My Public Education:
an inside view of publik edukation - part 1

Dear School Board President,

I hope this finds you in continued good health.

Regrettably, the Brookhaven Public School District does not seem to be in very good health. A good argument exists that some fifty percent of its students leave the system functionally illiterate, and even the best students find themselves in a learning environment which produces declining test scores and less authentic achievement. As a former teacher in the city's public schools, with some eight years of experience, I find myself compelled to write to you in your capacity of school board president.

First, two bizarre requests: Please read this and; number two, please don't show this to anyone until you have read it.

Perhaps you remember the introduction of the Functional Literacy Exam (FLE) by the states education department. That was some ten years ago, just a year after I had come to BrookHaven to teach at Alexander Jr. High School. There was apparently quite a buzz around town when a third of the students who took the test failed it. Dr. James Hutto, then principal of Brookhaven High School (which had been named recently as a national model high school), appeared very depressed when I saw him on the sidewalk outside my apartment one morning of the week that test results were announced. I gave him a ride to school that morning, and tried to reassure him that he was doing a good job.

Perhaps you remember also the excuse that was presented to concerned parents in BrookMaven (and all across the state), that the test didn't count for graduation so students didn't put forth their best effort. Actually, these same students had been taking achievement tests annually that didn't count for graduation and, over the course of their public education, had learned to give any standardized test at least a decent shot. (As a matter of fact, over the course of my years here I made a habit of getting students to re-take failed semester exams at every opportunity. I always made it clear that passing or failing depended on the test. Results, almost without fail, showed scant improvement.) Perhaps more important and to the point is, in the words of nationally-renowned educator Thomas Sowell, "the complete lack of credibility of the teachers unions and the public schools" (a Clarion-Ledger column from this summer titled 'Education establishment' gives false alarms regarding unqualified teachers"). Bureaucratic posturing by educators apparently has caused a wide-spread failure of any trust at all for elementary and secondary education officials among a wide range of groups and individuals.

If you consider the first test valid and count drop-outs as functionally illiterate, certainly not always the case, you find one of every two students entering public schools in this city leaving them functionally illiterate. With a syndicated columnist pointing out that standardized test scores are dropping among the nation's best public school students, and the abysmal results of Brookhaven schools in the last ACT scores, an unbiased observer would have to say the schools are failing. (Arguments against standardized test scores generally avoid the fact that the tests are designed to measure what students have learned, i.e., what the schools are trying to teach. And perhaps, who knows how devious this bureaucracy can be, perhaps you have been indoctrinated into that select group of people who "know^t that there is a large segment of the student population simply too dumb to learn much of anything. Let me tell quickly that I havent had many students in my eight years who werent capable of mastering all the curriculum objectives in general mathematics. On the other hand, preparation in earlier grades, prior expectations in academics and behavior, and general learning environment, both at the junior high and high schools, have pretty much precluded those same students from performing at anything near capability.)

Certainly there are those who would bring credibility and accountability to public schools, Drs. Hutto and Sowell included. The FLE was, and is, an effort to set a standard. What many public educators realize (and would never, ever admit) is that the functional literacy exam which students took the next year simply was much easier than the first one. The experts (and I don't use the word loosely) at the state Department of Education were forced to re-examine their standards, and lower them dramatically.

The state's subject area test for Algebra I students is another example of an effort to set standards and at least
provide an avenue for accountability (though I have never heard of a district examining scores at the classroom level to enhance instruction), an example with which I have more personal experience.

Interestingly, I have never seen a news account which mentions these subject area tests, though I presume the state "report card" of schools includes district-wide data. The first test, which I helped administer and naturally examined thoroughly, was not very difficult, though results apparently were abysmal. Subsequent tests, some of which I administered and examined, were easier and easier, until the test today is just a shadow of the districts curriculum guide. (Presumably, the numerous revisions were enabled by the dearth of public scrutiny of test results, and motivated by hopes of state education department personnel for improvements in teaching and learning.)

A quick look at the Algebra subject area test (which a school board president might be able to see, at least by volunteering to audit the exam) and the Algebra semester exams on file at Alexander when I was there would show the immense disparity between objective skills taught (mandated by district policy) and performance levels (call them standards) expected. And this certainly is not a plea for district standards to be lowered. The district's well- thought-out curriculum objectives, combined with identical summative tests for all students (although the tests counted less and less toward final grade during my tenure and tragically could be being phased out), seems to be the best possible approach: setting standards that will prepare students for the next step in their education.

Regrettably the only educational momentum apparent is the dumbing down of our students, as witnessed by a relatively new ACT exam and a new method of scoring SATs, results of pressure by educators to make them easier, I'm sure.

Certainly we are not looking at a problem endemic to Brookhaven, or even Mississippi. In 1993 the state school supocintendent of Delaware led a panel of the State's educators in setting standards on an assessment pltgram for the statts third, fifth, eighth, and tenth grades in reading, writing, and arithmetic. "The results were
disastrous. Most students failed." ('Are kids really learning these days, or is 'teaching' image just getting slicker?" Clarion-Ledger editorial, October 24, 1996)

The educational bureaucracy apparently has so much influence in this country that the news media seem quite reluctant to report bad news. A November 20 Associated Press article in Brookhaven's Daily Leader concerning an international study of science and math education in 41 countries focused as much on the fact that the U.S. was above average in science, coming in 17th, as the fact that we came in a dismal 28th in mathematics. These results were considerably better than two earlier, flawed studies. In a panel discussion televised the same day on C-Span, however, the president of the National Academy of Sciences flatly stated that it is "clear our system must change". In this lower-profile media outlet, Dr. Bruce Albert said large corporations like Motorola find that only 10% of high school graduates tested by the companies are considered eligible for entry level positions. Media questions to the panel brought out the fact that 5% of U.S. students were in the top ten percent of test scores, while three countries placed 33% of their students tested in the top ten percent. American students are far from standouts in the hard sciences' and the country must reap the consequences of failure to put premium on good teaching", a panelist said. Another point in the discussion of particular interest to me was that some of the Midwestern states had high scores, while Southern states had scores so low that they compared with the worst American urban schools.

PERHAPS A WORD ABOUT MYSELF would be in order. Not formally trained in education, I was a National Merit Finalist in 1967, graduating with highest honors from USM in 1977 with a degree in journalism. I took the alternative route to teacher certification in 1986, and have been an avid student of education since then, both formally (I have taken probably ten or twelve education courses on the under graduate and graduate levels at USM) and informally (1 subscribed to three publications which focused on education reform, and have read extensively on the teaching and learning process).

When I first came to Brookhaven, I had students every year who could not multiply or divide whole numbers. I made it a practice to call parents of these children and let them kiiow they needed help in these operations which I did not have time to give. Although I never thought about it, these parents apparently complained, and in later years I found that even my special education students could, almost without exception, multiply and divide. I'm sure I did not endear myself to the educational establishment through my efforts at parental communication.

Still, large numbers of my students throughout my years here were not able to solve simple computational problems with fractions, something they should have mastered by the sixth grade. Fractions were a problem even in my Algebra I classes, especially given the algebraic fractions which my classes were expected to manipulate. Again, a quick look at semester exams and final grades would indicate the pitiful level of mastery which currently is required in the district, remembering that tracking of students is not just policy but helpful policy and that classes with lower-achieving students naturally will not perform on the level of higher-achieving classes.

Although President Clinton said in an article in the October 25 Daily Leader that social promotion needs to be done away with, we are not, of course, able to do this now in Brookhaven. (I say that even as an obvious advocate of reform. Certainly defenders of the status quo, generally present or former members of the educational establishment, argue against even the need of reform. Given that the first function of a bureaucracy is to strengthen itself and, considering the immense size in both people and budgets of public education, these arguments are not surprising, either in their vehemence or their numbers.) The system would simply bog down under the weight of failed students. Raising standards is much more difficult than lowering them, of course.

THERE ARE THINGS WHICH could be done rather easily, of course. For example, mathematical word problems in lower- achieving classes at the junior high level are often ignored by students, who have learned failure to such a degree that they simply leave the few token word problems on tests blank. I have seen special ed students ask special ed teachers for help on tests with nothing but word problems and get an add, subtract, multiply or divide symbol placed next to each problem. After several years of seeing district-mandated statistics which clearly indicated a problem, I went to Susan Chapman, then assistant principal at Alexander, and suggested that elementary students might be exposed to "One plus three equals what?"-type questions early in their education in conjunction with the traditional work-sheets filled with numbers only. I did this for two reasons: I thought this a simple, common-sense, easily-implemented, no-lose (and possibly big-win) approach to a clear failure by the system; and I knew Mrs. Chapman was immensely territorial about her curriculum duties, as well as personally antithetic to me. When nothing was done (as far as I could ascertain through oblique inquiry) in several years, I put my suggestion on my quarterly curriculum objective statistics, which I knew went to the central office.

I still think the approach hasn't been tried here and could be valuable, which is why I mention it now. I also realize how important it is that school boards not indulge in micromanagement. Still, the "quality" management theory apparently firmly entrenched in public education (under the guise of site-based management) has shown itself to be less than successful at best, and school boards are forced to act most often on information and proposals presented by bureaucrats who must be taken at their word that the welfare of the students takes priority.

When Ray Fulton came to town I listened to some of his rhetoric and thought the system might be better off than with Dr. Randy McCoy. Sadly I came to see that Fulton was a staunch defender of the status quo who had long ago quit believing what he was saying about the public schools. In short, he gave up. The system changed him, and had him believing in the system instead of the people in it. I remember clearly the speaker who took the place of Madeline Hunter at a district-wide faculty meeting repeatedly referring to the "cancer" which can infect school districts, and the extreme displeasure at the speech which Fulton (on the stage at the high school) could not hide. "This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me" (Mark 7.6) is all too often the true relationship between educators and student. I've got to say it seems to be the prevalent attitude in Brookhaven schools.

That's the main reason I write: to expose the cancer I see as malignant and spreading through the Brookhaven School District, and to propose changes which could bring meaningful change yet might not even constitute major surgery. (Interestingly, in all the years I have studied public school reform, I have read about only one district which attempted it. In all other instances I've studied, it has been individual schools, with one thing in common: a principal with vision.) Obviously there are those who say this is a self-sewing effort to rectify my situation, and, yes, it is that too.

First, another specific example of a real problem in our system. After my first year in the system I went to Mr. Dan Brown, then principal of Alexander, and told him I would rather teach general mathematics than Algebra I because the students were not prepared by the system for Algebra. (I also mentioned how well I thought I could relate to at-risk students, but did not mention that I knew this action would ingratiate me with the mathematics department and help keep me away from students with influential parents.) When the school began preparing a five-year plan for accreditation purposes, I lobbied for and won a recommendation that we include pre-algebra in the course offerings. (This did not occur within the five years, though I understand the course now is offered at the high school.)

Now, in the Fall 1996 Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER) Highlights newsletter, I read that an international network of researchers created by WCER's National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences Education has concluded that "(the nation's) algebra curriculum--late, abruptly introduced, and isolated--is simply beyond repair." Introducing pre-algebra is to merely "tinker at the edges", according to the group's chairman.

To introduce the language of mathematics ("Two plus two equals four is an 'equation'.") in the early years would require only a change in instructional materials, and would be a first step at introducing the early mathematical reasoning recommended by this group. (My algebra students had problems distinguishing terms from factors; in part because they were never exposed to even these basics of math language.) This, of course, would only require preparation time and effort on the part of teachers. Regrettably, Brookhaven does not have enough teachers who care about their students to effect change.

As an example, let me cite the case of lesson plans at the kindergarten for the four years my wife was there. One teacher does lesson plans for a week, and the office copies the plans and distributes them to all the teachers. So far, so good. What about the components for start-the-day circle time, when students receive instruction on the solar system and American Indians (to name two)? For the four years my wife worked there, each and every week a different teacher in the school copied pages out of adult encyclopedia to distribute with lesson plans and everyone read them out loud, presumably over the heads of all their students. Even if this no longer is the practice, I think it accurately reflects the degree to which the local system has given in to difficulties in providing a quality educational experience for even its best students.


WHILE THERE CERTAINLY are good teachers in the system (the kindergarten too), there is so much inertia in the system that there is pressure against teachers doing too good a job. For example, I got negative feedback when I introduced a Quotation of the Week in my room; another math teacher apparently felt compelled to do a quote a day as a result. I got a lot of negative feedback when I implemented (after a summer of study on how to improve my students' performances) weekly computerized reports; I actually had a computer sabotaged in my room the day I brought it to school, before the students arrived. Incredibly enough, this pressure to not do well comes from administrators as well as other teachers, at least in my experience.

My third year of teaching at Brookhaven, I was across the hall from Tom Lowery for my fourth, fifth, and sixth periods. Tom, if you don't know him, is a real people person. He always has a funny story, he is great at small talk, he keeps up with families, he appears to be genuinely humble and self-effacing, he seems to be truly vulnerable and caring; in short, people like him. He was assigned to teach social studies and had some coaching duties. There was an eighteen-inch open space at the top of the rooms, so you could easily hear lectures from across the hall. Thursday was Tom's lecture day. He would sit at his desk and read
Friday's test to his students after instructing them to take notes. (He made no bones about it, repeatedly saying he gave his students a chance, and if they chose to not take notes or study that was their business. Not that he failed many students, if any. He graded on the curve, and we're talking clever arc; believe that he doesn't keep tests on file any longer than required.) Mondays he would put a reading assignment on the board. Tuesdays he would assign questions at the back of the chapter. He actually couldn't be bothered with learning his students' names. He challenged me in the hall one day about a student's name, actually bragged (in effect) about not learning them. He wouldn't even take roll. He boasted in the cafeteria more than once about not taking roll, saying if students didn't want to be in his class he didn't want them in there either. (Teachers were supposed to send names of students who were absent but not on the absentee list to the office, so they could be located. I could only guess at how many teachers didn't do this. Not keeping a record of absences is a different matter that probably used to be more of a problem than it is now. Danny Magee didn't take roll at Alexander; in fact, the year I saw Danny's gradebook, there was nothing in it but student names. [I had been sent to his room at the start of my vacant period because he was late, and I finally found his gradebook to take roll. He came in and was quite upset with me for going in his desk.] Richard Case didn't check roll at the high school. I never saw or tried to see any other grade books.) Tom didn't try to break up fights, and made a point of letting me know it. The only real talking he did in his class all year other than Thursdays was the time he had a pizza party in his fourth period, spent weeks reminding students to bring their money, told the ones who couldn't or didn't bring money that they would have to eat in the cafeteria, and then bragged to a group of teachers about eating free pizza that day. The main rule for his room appeared to be "Don't cause me any trouble and you will pass this course." It's not called social promotion in the eighth and ninth grades, but it's a fact of life. Anyway, this was none of my business, and I never tried to make it otherwise. I didn't even let this astounding (to me) lack of professionalism affect the way I felt about Tom as a person, or acted around him. I have spent many long years working on my attitude toward people, and Tom did nothing to change that.

BAD TEACHERS ABOUND, for that matter, A study at Johns Hopkins University's School of Education said one-third of the teachers at most schools willingly implement education reforms, one-third fight them, and one-third wait and see.

And don't think being an administrator makes a person a genuine educator either. A front-page story in the Clarion- Ledger on November 15 featured two state Board of Education members being quoted telling administrators that "I can't see there is anybody who cares about these children" and "This is absolutely immoral."


I HAD KIRSTEN MAGEE, a good, average student in the 1993-94 school year. Her twin brother, Karsden, was real lazy, and found himself in special ed. When he was in the ninth grade, I tutored him after school some. By that time he admittedly had little mental facility. I noticed four or five assignments from general math about fractions and percents in his notebook, all of them wrong except the first problem on each assignment. Turns out his teacher would show the class how to work the problems, give an assignment and put the first problem on the board, then sit at her desk while the students "worked". The special ed teacher, who got to class ten minutes late, like all the special ed teachers in all of the block classes, since that's the way it works, would sit at her desk. Some students would work, some wouldn't. Some might do the work correctly, some (like Karsden) wouldn't. Neither of the two teachers in the class could be bothered to check student work, with the possible exception of a homework grade assigned on the basis on pencil marks on paper. All of them would pass. And were not talking certificate of attendance at this point, but diploma. And, for that matter, no small percentage of them were quite capable of doing the work (most of my special ed students could do the math), but since they weren't required to do it most of them quite naturally didn't.

Louis Bailey Jr. was in the sixth grade last year. He tested overall in the fourteenth percentile nationally. I tutored him some too. He had a good memory for facts, though he was weak in spelling and math. He brought a four-page review over for his semester exam in social studies. He had answers for maybe an eighth of the questions, but they were almost indecipherable. His teacher sat at her desk and read the answers to the review, not even troubling to write them on the board. Many of his classmates, Louis informed me, didn't even try to work on the review, "and they'll all pass". His semester review in math was completely blank. The class assignment for several days was to work on the review, and he probably could have asked for help and been told something, but the simple fact remains that he played by the rules of the class and learned little if anything the whole year. The teacher passed out the review, then sat at her desk, maybe even believing that her willingness to help was more than her duty required. She didn't even go over the review with the class. No expectations, no effort; it adds up to social promotion, and it certainly exists in all classes at least in the form of grade inflation.

MY WIFE WAS AN ASSISTANT for Hazel Kenney two years at the kindergarten. Hazel was another disciplinary specialist; she gave my wife all the math worksheets both years, along with as many other responsibilities as she could get away with. Anything that was done after lunch those years was done by my wife, because Hazel would sit at her desk and pretend to be busy, even refusing to do preparations my wife requested. When Mary Ann requested a transfer (from Flora Kelly's sister-in-law), she apparently was put in the room of the school's weakest disciplinarian, who even refused to send a boy to the office for fondling another child. (Mrs. Hawkins said the victim could quit going to the bathroom and it wouldn't happen again.) A Silas child one year came to the kindergarten knowing alphabet, numbers, and colors, and left confused about all of them, according to the grandmother's report to Redmond Preschool. Another Redmond student went to the kindergarten able to read, and her teacher (Mrs. Ernest) was reprimanded maybe three times for letting her read in class.

There's a common factor here. Administrators don't go to teachers' rooms, either to enforce policy or offer guidance, except for scheduled annual evaluations. There's another common factor, at least at the secondary level. Teachers basically don't go to students' desks to check their work. And no, central office personnel basically don't go to schools to check administrators' work. This is the way the system works. This is the way it worked when I was in school, and the inertia of the system is immense, not just nationally, but locally as well. The glacial movement that is discernible nationally appears inarguably to be a decline in across-the-board learning, and locally we appear to be leading the way.

In ACT scores, for example, Brookhaven High School was number 21 in the state in numbers of students in core college courses, but number 109 in average score rank. McComb, very close in numbers of students in core courses and probably demographics, was ranked 50; Columbus High East, also very close in numbers was ranked 57. Franklin High had almost as many students in core courses, though I doubt Franklin County has near the AP and other advanced courses as Brookhaven, and was number 30 in the state. Only three schools of the twenty schools with more students in core courses scored lower than Brookhaven. The core course offerings vary widely, of course, and that's why we should have done better: we seem to be quite proud of the curriculum in Brookhaven, and Jtn sure our ranking in advanced course offerings would rank higher than our ACT results. (The bureaucracy here would probably say, 'Standard deviations of statistical data precludes finding statistically significant results" or some such, but plainly our students are not learning on a par with comparable schools in the state, and it should be remembered that Mississippi ACT scores are at the bottom nationally. The fact of the matter is that best-scoring schools in our state might be doing an adequate job.)


EVEN SO RADICAl AND wonderful a departure as the new Tech Prep must be viewed in light of the fact that our students simply are not mastering our curriculum. (The day teachers are required to turn in grades to the counselor's office, go to the Tech Prep classes and look at grade books [maybe theyll even be computerized, like mine] and randomly pick ten students whose final grade is about 80. Ask to see their final exams, maybe spot-checking with curriculum objectives to be certain the test is valid. Be sure to look at answers which are graded correct, since partial corrections are vety big in this system. More to the point, call those ten students to the school and have them turn on a computer and construct a cube on the CAD program which I believe is one of the components of the program. I think both exercises could be enlightening.) While obviously Tech Prep is a wonderful opportunity which couldnt be turned down, I don't anticipate much real learning to take place without real change in the whole system. And with the increased competition which exists in our society, the disservice we do our students seems compelling enough a reason to trying to change things.

Responses by district personnel to having all the classes on the Internet, and computers in every class were interesting. Dr. John Gamer said any teacher could look up any student on those classroom computers, but he didn't say what could be found. Probably name, address, and home phone number, if available. I hope I'm wrong, but Dr. Gamer probably was correct when he said that students will learn to use the Internet. He didn't add that that's all they'll learn. The bad news is that the computers probably will have Netscape or Explorer software, you almost turn the computer on and there you are on the Internet, and, if you haven't been there, it's basically point and click and you stay in this huge mass of information which will do little for most students (and most people) but entertain until you turn the computer off

"National Geographic" warned in October 1995 about a big danger of the information revolution: "One trend is clear: A growing cultlike faith in information, a belief that if we hook up to the Internet well be smart."


UNTIL ADMINISTRATORS and teachers are required to utilize the technology advantageously (I was told years ago computerized SAT scores were available; these could be invaluable not just in ascertaining what results teachers are getting in the classroom, down to multiplying fractions and identifying prepositions, so energies could be directed where needed but also in tracking student accomplishment to identify strengths and weaknesses), the majority will let students tinker with the computers. English, history, science, and social studjes teachers mostly won't require reports from the students' time on the Net, and those who do will get mostly verbatim copies of items posted there. And even requiring teachers to assign those reports, for example, wouldnt of itself produce results; examples of administrators and teachers ignoring district policies follow.

First, though, let me touch briefly on the brotherhood of educators. It is a very close union of people who make their living based, in no small part, on a purely fictional image which has been carefully nutured and painstakingly maintained. Some of those involved no doubt believe the rhetoric. The image revolves around caring people who work long and hard to educate chi!dren of quite varied backgrounds and abilities. The truth, which I hope to illustrate by example here, is much darker. The one small truth I wish to point out now is that complete loyalty to the system and individuals in the system is demanded of those who are part of it. For example, if word got out that anyone in the system so much as verified a point that I made about anything going on in Brookhaven Public Schools, things could get difficult for that person.

Since I recognize that this letter mostly is so much talk by me, I am going to try and give you sources you can go to for verification. I have no doubt verification of even the smallest points will not be forthcoming without a very pointed assurance of confidentiality. The assurance I would like you to give, if you should choose to pursue this matter, is that this call absolutely is the end of the matter, no one will ever again raise the question(s), that no one will ever learn any names being raised in the inquiry unless the people who are questioned voluntarily step forth, and that names will be deleted from the only copy of this missive immediately upon receipt of response to query. For example, to make it easy to not miss names for deletion, I'm going to do it like this: On the mailer of being told that computerized standardized test scores were available,

( Dr. John Garner ) verifies _____
does not verify ______

that Joel Parker was informed of this matter. Very minor point, but a black magic marker between parentheses would remove this person's name from what I hope is the only copy, and assurances that they will never again be asked about the matter(s) might help people be forthright.

Perhaps nothing could tell as much about public schools here as a quick examination of my experiences here, with apologies for the length of this. Let me begin with an introduction of Susan Chapman, then assistant principal at Alexander Jr. High. Another genuine people person, but smart. I'm sure the district line is, 'we're very lucky to have such a smart, professional administrator". Very rigid too, and, as my experience will show, very vindictive. I quickly saw I had gotten off on the wrong foot with her by going out to lunch the day I came over for my interview with Mr. Dan Brown, then Alexander principal, without inviting her along. One of my priorities, by the way, is not drawing conclusions about people, not being judgmental; mostly I have lived my life hoping other people try to be that way too. I presumed Susan got over it, and then forgot about it, because she did seem quite professional to me. That first January I made a big mistake with her (maybe it was another big mistake) by going to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Celebration at Alexander, featuring then-recently elected Congressman Mike Espy. My wife and I were the only two white people there until Drs. George Brumfield and James Hutto arrived twenty minutes later. I actually was shocked by the de facto segregation of the event, especially since Mr. Brown had invited everyone to attend over the public address system earlier. Mrs. Chapman wouldn't speak to me for a week. Again I gave her credit for professionalism and went about my business.

Later that year I taught a lesson to four of my classes on solving word problems. Part of the lesson was how to devise a plan, and finally to put the plan into action. I used the example of Operation OverLord, telling of the great amount of planning which went into the D-Day invasion of Europe, pointing out that if the plan had not been used it would have been worthless, and telling of men fighting ashore on the beaches, bleeding and dying to defeat Hitler. That afternoon, for the first and almost only time that year, Chapman came to my room. Out of the blue, she told me about Mrs. (Norma) Hill being the only math teacher she had ever seen introduce a lesson with a discrepant event. I took this as a stilted compliment of what I knew was a good lesson. Only much later (after I was fired in fact) did I realize that the message she apparently intended to convey was that it didn't matter how much good I did, or how good a teacher I was, I would never get a word of credit from her. Also, she wanted me to know she was watching me.

THAT FIRST YEAR I naturally had discipline problems, exacerbated (I could tell) by other teachers telling my students derogatory things about me. I knew I could handle it, and wasn't bothered by it, actually expecting problems from some people because of the alternative certification. My third term I devised an independent assertive discipline plan, giving all students a grade of 80 in class participation to start with, then adding points for paying attention in class and deducting points for breaking a class rule. I made a point of calling on each student every day, easily the biggest down-side of the plan, and I didn't use a grade below 60 in computing averages, though I didn't tell the students about this. My petty discipline problems were solved. The fourth term Chapman came to my room and asked me if I were giving a grade for class participation. I said yes, and she replied, "Oh no you're not!" Mr. Brown called me into his office in a few days and said I couldn't do that,

It was also my first year, though only two weeks perhaps into the year, when I gave my first major test and was shocked by the results. I had done things the way I had always seen them done. I lectured, assigned seat work, and sat at my desk. A quick evaluation of results ("monitor and adjust" is a big rule, though often ignored, for teachers and administrators) had me changing my methods. I started walking around to students' desks when they were doing seat work, not telling them what to do but coaching them how to do it (another big teacher rule). This helped.


THE STUDENTS BASICALLY responded to me, recognizing even when they didn't want to that I was a good teacher. Naturally there were some who were more difficult than others, but even my first year I felt that I had a decent grasp of disciplinary principles, with the appropriate respect for the difficulty of putting theory into practice.

My second year was fairly uneventful. I could still count on small outbursts every time I gave out progress reports, and if I kept a class in from recess I knew I would have full-throated rebellion, albeit from the safety of their desks. I had a pretty good handle on it, though I still talked too much and used a monotone, but I would say I was merely a good teacher my second year. When Martin Luther King Jr. day approached, Chapman approached me and asked if I planned to attend. Since Mr. Brown had not made his invitation announcement this year, I said no. My wife, that night, unveiled different plans, and called Dr. Hutto to tell him that we would attend. In the end, I talked her out of it, but the next day Chapman rather furiously confronted me in the hallway and asked me if I could guess where she spent hours the night before with her "back against the wall".

BSAP scores from that year were very flattering for me and the only other eighth grade math teacher in the district, Mrs. Rosemary Castilaw. My relationships with the other faculty members, though mostly cordial enough even the first year, improved markedly as a result of those test scores. Naturally there were exceptions, but I accepted that and tried to be my normal low-profile, cordial and agreeable self, never seeking approval, quite content to spend most of my time in my classroom with my students.


I WAS RATHER ABRUPTLY informed, at the start of my third year, that I would teach Algebra 1 at the high school first and second periods. Though I had no personal aspirations, none, I admit I was pleased at the thought that the district might want me over at the high school (not just because of my unquestioned grasp of advanced mathematics, but because of my demonstrated teaching acumen), and the basic lack of discipline problems (I assigned two students to Saturday detention and perhaps ten to afternoon detention over the course of the entire year) made the thought considerably more appealing.

I was disappointed to find that Greg Whittier was just too familiar with me, in a condescending way, but I had been subjected to a lot of ridicule in my life and had learned to not let it bother me. He announced at an early faculty meeting that if we would make multiple choice nine-week tests, the school would provide answer sheets and grade them with the computer and scanner. Mostly to demonstrate my willingness to embrace new technology, I went to the extra effort of making a good multiple choice test, then asked Whittier in the hall with Duane Russell one day after class what I should do to get the scan sheets. He laughingly told me they couldn't do it; the counselor gave me kind of a sad smile, and I realized I had been fooled again.

I didn't think I passed Tom Lowery's muster the first time I met him, and the glares I caught across the hall early in that third year reinforced the feeling. I was glad Danny Magee came over after school one day and got me to go in Tom's room with him; I am ever willing to hope for a new attitude toward me. Turned out to be them wanting me to bet money on a card trick. Norma Hill came in while they were trying to fool me. Danny had money in his hand to loan me, if I didn't have money in my wallet. Tom seemed to think he had a sucker, which made me sad, but I know light overcomes darkness so I forgave him even as I refused to bite, and said a little prayer that he would change his mind. Then I forgot about it.

Whittier also announced at an early faculty meeting that he was going to do something different that year, that he was going to be coming to our classes more, and doing more observations. My initial response was, "Great." I knew that I was not getting good results from my students, regardless of how good ajob I was doing, and I was sure Whittier was doing this so he could help all of us do a better job.

The first observation I knew I did a good job with the lesson, but figured my students didn't do that good ajob with the learning, so I was very interested in what he would have to say. He just walked by me after class without so much as a glance, so I stopped the student to whom Whittier had passed a note during class and asked Johnny Cooper (a bright enough senior) what it was about. It said "X + 2 = 5" and Johnny told me he told Whittier he couldn't solve it. This was maybe early in October. 1 gave Whittier the benefit of Christian love and forgot about it.

Thanksgiving week he came back, maybe on a Tuesday, for another observation. Wednesday, the day we got off for the holiday, I found a truly cruel and twisted evaluation in my letter box, which I dutifully checked every day. It called for a response, so I went back after school, borrowed a typewriter, and responded to everything. (I noticed that I mixed up the days at one point, but I had locked the typewriter up so I ignored the mistake.) Later I went to the central office with copies of both documents and showed them to Dr. Dorothy Logan-Alexander. (I don't think this is a secret, but if you contact Dr. Alexander I would appreciate the same assurances of confidentiality that others receive.)

Apparently she went to Dr. McCoy with the matter. A teacher called me over to the high school the next year to show me that Whittier had been demoted (to the little office next to the front desk from his nice office with outer office across the hall) because of what he did to me. He stayed in that office as long as Dr. McCoy was here, and he was even nice to me after that too. (Until my last semester with the schools, when he suddenly appeared at Alexander one day wearing a tie of Daffy Duck laughing, obviously coming by for one last laugh.)

Early that fourth year, perhaps as much a result of my incredibly distasteful experience with unprofessional administrators as my demonstrated teaching ability, I also got what I learned was a coveted position as GED instructor. Perhaps Dr. McCoy called Mr. Brown, who certainly (as he did on almost all matters) touched base with Susan Chapman. I clearly remember thinking it must be important when I saw her knocking on my door in the middle of a third period lecture. She said something like, "Would you be interested in helping the district out by tutoring some at night?" I had been turned down by her at the start of the year when I asked about tutoring students for free after school in my room, so I went to the public library and offered help to all my students. I guess she hoped to catch me in a busy moment (which she did) and thought saying "tutor" would get me to say no, but I asked a few questions and was quite happy to go see Mrs. Rita Rich about the position, which started out paying eleven dollars an hour and ended for me at thirteen dollars an hour, which I believe was top pay.

At the start of my fourth year, Mr Brown told me he moved my room assignment as "a favor", leading me to believe Tom was trying to cause trouble for me.* (I'm going to place asteriks by items I would like Mr. Brown to be asked about. If you should, Dr. Edmonson, raise any queries to others and then mark names out, I would like Mr. Brown to read this. I think if he recognizes that, despite his good intentions, many students under his supervision were basically neglected, that I tried to help those students and could have helped them a lot more if I had had the cooperation of Susan Chapman. If, as I believe, Mr. Brown is big enough to acknowledge that she worked hard to get rid of me, what he has to say could result in important changes for all the students of this district.) Also, I found myself with a duty post out in front of the school, with Johnny WaIler and Theresa Dyess. Mr. Brown kept refusing to put us on alternating weeks; Johnny from the start came to work at 7:35 while I arrived at the appointed 7:30. Theresa, after the first two weeks, started coming in at 7:50. I told Johnny, when he asked why Mr. Brown wanted everybody on duty, that perhaps Mr. Brown wanted everyone to get there on time for a change. In fact, my first three years I had noticed that except for Dot Henderson and Jane Kees, who had alternating duty in the front lobby, most people got to their duty stations at least five minutes late. (My second year there, the only time in my eight years I got caught by a train and was late to school, I was called into the office with about ten other teachers and told a letter of reprimand would be placed in my file for being late for duty. I didn't say anything about it, but see now that was a clear warning to me, since all the others were always late.)*


ANYWAY, THIS IS REALLY a story about the system. Mr. Brown came up to the front of the school shortly before school started one day and told Theresa she was getting a reprimand for being late. You could see out the office windows who was there when. She told Mr. Brown she was on time every day. Mr. Brown asked Johnny, who said she was there. (My second year, Danny Magee apparently walked in my room while I went to the office and said the "honkies" in this room better be quiet. Three of my good students went to Mr. Brown and complained, and those three, Danny and I were called in for a conference. The three students told their story, I said I was sure Mr. Magee didn't mean anything derogatory, and then Danny denied it. At the time I thought Danny did it to show me how to deal with sticky situations; in retrospect, and I dearly love the man, he could have done it to get a derogatory message to me)*. Mr. Brown then turned from Johnny to me, and asked if Theresa was on time. I knew the teacher's code called for me to lie, but I couldn't do it, and denied her claim with a simple "no".

I don't doubt that Chapman planned it, and wanted Mr. Brown to use it against me if I went with the status quo and lied. Either way I went, I lost. Maybe I'm wrong, and I just played into her hand again.

Top of Page
To the Table of Contents
To SAFE's Home Page