A Mosque At Ground Zero

I have waited for the firestorm to die down so that I can comment rationally on the situation.

This promises to be a short statement - at least it will be shorter than most of the earlier ones.

First, Obama's opening statement is one that had to be made. The Iman and his group have every right to secure possession of a property and to build what they want - a mosque, a grocery store, a restaurant, or a terrorist training center. Their proposal should not be denied on the basis of their religion.

However, the city of New York has every right to deny the application, for lack of the appropriate word, on a multitude of bases. City officials are SUPPOSED to make approvals on the basis of fitness, aptitude, or viability of the proposal. If the area in question already has fifteen grocery stores in a two block area, they can discourage the construction of another one.

In this case, the likely disruption of domestic tranquility in the area in question is a good enough reason to deny the project. The relatives and friends of those murdered in 2001 WILL BE offended by the construction of the mega-mosque. Perhaps they shouldn't be, but the fanatical Islam element is the primary cause for their distrust. Islam does have an undeniable history of building mosques as a symbol of their victory over a particular country, regime, or rival. Moreover, there really are a multitude of mosques already in service in NY. The Iman's contention that location is critical is silly. Why can't the US show tolerance in some other location? Why MUST it be precisely in a place where the motives of the builders MuST be questioned?

To say that the Iman is being disingenuous is ironic understatement. The mosque promises to cause a firestorm of backlash that will continue until the day that some extremist group within THIS COUNTRY blows it up. Don't be stupid, Iman. We have wackjobs too, and though we honor the notion that religious buildings and books are sacred and holy, we have already had a nutjob threatening to burn a Quran, Koran, or whatever is the appropriate spelling.

I don't want the situation to end in tragedy, but it will. Americans enjoy a level of freedom that creates the opportunity for zealots to mastermind tragedy and idiocy. Perhaps such things rarely happen in the Middle East, the UAR, and other Muslim countries. Provoked by the possibility that your group's motives are malicious, a illegal, dangerous, and tragic response is likely.

Build the mosque elsewhere and continue your proposed education of the Western culture, with the objective being to separate your religious position from the radicals who murdered more than 3000 Americans. The whole freaking world is wired. Communication is immediate. You can create a bully pulpit almost anywhere in the country. You have no compelling reason to maintain that the mosque MUST be built where you propose.

So I'm Frustrated By the Educational Establishment

In earlier installments, I have complained about organizational or cultural stupidity within school buildings, districts, or even states. An entry from about a year ago fairly specifically addressed a few of the important examples. Here comes a new one.

I know of a fairly large number of districts that are currently in the process of implementing change that is designed to improve the educational process, and therefore improve achievement. Their method, mechanics, and mindset are driving the educators crazy, and I don't know why they don't get it.

For instance, I spoke with a former student whom I taught very early in my career. He is currently a math teacher in a school for the performing arts. This year, he was teamed with a co-teacher. They share fifty students for a math=-science block. The science teacher was the target of the reassignment, as she had been ineffective with her previous partner. The math guy is pulling his hair out, because the science lady has no interest in pulling her weight, and essentially doesn't have to, since the newly implemented team is supposed to solve the problem. The pair are at philosophical odds, in addition to having diametrically opposed work ethics. The science lady refers to the students as 'her babies,' and subsequently parents them badly, sometimes by screaming at them the way an ill-equipped young mother might handle a toddler's temper tantrum. How does this happen?

In another example, a former colleague of mine is in his fifth year of co-teaching; he is an English teacher paired with his third different special education teacher. I know for a fact that he is a superior teacher, one of those that administrators call their 'superstars'. While his students collectively are performing adequately, which means they are making their marks on standardized tests, the situation severely limits the advancement of the best students. "Differentiate the instruction!" the gurus yell from on high, but that mantra is STUPID. A certain percentage of students walk in the door with a performance level that is beyond the target FOR THE YEAR. Differentiated instruction will not serve them well enough. The teacher's job is well-articulated: he is to make certain that his students can perform as a certain level, and it's human nature to focus efforts on those students who will potentially fall below the target. Consequently, he and his partner KNOW they will not advance the superior group to a level in keeping with their capacity.
Again, how does this happen?

Here's how it happens. The people who are trotting out the ideas are not in the trenches. Their hypothetical improvements are usually pedagogically sound, but they do not consider the human element of education. They approach the situation like a person who needs to manufacture a widget. Moreover, the administrators who are charged with implementing the hypothetical improvement are likewise not in the trenches. They often do consider the human element, because they are confronted with it, but they have only the hypothetical script to work from. Consequently, some excellent administrators take the idea, implement it wisely, and tout the success of the program. Neighboring schools then try to profit from the example, but haven't the strength and vision of that excellent administrator, and subsequently struggle mightily.

In short, the same error is made at every level, though not in all cases. Excellent teachers implement programs and plans and meet with success BECAUSE THEY ARE EXCELLENT TEACHERS working with a good hypothetical idea. They intuitively tackle the potential hurdles, or genuine hurdles, and make the situation work. The excellent administrators are successful with the same good idea BECAUSE THEY ARE EXCELLENT ADMINISTRATORS. They anticipate the problems that might arise - they expect to accommodate the human element - and they often have enough initial success to incrementally address the obstacles that prevail.

So I return to a very basic premise. Teaching is not a science. Education is not a business. The principles of science can be helpful in improving instruction, but they cannot be seen as the answer. Education at the structural level needs to be run much like a business, but because of truth number one in this paragraph, business principles cannot dominate the process. Schools can't fire under-performing teachers or students to mastermind the widget production process. Business can to some extent, though their response to the human element isn't directly determining the quality of the widget.

A guidance counselor friend of mine always refers to the school improvement purveyors and those who facilitate the implementation as the ones who are 'drinking the Kool-Aid.' However, I liken this idea that one can FOLLOW A SCRIPT set forth by the ivory towers as more akin to the Josef Goebbel's propaganda machine: "If you make a lie big enough, and say it often enough, people will believe it." [This is not a direct quote, I don't believe, but I wanted the effect of the quotation, and it is close enough to do the job.]

The moral of the story is this: great teachers are amazing, because they are driven by a love for students and a passion for what they do. They will find a way to engineer success using some awful ideas. They will work wonders with good ideas. Unfortunately, every school building has a limited supply of these people. So one must consider the corollary. Poor teachers will make a mess of weak ideas, and do significant damage in the process. They will only rise to a level where they avoid harm if charged with implementing a good idea.