river rats" spent years spanking the snot out of the Beechwood "cake eaters." In football, we had beaten them 13 years straight.

But that ended one fateful night in front of a home crowd in Ludlow, in 1969. Having graduated the bulk of our talent the year before, we were struggling more than usual. Late in the fourth quarter we had Beechwood pushed back against their own goal line and were leading 7 - 6. All we had to do was hold them.

Beechwood had a pretty good quarterback, John Phillips, as I recall - and I wanted him. From my position on the defensive line (@ 169 lbs!?) I had tried and failed to sack the slippery Phillips a few times that night, but wasn't giving up. I thought, with their backs to the goal posts, now was my chance to be a hero - to sack him in the end zone and ice the game. But the defensive coach called a play that required me to hold my spot on the line, without penetration into the backfield.

What to do?

When the ball was snapped I quickly shed my blocker while Phillips rolled my way. The temptation was just too great. I charged, and stuck my nose in his chest. Down he went on his back...but...not before handing the ball to his half-back on the way down.

If someone had been standing where I was supposed to be, the Beechwood halfback would never had rambled for the 97-yard touchdown that, indeed, iced the game.

I remember my father was upset when the coach punched me in the chest for my missed assignment. My mother had to sit him back down. The Ludlow alums were...we all were disappointed.

Beechwood has since reversed the record books against Ludlow. I feel somehow...responsible.

~

And now...The answer:

Depending on translation: And god in his fury, drove Adam and Eve from the garden. Genesis 3

I see your Moloch...and raise you a Jesus. My response to the Family Foundation's celebration of the Louisville school desegregation decision

Yesterday, Martin Cothran of the Family Foundation wrote a brief celebration on the Supreme Court decision in Meredith on his blog vere loqui. It is a ruling that has many historical overtones that must be understood. Since the issue hit me in my wheelhouse, I thought a response might be in order.

Cothran implies that those who think diversity is a good thing...(actually he says it better than that)...He says those who "sacrificed children to the idols of egalitarianism and diversity" are the modern descendants of the Canaanite god, Moloch.

Well, this sounds really bad. I believe there is strength in diversity, so I wonder... Have I just been offended?

I don't actually know. I'll have to look up Moloch first...to find out if he was particularly nasty or something. But if I've been sacrificing little children to some Canaanite god and didn't even know it...I'm gonna be hacked off.

Martin is correct to point out that school districts will find other means to promote diversity.

Today I reveal the social liberal's Double-secret Plan B.

~
Dear Martin,

Access to quality education – who gets taught, and the quality of that teaching – is the central issue in the history of education in America.

Our Constitution said that all men were created equal. But in America’s earliest days, with few exceptions, it was the sons of white male landowners who received instruction. Why is that?

Racism? Well, yes…slavery was America’s original sin - but also economics.

Poor children were not thought to be worth the effort. After all, how much schooling is necessary to work a plow? An adequate education in the 19th century didn’t have to meet a high standard – just the 3 R’s (at about a 3rd grade level) would do. This - while children of means learned the classics. Millions of poor white and black children were denied equal opportunities. It was about class and economics – one’s station in life.

As a youngster in all-white Ludlow, Kentucky, I knew what it meant to have low expectations. I believe I was one of two Ludlow graduates in 1969 that went right on to college. That was not the story at the upscale Beechwood School. As bad as it could be for poor white children, being black was an additional burden. Why is that?

Neither group found it easy to get to a high quality school. It was doubly tough in Appalachia.

But, future economic success demands a competitive workforce. That means a 21st century education for all Kentucky children – something I suspect you fully support.

So we have to get the kids to school.

Every day school folks put millions of kids (who can’t drive themselves) on buses. We bus them...all over the place. We bus them from wherever they live. Big yellow busses. Flashing lights but no seat belts. And the wheels on the bus go ‘round.

It would have been nice if we never had to bus kids for reasons of racial desegregation. The best solution is always the presence of a high quality school in every neighborhood. But it didn’t work out that way. Why is that?

I assume nobody is arguing in favor of a return to the separate and very unequal days of Plessy v Ferguson. But when the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v Board of Education I, in 1954, that separate schools for African-American children were unconstitutional the Court was largely ignored. The following year the Court in Brown II ordered schools to begin desegregating. But they didn’t. Instead over 100 southern legislators decried the Court’s “intrusion,” asserted local control, and signed the Southern Manifesto vowing to obstruct where they could.

It was not until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the decision in Green v. County Board of Education in 1968 that school districts made any real attempt to comply with the court’s 1954 ruling, and then only under threat of losing federal funds. In the 1963-64 school year barely 1% of black children attended school with white children. By 1972 that percentage had grown to better than 75%.

Social engineering? You bet. Let’s say it together. Social engineering.

It would have been better if the Court had never had to intervene. But I think one can argue that the Court in Brown upheld unpopular principles of the Constitution on Christian moral grounds. As I read the Bible, I have trouble finding any place where Jesus did not gravitate toward the poorest, lowest class, downtrodden, sick, or otherwise despised individual and lift them up. Correct me if I’m wrong. Should we not do likewise?

Of course, the present Court’s ruling was predictable – signaled during oral arguments last March. There is even a rational legal basis for the decision. It is notable that civil rights advocates who argued the need for federal protection in Brown, were now arguing for local control in the Louisville case, Meredith. Legally, what else did they have to argue? It is fairly well understood that today’s residual racial segregation is the result of housing patterns in our cities – not the result of any intentional efforts by school districts to keep the races apart. This under lays Chief Justice Robert’s snappy retort.

So what now?

Is the Court inviting local school districts to return to the days of Jim Crow? Of course not.

I suspect what you will see now is a shift toward economics as a basis for future busing schemes. Since African Americans are overrepresented among the poor, the real impact of the Court’s decision may be limited in some places. In other places, probably in most places, it will result in a racial resegregation. The extent to which communities have built diverse neighborhoods will determine the extent of the impact.

Is this social engineering? You bet. Social engineering and busing. Different ideology, perhaps. Different set of kids maybe. Same buses.

What you won’t see: school districts ignoring the Court.

The solution today is the same as in the beginning. We must have high quality schools in every neighborhood, but the requirements of an adequate education today are much more substantial than in the past. If the citizens of Kentucky will support this effort we will all be better off and the courts won't have to do anything. Actually, our children will all be better off. We need a gainfully employed citizenry – with more employer supported healthcare and a much lower Medicare burden on the state budget. We need to care for the poor – not by giving them a handout, but by giving their children an opportunity to do better.

What would Jesus do?

With respect,

Richard