Oh, yeah, you're a RIOT.

So remember the last fight I broke up?

The same copper who stood there open-mouthed whilst your gentle narrator took one of the miscreants firmly in hand saw me today and said, "So, Ms. Cornelius, used any ninja moves lately?"

I thought about saying, "No-- but could I practice on your pointy head? I need a practice dummy." But you know, he does have a gun, so I just ha-haaaed and walked away.

Gives new meaning to the word "flatfoot."

Infuriating! Idiotic!

One of my AP students came into my room and handed me her homework. "I may not be here for class, Ms. Cornelius."

"Oh? Why not?" I asked.

And then she started crying. Big fat tears from eyes squeezed tight.

"The school... the school... they are kicking us out and say we don't live where we are living...."

To sum up, it basically equals a lost job, a lost home, living with a family friend until they move into a new apartment in a few weeks. They pulled her out of her class and told her she was no longer enrolled and to go home. They did not contact her parents, and she doesn't drive. So she huddled in my room for two hours until she finally could get grandma to come and pick her up.

By the way, during that time, she voluntarily took a quiz (got a B on it, too, even with the tear stains) and took notes from class discussion. Even knowing she might not be back.

Now, they ARE living in our district, and I have told you before that this district is usually more than willing to allow any batch of malcontents to remain in our district even if they claim they are living at the Mailboxes-to-Go store down the street. And once granted the boon of a completely free edjicashun at the expense of the actual residents of this district, these non-resident kids promptly proceed to fight, skip class, sass teachers, call other kids fags, and whatnot. These kids still roam the hallways of our district. There are several dozen of them in my school alone. Some of them even live in a nearby state. They cause chaos and disrupt learning as naturally as breathing.

But hey, let's fitfully start enforcing attendance on a kid with a B grade point average in honors classes. Let's KEEP the miscreants and toss out the students! Because I notice they haven't dragged the other kids out of here that we all KNOW live twenty miles away.

This is a hard-working, diligent young person who has kept working through economic turmoil, who has been and remains a resident of our district.

And -- well, let me just go there. Let's also consider that, as a student who falls within TWO targeted categories on NCLB, this kid's presence at our school should actually be considered a blessing when it comes to making AYP across targeted groups. Maybe that would help overturn this stupid decision.

Makes me want to barf.

And yes, I did suggest to her that the magic words to make this all go away were "homeless student," since they believe that her family is lying about living wherre they live.

Lake Wobegon schools and US News and World Report

Just how "public" are the schools that US News has crowned as "Gold Medal Schools" in its annual "America's Best High Schools" issue?

As I was looking at the list, I was struck by a few things right off the bat:
1. Most of these schools are not "open enrollment" schools. The majority select their students by application only, or are magnet schools, or charter schools. They are from the fairy tale land of public schools in America. Only NINE of the top 50 schools are open enrollment schools, in fact.

2. Eight of the top ten schools have twenty percent or less of their students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Number three on the list, Pacific College Charter in Santa Cruz, CA, has 0.0% disadvantaged children, and its minority enrollment in a whopping 5.3 percent. Only 20 of the top fifty schools have an economically disadvantaged population above 25%.

3. And speaking of minorities, in a country in which white, non-Hispanics are approximately fifty percent of the population, seven of the top ten have 12.6% minority enrollment, or less. Only 18 of the top fifty schools has a minority enrollment above 25%. As stated below, the average school has 44% minority enrollment, and only one of the top ten and seven of the top fifty meet that standard.

4. Kudos go out to Preuss School UCSD in La Jolla, CA (number 8 on the list), which serves a population that is 99.6% economically disadvantaged and 71.3% minority. The 752 students who go there (and by the way, my own alma mater had nearly three times that number in grades 10-12) are lucky indeed.

5. Only one of the top ten schools has an enrollment as large as the high school at which I teach (over 1500 students). Number 6, International Academy in Bloomfield Hills, MI, has 148 students, and number 4, High Technology High (ha!) in Lincroft, NJ, has 262. Number 7, International Baccalaureate in Bartow, FL, has 278 students. Only eight of the top 50 have enrollments over 1500 students.

And how many of them are in large school districts, I wonder? That information is not included.

I wonder how many students have IEPs or 504s? I wonder how many students have juvenile records? That information is also not included.

What is the student/teacher ratio, flawed though that indicator is when counselors and administrators are allowed to be included in determining the average?

And we're not even considering the fact that the ranking is based on how many Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate tests the students can take-- which is a real problem when so many schools cannot find the staff or afford the training to offer these kinds of classes. And yes, I am an Advanced Placement and College Credit teacher in the discipline of history.

But it is obvious that, in more ways than excellence, these schools are hardly representative of public schools across the country.

Well, let's just consider this from the National Center for Education Statistics to help frame our discussion:

The 100 largest public school districts, representing less than 1 percent (0.6 percent) of all school districts in the United States and jurisdictions, were responsible for the education of 23 percent of all public school students.

The 100 largest public school districts employed 22 percent of the United States and jurisdictions' public school full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers and contained 17 percent of all public schools and 20 percent of public high school completers.

The 100 largest public school districts had larger average school enrollments compared to the average for all school districts (695 vs. 518) as well as a higher median pupil/teacher ratio (15.9 vs. 15.4).

The percentage of students in the 100 largest public school districts who were other than White, non-Hispanic was 71 percent, compared to 44 percent of students in all school districts.

In FY 2005, current expenditures per pupil in the 100 largest public school districts ranged from lows of $5,104 in the Puerto Rico Department of Education and $5,503 in the Alpine District, Utah to a high of $18,878 in the District of Columbia Public Schools and $17,988 in Boston, Massachusetts).

Three states-California, Florida, and Texas-accounted for 45 percent of the 100 largest public school districts.

So all that I see here is a reminder that schools that have to deal with disadvantaged populations, schools that have to take everyone (as the law requires of most public schools), are not ideal schools, and never will be. They just can't compete. Allow public schools to exclude "troublesome" or disadvantaged populations, I guess, and you're on the rocket ship to success. Even if that would place real public schools in violation of federal and state law.

Any school that gets to exclude populations, that only has students who WANT to be there, is going to have an advantage. In any other facet of modern American life, the people who partake in any activity-- even the military-- are there because they choose to be there, except in public schools-- oh wait, except for most of the schools that US News considers to be the "best."

It's ironic.

Almost as much as the fact that those who espouse charter schools-- schools which are exempt from many regulations and bureaucracies that other public schools have to endure-- decided to "improve" public schools by-- drumroll, please-- adding MORE regulations and MORE bureaucracy onto the backs of public schools, complements of the No Child Left Behind Act, et alia. And of course testing requirements don't apply to private schools, either-- but some would like to see my tax dollars going to pay tuition for students to go to private schools (completely ignoring the fact that once an institution takes public funding, it ceases to have the right to behave as a private institution, but that's a post for another day....).

And yet-- I still believe it's wrong.

Depressing.

I have had numerous parents tell me that "everyone does it" and that if I can't give consequences to every kid who cheats, then I shouldn't punish their kid. The words "character," "honesty," and the like are laughed off as at best a quaint notion from bygone days.

In one previous incident, I watched a girl turn her paper so that the boy next to her could copy freely without straining his neck, poor thing. When I told her she got a zero too, she incredulously claimed that she hadn't been cheating. I held my ground with her and with her daddy, and fortunately was backed up by administration.

But the saddest part is that kids who don't bother to learn the material really cheat only themselves. Then they wonder why they struggle.

I'm shocked-- SHOCKED! to find ignorant comments being made on the radio!

So everyone seems stunned by Don Imus' stupid and insulting remarks about the Rutgers University Ladies' basketball team.

Hmm. What else do you expect in the medium of talk radio, where the only way to get attention is through continuously pushing the envelope of outrageous behavior? How can anyone be seriously surprised by the inane ramblings spewed by these moronic talking heads? If you choose to listen to these fools at all, then you can't be surprised by what they say, since this is hardly the first time this guy and his little doofus sidekick have said something deeply offensive. What is far more interesting to me is why these two cretins are so terrified of women who are obviously capable as athletes as well as students. And of course, the only response is to imply that they are sluts-- and ugly sluts, to boot. Flavor this verbal vomit with more than a soupcon on racism, and you've got a ratings winner on your hands. How typical. But not shocking, certainly.

And don't even start me about the lyrics of music that is shrieked into the tender eardrums of our kids.

Blame these two imbeciles, certainly-- and every advertiser who supports their juvenile braying and every mouthbreather who gives an ear to their schtick and keeps them swimming in endorsements.

But our society encourages this kind of outrageous behavior. We don't demonstrate the attention span or the manners to discuss things civilly or deeply. We are the People of the Sound Bite. And God help us, the last thing we want to do is to be expected to think or engage in civil discourse about topics of interest or controversy. We see the same thing in some corners of the blogosphere, in people who do nothing but tear down and belittle others. The argot of talk radio revolves around diminishing others, not engaging them; in belittling accomplishment, not celebrating achievement; in assuming a stance of moral superiority while utilizing the vocabulary of a guttersnipe.

So condemn the inarticulate ramblings of Don Imus, absolutely. But until we are willing to stop giving our attention to those of his ilk, we can't act surprised.

And so now it's been announced that Imus has been fired -- right in the middle of his radiothon, too. Here's an interesting snippet from a story about his firing:

Bryan Monroe, president of the National Association of Black Journalists and vice president and editor director of Ebony and Jet magazines, met with Moonves on Wednesday. It seemed clear Moonves and his aides were struggling with a difficult decision, he said. He urged them to take advantage of an opportunity to take a stand against the coarsening of culture.

"Something happened in the last week around America," Monroe said. "It's not just what the radio host did. America said enough is enough. America said we don't want this kind of conversation, we don't want this kind of vitriol, especially with teenagers."

I'd love to think that this is what Imus' firing means, but I am not so sure. I imagine he will land on his feet somewhere. And I am certain that we will still hear ignorant, racist, sexist, hateful verbiage on the radio.

Come on and take a free ride; Come on and take it by my side!

(Deep breath.) I must speak.

It's that time of year when many teachers' bargaining units and school district suits are engaged in a cagematch regarding next year's compensation for the teaching staff. In most parts of the country, we are seeing belt tightening, school districts crying penury, teachers trying to maintain decent health insurance, and the like. I keep hearing about the growing economy, but somehow it never trickles down to the working schmoes, especially those who, as Sir Elton would sing, "farmed in schools that were so worn and torn."

So the salary schedule for next year has been released. To cut to the chase: some of us are getting a raise next year, and some of us are not. But what ripped it for me was listening to a bunch of guys who are not members of our professional organization do nothing but yelp in the hallways over the proposed contract. Their angry and even petulant comments ran along the lines of this actual quote: "Look what the wonderful union did for us!" and swirled around that theme for a week now and counting.

I fully support anyone who doesn't want to join a teacher's professional organization. But since the gripers do not belong to the organization, how can they complain about what it did or did not do for them? I belong to my professional organization simply because I believe teachers need bargaining power. I do not agree with the national organization on several political points, nor do I agree with them on many professional issues. But if I leave, who will speak out against some of these positions I find ignorant, ridiculous, or just plain wrong? Our local organization is very moderate politically because like-minded people such as myself keep on pushing for that moderation.

Negotiation has won us the benefits we all enjoy-- some of us enjoy these benefits for free. Bargaining is the prime thing unions and professional organizations should do-- and yes, it would be great if the national honchos would stick to that without alienating a lot of my colleagues (and often, me) with their activities that have only a tenuous connection to the concerns of education. I have shared with you before about how I would probably be lacking a college education, much less graduate degrees, if it had not been for union-negotiated wages my daddy earned even though he was a high school drop-out.

Unions are all that have kept working people and even professional people like teachers from being treated as serfs. Don't believe me? Go back through history and look at some of the compensation and working conditions which were the norm when our parents or grandparents' generations taught. One of the most astoundingly ironic political magic tricks of the 20th century has been the bewitching of employees to believe that they don't need a bargaining unit.

Unions and professional organizations would be more powerful if they would stay focused on that task. Undoubtedly true.

Don't join the teachers' organization if you want. But then don't wonder at why our bargaining power is reduced. Consider the dues money you so smugly and cleverly "saved" to be your raise. Some of these kvetchers are proponents of the philosophy of "Vote or shut up," and they sat on their thumbs this election. The school district can count heads. Sit out the battle if you want, chicken-hawks.

But don't complain to me about that which you have not expended any treasure to receive, sirrah. I am an officer in our professional organization, and I am still working for you. For free.