Reflections of an Occassional Semi-Journalist

It has only been a couple of weeks since unsuccessful Kentucky education commissioner candidate Dennis Cheek was fussing at me for my journalistic short comings.

KSN&C had posted news of his creationist writings from the early 1980s. We also picked up a news story from a professional news outlet that contained an error - which we quickly corrected. Cheek and I exchanged a few testy emails.

Cheek argued that it would have been better if I had "checked with [him] first BEFORE posting" rather than "always post[ing] first and "then forc[ing him] to respond to [the story] ex post facto." This was particularly germane in Cheek's case since he now rejects his former creationist position. It would have been better for Cheek if I had. But it was his choice not to mention his paper to the Kentucky board of education that had selected him as a finalist. When the issue surfaced he was immediately put on the defensive.

It is my understanding that when he got "the question" from reporters covering his interview in Kentucky, "he looked stunned for about 20 seconds," and then "very forthrightly" rejected his old paper and expanded his thoughts on religion and science with appropriate detail and recognition of the court's ruling in the Dover case.

But is KSN&C really practicing journalism by simply aggregating such news stories? I think not.

Fellow blogger Tom Eblen, who writes for the Herald-Leader and teaches journalistic ethics at UK tells me that one is a journalist when one practices journalism. I take that to mean, actually putting in the time and doing the work it takes to research the issues, check sources, capture quotes and accurately reflect the differing points of view that attend every news story and to do it from primary (first-person) sources. This pursuit is a noble and critical component of our democracy and like many Americans I am concerned for its future.

In most cases, KSN&C dabbles in semi-journalism. A lot of time and effort goes into assuring that our reporting is authoritative, but we are clearly at the mercy of what others write. Mistakes are to be avoided, but if someone errs it is up to the author to be responsible for their own content.
As I argued to Cheek, "You are responsible for handling what you write. I am responsible for handling what I write. "They" are responsible for handling what they write."

Cheek and I were ultimately unable to agree but my final message to him was,

Finally, and sincerely, I have no personal animosity toward you. It's not about that for me. I have my own opinions, but I am largely disinterested in which individual becomes our next commissioner. That's the board's job to determine, and I don't have a vote. When that selection is made, I'm going to reprint the news - good or bad - no matter who the commissioner is. I will express opinions along the way.

I can understand how you might be frustrated, or even angry, that I found your old creationist paper and printed the fact of its existence. I anticipated and opined that it would be seen as "a problem" by many. I think that has proven to be true. I have wondered aloud why you didn't alert the board to its existence. If the Herald-Leader can be believed - and, right or wrong, I rely on their reporting every day - ...they wrote that it did not come up as an issue for you in Missouri [where Cheek was also a finalist]. But really Dennis, none of that makes me the responsible party when it comes to handling the fallout. It was your [paper], and your responsibility to handle it - which you ultimately did very forthrightly. I believe if you had done that up front, we'd be having a very different conversation right now.

Is it fair to Cheek for me to reflect on this experience? It happened. He is a public figure who was vying for the top job in our state's educational system, and that's "my beat."

More recently, KSN&C has been doing something very different - practicing real-live-honest-to-goodness journalism by "covering" the Petrilli v Silberman trial. This was the kind of detached, yet face-to-face journalism real reporters do every day. For eight full days I sat with H-L's Jim Warren on a hard bench, tapping away on my keyboard, trying to capture as much data as I could. [...not my preferred method, but Judge Ishmael "took away" my digital recorder.]


On the last day, waiting for the jury to return with their verdict, John McNeill mentioned to the judge something about how my blogging and Twittering changed the ambiance of the courtroom - which in his mind became reminiscent of an old WWII movie with the lilt of the telegraph dotting the away in the background; dot da dit dot dot dit - only now it was; tap tap, tap tap tap.

The experience of reporting a trial was more demanding than I anticipated. In court by 8 AM to catch any discussions before the jury arrived; the reporter is pretty well stuck there. To leave for a moment is to risk missing the story. To misunderstand a ruling is to misreport. Then, somewhere around 5PM when the brain is a bit mushy, some kind of story must be written. Several days I found myself "too tired" and not having a deadline or an editor - but having a wife - chose family time instead. I would get up at 5 AM the next day (as is my custom) to post my story. Some days I could bounce off whatever Warren had done the night before.

But that wasn't the worst of it. The very situation put me squarely in conflict with people I know, trust and respect on both sides of the issue. I was neutral in a land where everyone was expected to be loyal and take sides.

As a former principal in Fayette County, I was a colleague of Peggy Petrilli's when she was still at Northern. I was publicly supportive of her work in a Herald-Leader Op Ed and viewed her selection for Booker T Washington Academy as an important history-changing effort in our community. I said I'd be watching what happened.

I had also written in H-L about Fayette County's need for strong consistent leadership at the top following a string of short-lived superintendents. The degree of turnover had left a district somewhat adrift. There was a lot of undirected talent in Fayette County and Silberman seemed to be just what the doctor ordered.

But the case also brought forward a string witnesses and visitors to the courtroom that I knew or had worked with, including a couple I worked with pretty closely. Bob McLaughlin had been my director for a number of years, and if he had remained so, I'm pretty sure I would have worked in Fayette County a little longer. And if either one of us ever needed a little "therapy" Jock Gum and I could simply walk next door and get it; me for him, and he for me. Bob and Jock testified on the same day and there aren't a whole lot of people I like better than these guys.

Add to that Barbara Connor, Mike Burke, Becky Sagan, Mary Browning, Mike McKenzie, Vince Mattox, Jack Hayes, Lisa Stone, Amanda Main Ferguson, and I know I'm forgetting some - like I say, it was not easy to be neutral. I sensed periods of discomfiture with the principal combatants. Some days they could manage, if not a smile, a pleasant nod. Other days they avoided eye contact. In my head it was related to whatever I had written the day before, but maybe that's just ego on my part. They may not have read KSN&C at all, but were only reacting to the pressures of the trial itself.

But the stories got read. A modest little niche blog, KSN&C readership - typically eduwonks and news types - doubled and doubled again as Fayette County and North Carolina teachers, and a surprising number of young lawyers, appear to have discovered it.

But that's no match for Jim Warren's readership at the Herald-Leader. Despite their economic woes, H-L readership has never been higher and Warren's stories are read by thousands.

But the news business is in trouble.

On the eve of President Obama's health care press conference, the Herald-Leader came and got Warren out of the courtroom. Concerned by the length of the trial and needing an experienced hand to interview some local folks on health care issues, they sent a young reporter to fetch him to help with the story. Apparently, there was no one else to do it. When he returned the next day, he asked me, "They didn't settle, did they?"

But there is no substitute for the work Warren does. If the case had not fallen in July, as it did, I could have followed the case for KSN&C readers, but I could not have covered it. And I would not have caught issues related to how the law was argued (twisted) before the jury, issues of privilege or the incredible claims by one director that she had never marked a principal down in any category of evaluation in her entire career. We're going to have to talk about that issue some more later.

Warren joked with me that bloggers are the new journalists who would transform news gathering - but we both know that's not true. Newspapers may change but I think there are a few critical constants that remain.

• There is no suitable substitute for the professional practice of journalism.
• Professional journalism is crucial to democracy.
• Local papers may well pool journalists for future coverage of state and national news but local papers must "own" local news.
• Most bloggers fail to rise to the level of "journalism" most of the time and all too frequently fail the test of neutral reporting. Neutrality is just not "their thing." Political voice is.
• Lots of folks are going to continue to want a print edition of "the paper."

America needs a new model for supporting news gathering and it can't be governmental. Perhaps new media foundations will emerge.

The media will continue to publish stories that shine an unfavorable light on certain powerful individuals and those individuals will continue to attack the media as a result. There may even be some psychological satisfaction for the general public doing so as well.

But by some means, the work of professional journalists must be preserved. It is far too important to be left to the amateurs.

Change is Coming to KSN&C, Prichard to Launch Blog

Since February 2007, I have made 2,700 posts - all from my perspective. News stories, occasional commentary and a few personal items populate the archives. This has been good for me - to develop my voice on Kentucky school issues - but KSN&C may not serve the overall effort to continually improve Kentucky schools as well as it might.

So, I'm opening the doors - a crack - and inviting a few selected individuals in. My New Year's resolution was to add more "voices" to Kentucky School News and Commentary. The process has started. I have dropped the moniker "The Principal" and my use of "we" will be less literary.

In the not-too-distant future, KSN&C readers will notice a group of new contributors. So far, I have two "takers" who have committed to writing commentary at least monthly, and hopefully more frequently, if they choose.

I hope these contributors will reflect a range of opinion on the issues facing our schools and that KSN&C will provide a forum for them to work out their ideas.

The general tone of KSN&C will remain the same: respectful, fact-driven and well-written. While I will continue to try to show both sides of issues by providing a cross-section of news stories, the opinions expressed on the blog will be those of the individual contributors who will write under their own names. And, I am inviting a diverse set of individuals who do not already have a commentary website or blog.

I am also thinking about two categories of new bloggers: Seasoned professionals who have worked to improve Kentucky schools throughout their careers; and some of my students (current educators) who want to develop their leadership skills by writing commentary and contributing to policy-development.

Also adding to the conversation will be Susan Perkins Weston the main author of the new Prichard Blog which is set to launch...later this week....if all goes well.

So stay tuned. The conversation is about to expand.

Student blogger plans libel lawsuit

This from the Boston Globe; Backstory from KSN&C:

BURLINGTON, Conn.—An attorney for a high school student who brought a free speech lawsuit against her school district last year said he now plans to file a libel lawsuit against the principal.

Jon Schoenhorn, a Hartford attorney representing Avery Doninger, said he has served notice to Lewis S. Mills High School Principal Karissa Niehoff of the impending lawsuit.

Doninger and her family have been at odds with the district since last year, when Doninger used offensive slang to refer to administrators on an Internet blog. School officials removed her as class secretary, which Doninger said was a violation of her constitutional rights.

The case went as far as the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York as Doninger sought an injunction to regain her spot as class secretary and speak at her class graduation in June. The court rejected that request, but her lawsuit is pending.

The threat of a new libel lawsuit stems from an e-mail exchange that Niehoff had with a Wisconsin man who read about the legal case in the New York Post.

School administrators said Niehoff improperly disclosed information about Doninger in the exchange, which the man forwarded to Doninger's family. Niehoff was suspended for two days without pay for the incident.

Schoenhorn said Thursday that Niehoff will be sued for libel "for the false things she said to people about Avery."

A formal lawsuit has yet to be filed, and Schoenhorn declined to give details about when and where the suit might be filed.

Niehoff's attorney, Christine Chinni, declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

Doninger's mother, Lauren, said Niehoff was punished for making a comment and distributing it on the Internet, the same reason cited for the punishment of her daughter, she said.

"It's not a decision we made lightly," she said. "The irony is too overwhelming that Avery, at 16, made some ill-considered remarks and sent them into cyberspace, and she was punished relentlessly. The principal effectively does the same thing. Does she expect no consequences?"

Pixels or paper, truth doesn’t care

I'm going to chat through this insightful and honest bit from sportswriter/editor Dwight Jaynes at the Portland Tribune:

There’s something of a war going on right now between the mainstream media – particularly sports writers and columnists – and bloggers.

I have experienced this. Jake Payne over at Page One screams about it from time to time.

I guess bloggers are a threat. In one sense, we rip off legitimate news sources by reprinting their stuff under "fair use" provisions of the copyright act. In another sense, we generate buzz that usually gets picked up in the mainstream media somewhere - and sometimes break big stories the mainstream media misses.

Kentucky School News & Commentary conducted an extensive background search, then working directly with Dick Innes of the Bluegrass Institute, broke the Barbara Erwin story after Mark Hebert mentioned on his blog that the Commissioner's search was being conducted in secret and an anonymous commenter to the Courier-Journal suggested somebody ought to look into resume irregularities.

More recently, Jake broke the Robert Felner investigation story at U of L.

The way the world is going, people toiling for newspapers are feeling pretty threatened. The price of newsprint keeps going up, and the number of readers who appreciate the fine feel of a good paper in their hands is going down.

And newspaper employees are being offered buy-outs in budget reduction moves.

People can find their news on the Internet, television, radio or in free newspapers (shameless plug), and so they wonder why they ought to put a couple of quarters into a slot and pay for something that’s most likely yesterday’s news, anyway.

At the same time, those who write for newspapers have grown resentful that bloggers sitting at home in front of their computers – the well-worn cliché is that they’re in their mother’s basement in their underwear – may have increasing clout with readers.

I resent that. It's MY basement and I'm wearing pajamas.

After all, how can those bloggers – with no inside sources, no background and no journalism training, in many cases – have as much credibility as trained and experienced journalists? Who would even bother listening to those yahoos?

Excellent questions. As far as KSN&C is concerned...I've got more than a few sources, 36 years of background in the classroom, in the district office, in the school office, and at the university - public and private and religious. How many working journalists have that?

I also audited two journalism courses (News Editing and Opinion writing) at UK because I knew I wanted to write and I knew what I didn't know. I'd still like to take a Journalism Ethics course at some point.

Well, I’ll tell you what I think. And I’ll also explain how it’s led me to alter my approach to the way I do my job as a columnist, pushing me away from a
philosophy I held dear for decades in this business. I changed, though, because
the bloggers have taught me a lesson.

Really? Acknowledgement from the mainstream media is rare. I'd better enjoy this.

My guideline for years was that, as a beat reporter or a columnist, I would get to know my sources as best I could. I would be there constantly, in their face. I always felt I was impartial enough to write the truth no matter what. And my core values included being there the day after I wrote something negative about someone I covered – so they’d have their shot at me, their fair chance to confront me.

But along the way, at some point, the whole thing kind of went south. The problem with all that, I’ve come to realize, is that I got too close to the people I covered.

In the case of a beat reporter, you almost have to have a degree of that in order to come up with the constant flood of stories you need if you’re covering a beat like the [Portland] Trail Blazers.

Over time, you realize that in spite of all your attempts to know athletes and public figures, what you usually end up writing about them is the cover story – the half-true piece of semifiction that those people want the public to see. You begin to realize you’re usually getting played. And you sold your soul to get it.

Oh, when you get close to sources, you get access. You get inside information. At least you think you do. You get close enough to players and coaches that it’s a fan’s dream. Sources become something very close to friends, and, I confess, I’ve been down that road.

I'm glad to hear somebody else say this. When I began blogging it never occurred to me that I might be writing critically about people I knew and cared about. Pretty naive on my part - not to think about that - but nonetheless that's part of the deal if one chooses to write on public issues.

But by writing commentary and posting news stories on KSN&C I have "run into" Peggy Petrilli, Stu Silberman, Steve Beshear, Brad Cowgill, Fabio Zuluaga, Jon Draud, Elaine Farris, Ernie Fletcher (for whom one of my daughters worked) and many more unnamed persons. I have done stories on UK and EKU where I work - and given the nature of my employment after retirement, I've got to be the easiest guy to "let go" in either place.

I would be less than honest if I did not confess feeling a tug at the heart from time-to-time. For example, I initially came out soft on Draud's car looking for different explanations - only to be taught a lesson by a bunch of emails.

But I also know that when that happens, you’re probably not going to do your job as well as you should. Yes, I’m old school, and I think it’s the job of a columnist or a beat reporter to always tell the truth and be critical when merited, even about the revered home team.

But if you’re critical, you risk your access. Forget about the friendships – you often lose your sources if you offend them.

In the past few years, my job as editor of this paper has kept me from having the time to get the sort of access I used to have with a lot of athletes and coaches. Lately, I don’t have time to schmooz them at shootarounds and after practice. I can’t get on the phone and shoot the breeze with them.

Once in a while, it costs me a story. But you know what? As a columnist, I don’t feel I need their information or their admiration. And I certainly don’t need to worry about making them happy. I think I’m very fair to them. Some sources respect that fairness, and others would rather just own a piece of you.

Yes. We have this "thing" in our society about rank. The higher one's rank, the more those of us holding lower rank are expected to defer. That is counterbalanced by free speech in our democracy; but it doesn't make it any easier. Free speech is not free of cost.

I’m still accountable. The coaches and players know where to find me –as one did last season when he had a problem with something I wrote. I met with him for more than an hour and presented my side and listened to his.

He convinced me of a few things, and I didn’t buy into some other things. I stand
ready to be critical again if I think it’s merited.

The point to all this is simple. What I’ve done, I think, is become a blogger in columnist’s clothing. The secret to the blogosphere is that bloggers usually don’t have that proximity to coaches and athletes. They aren’t hindered by a need to get along
or kiss up to the people they write about. That affords them a certain freedom they can use or abuse.

Interesting observation. And, here I am trying to become a better journalist.

Don’t get me wrong – those trained, experienced journalists are still the backbone of this business and they shouldn’t be insecure about their role. The mavericks out there blogging provide a welcome supplement to their work.

Like the mainstream media, bloggers usually search for some version of the truth. Some are good at it. Some are not. On the whole, the best of them serve up fresh, creative, unvarnished, unrestricted and entertaining thoughts about the issues of the day.

I think that’s what columnists are supposed to do, too. If we do it the right way, we’re really not all that different.

A tip of the hat to Alexander Russo.

This blogging thing I'm doing

Sorry I'm running behind the news this week.

I'm having to hustle on "my real job," (you know, the one I get paid for) this week so I can take next week off.

At UK I'm finishing up this year's School Leadership Practicum. And at EKU I'm helping redesign our EDF 103 course; tweaking EDF 203; Writing a new syllabus for EGC 820 and building EMS 850 from the ground up.

Then I told a colleague I would help out with a little NCATE project. Big mistake. ; )

Of course I'm going to have to say something today about....THE CAR. And what happened yesterday at ...THE HEARING?

Next Up For Edublogging: Full-Time, Professional, Mainstream

This ditty from This Week in Education:

Hard as it may be to believe, all this education blogging that's going on is still so far part-time and/or amateur (unpaid), and little of it part of mainstream news sites.

But that won't last for much longer, I don't think. Someone will soon get hired to blog about education full-time on a mainstream site.

Things have already gone far beyond the first fulltime mainstream hire in other areas. For example, many of the best bloggers who cover economics have already been hired, writes Megan McArdle on the Atlantic blog (Blogging goes professional). Ditto for politics. It could be ether someone new we've never heard about or someone already on the scene.

McArdle says,

I was at lunch with some blog people today, one of whom wants to recruit an economics blogger and asked for names. I basically drew a blank. All of the high-traffic economics bloggers I read are either professors, in some similarly rewarding profession, or already tied up by a media organization.

I think this is becoming broadly true of the wider blog world: the biggest bloggers are either professionals, or they have an even more lucrative job...

...I'm not sure what this means for the blogging world. It's still largely an amateur medium, but it's hard to see how many new bloggers can compete with someone who gets paid to do it, unless they are independently wealthy or have a job, like journalism or academia, that routinely throws them a lot of bloggable material....

Hummm. Sounds familiar. Show me the money.

You Don't Tug on Superman's Cape ...

One of my favorite things about "this blogging thing" I'm doing, is the people it has brought me back into contact with. After 31 years in Kentucky schools I've had the honor of working with a number of the state's leading educators and citizens. But one loses contact over time. KSN&C has become a way to reconnect.

And as you may know, KSN&C readers don't always agree on what's best for Kentucky's children and the future of the Commonwealth - or how we get to a better place. Usually issues get aired out in the open on the blog, but some folks, owing to their particular circumstances, feel the need to keep a lower profile - so we may chat behind the scenes.

I had one such exchange with a colleague recently over Senate Bill 1 - or more particularly - my characterization of Senate President David Williams as one who tends to defer to the constitution only when it suits his purposes.

For that, I got taken to the woodshed. Despite our fundamental agreements on student testing, I caught flack from the reader for being too hard on the Senate President.

"My larger concern is the inability to create a climate in which to have a measured discussion of what we want accountability to be and how we want to assess it."

"...all ideas need to be on the table in a forum where we discuss assessment calmly not defensively, come to a consensus and then place it in the political arena. It is much too easy to criticize David Williams and Dan Kelly as anti-KERA. Richard, neither one of them are anti school reform. ...I found them both to be very thoughtful men who asked good questions and worked to understand the complex issues around assessment. Just because they dare proffer a plan that both of us, as educational professionals, may disagree with, does not make them villains. Such demonizing keeps us stuck with an assessment that does not serve the children, the teachers and parents well.

We must find a way to discuss these issues and bring a variety of views to the table so that we can improve assessment. It isn't changing the assessment that erodes reform, it is the lack of confidence in assessment that erodes our continuing efforts."

First, the facts force me to admit that Williams deserves credit for his early support of education reform. As the Ashland Daily Independent reminded us recently,

As a senator who had no leadership position in 1990, Williams courageously opposed the Republican leadership by voting for KERA. For that vote, he earned the wrath of his GOP colleagues. It took a few years for him to emerge from political exile and rise to become the most influential Republican in Frankfort.

But it's true, I felt little hesitation in calling Williams out his disregard for the constitution for a few reasons: It's germane to the discussion of Senate Bill 1 and he is an attorney who understands how the constitution should function in our democracy. But, evidence suggests he has become (first and foremost) a politician with a willingness to redefine the law to suit his purposes.

It is Williams himself who has convinced me of this. Here's why: He has imagined privileges for himself that don't exist; is unrepentant in the shameful Dana Seum Stephenson affair; dumped his legislative duty to Kentucky's senior judges on the courts; ...shall I go on? It seems Senator Williams has no higher legislative priority than sustaining and adding to his own power as President of the Senate.

But my friendly critic may be correct. Perhaps it's not wise to criticize the state's most powerful Senator. "You don't tug on Superman's cape..." Perhaps we should forget the bad parts of the past in favor of the good parts and believe anew in the senate president's willingness to be involved in an open discussion of the issues. While it might be hard to convince Senator Tim Shaughnessy of this, honey may well catch more files than vinegar. I confess, my first and most natural reaction, has been to call 'em as I see 'em, and let the chips fall where they may.


Photo by Pam Spaulding in the Courier-Journal.

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.

This New Blogging Thing I'm doing

A couple of weeks ago I found myself (a retired school principal, now teaching graduate education at UK & Georgetown College) with some discretionary time. According to my own schedule, I was supposed to be researching a book; but I didn't feel like it. Instead I resurrected this blog which was inactive since 2003 when I used it with my students. Back then it was called, "The Principal" and was oriented toward issues of concern to front-line educational leaders; the captains of educational reform.

Now, I am interested in something different.

I wanted to create a place you could go to quickly to get a good overview of the events that are shaping our school system in Kentucky, which seventeen years after KERA, is still evolving.

I wanted a place for informed commentary on the news and issues facing our schools; their history and their future; both sides of the issues. I am not interested in flaming invective from either side of the political specturm. Maybe what I really want is a moderate rebellion. A balance of freedom and responsibility. Talk about your oxymorons! How can one encourage the free exchange of ideas while restricting it?

I wondered about inviting a small group of contributors to the blog, but haven't worked that out yet. So, just like former state Education Commissioner Thomas Boysen and the implementation of KERA - I'm building this airplane as I fly it. ...and I'll try not to fly it into the ground.

Let me know what you think.