Hard times for this blogger
The teachers, it seems, are upset with me. I annoyed more than a few of them when I wrote, in my review of HBO’s Hard Times at Douglass High, that the educators at Douglass High School in Baltimore “weren’t cutting it.” The documentary seemed to make that pretty clear; so, too, the school’s culture and test scores. And yet, as so many classroom managers are quick to note, I’ve just missed it all so very badly.
Take this chap, for example, a teacher who in a particularly fired-up blog post tagged me with a rather unflattering sobriquet. He did not like my diagnosis of what ails Douglass High. But as a co-worker pointed out, when one takes to the blogosphere to rain insults upon others, one should, as a matter of course, take pains to do so in a grammatically appropriate manner. Our friend (the, ahem, teacher) has failed in that task through his predilection for inserting apostrophes whenever he deems them necessary, proper grammar be damned—e.g., “According to its author, Liam Julian, it’s incompetent administrators’ and teachers’ who are to blame for the fact that Douglass is failing just like thousands of other urban schools in the United States.” I’m just saying.
Our friend also dislikes my prescription for improving the health of an English class, which, I wrote, eschews “having a valuable conversation about Nick Carraway’s flaws, say, or the mistakes of old men who fish for marlin.” The angry blogger responds: “According to Julian, if we just made these kids read The Great Gatsby or Moby Dick, all would be well. Think about that: if we just make poor black kids read books by white folks about white folks, all will be okay.”
This gentleman is ostensibly a teacher, and probably he considers himself a good one. Leaving aside his odd insinuation that black students should not read anything by white authors and his weird statement that Moby Dick is a book about white people (a white whale, I thought)—what are we to make of his substitution of Melville for Hemingway? Moby Dick was no marlin.
It is safe to assume, I think, that we are dealing here with a well-intentioned person who undoubtedly knows quite a bit about pedagogical, Marxist theory but next to nothing about anything worthwhile, such as grammar and literature. I respectfully venture that such individuals should not be in charge of classrooms of kids. If I must be pilloried for that zany statement, so be it.
Update: One of the nice things (or bad things, depending, really, on one’s post-breakfast mood on any given day) about blogging is the immediacy and interactivity of it. Several commenters, whose gripes are available below, did not appreciate my Marlin/Whale diagram (which Coby helped to design) or the accompanying words. I must note, first, that such diagrams are clearly necessary because certain persons (see above for an example), cannot on their own distinguish between these two highly distinct marine personalities. And now, about those accompanying words.
We learn that I shouldn’t have pointed out the poor grammar and literary ignorance of the blogger in question; such notes are “derogatory” and contribute to a “vicious cycle.” Vicious it really isn’t—I merely offered some advice about not inserting apostrophes willy-nilly, which is a sound suggestion, any way you slice it. But to insinuate, as one commenter does, that my words are irrelevant is quite wrong. First, they’re funny, and humor always has relevance in my book, especially in an education-policy world where stolidly and solemnity rules and if you tell a joke you garner looks as if you’d just broken wind. Second, they make a point: We have someone who claims to be a teacher, who leads a classroom of students, who questions my ability to pass judgment on the performance of other teachers—and he can barely construct a readable sentence. This is a problem worth noting. Third, let it be known: This isn’t some namby-pamby, change we can blog in-type operation. I play by old-school rules, which clearly state, in Section 3-B, that if one is called a derogatory name or has his honor in some other way tarnished he cannot, ought not, will not brush it off. He will skewer his attacker, perhaps with wit, perhaps with a rapier (if circumstances and local laws and customs permit). Those who are offended by such rules may suck their thumbs and clutch their blankies, or they may simply close their eyes when coming upon any blog post bylined “Liam Julian.”
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Sayeth The Goog:
Results 1 - 1 of 1 for link: http://matthew-wilhelm.blogspot.com. (0.18 seconds)
If he’s a “teacher of politics, history and life” as his bio professes, his web-efforts command a fairly small audience.
Last week I was assailed as an ignorant, conservative racist, too. And when I followed the given link, there was something about the blog’s theme and sidebar icons... very much like this one... I just can’t figure it out.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
If teachers are in fact upset with your National Review article, you can do better than mock the worst example of that criticism. It’s no great feat for you to make that author look like a fool; the link alone did that. While I understand you wrote an article on it, if the point is that people disagree with you it’s on you to reassert your argument. And unless you’re claiming that this fellow represents your critics en masse, it’s good form to link to more cogent critics (or at ones better versed in fish-related American literature).
Also throwing out the M-word isn’t cool unless someone is toting Das Kapital. The Debs quote doesn’t merit that epithet. Further please don’t link pedagogy with Marxism. It’s a poor characterization and does you a disservice.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Ok, I’ll ask you in a more polite manner; have you ever taught in an inner city high school?
If you had relevant experience, you would have recognized the truth of the commenters argument that the half-way discipline efforts are systemic. When school systems take you on a Potemkim Village tour of a high poverty school that is “beating the odds,” they don’t volunteer the other side of the story. The success that they are showcasing would be impossible without dumping the chronically disruptive, truant, and violent students on neighborhood schools. And when it FINALLY gets to the point where the neighborhood school tries to Long Term Suspend a student, they are likely to be sent back to the home school. Those policies do what they are supposed to do. They send a message to principals to smile like the Douglass principal. and toe the line.
The same applies to the annual full court press where teachers are coerced/coaxed into passing kids on. (In the case of Douglass 132 seniors had met requirements and a few days later 200 graduated.) Why would you guys blame the teachers? Why would you assume the building administrators are to blame? In this case, you sound like the remaining NCLB supporters. Instead of blaming teachers and school administrators, why not address the policies that are imposed upon us? Don’t you realize that you are only encouraging more CYA policies by the central offices?
This is systemic. If affluent and middle class Americans want to send their kids to safe and effective schools, and complain about inner city schools from the security of their leafy neighborhoods, that’s fine. But if you want solutions, you need to wrestle with the evidence, and I don’t see how you can do it without gaining some familiarity with real world conditions.
By the way, you may not realize the many ways that Douglass was better than many schools. The school did not seem nearly as rowdy and violent as my school. There biggest problem was they had even more teacherless classrooms than my school. Teacher-bashing will recruit new talent by ...?
On the other hand, let’s do a Fulbright-type exchange. You crash with me for a year and teach in our school. I’ll reciprocate next year by doing policy analysis. Granted, I make typos but my transistion will be a breeze. I suspect you’ll find teaching to be the toughest job you ever loved or the toughest you ever hated.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I certainly agree to an extent that this type of inflammatory language is probably not all that productive for a constructive debate on ed policy issues. And we could’ve done without the derogatory remarks, but it’s a vicious cycle isn’t it? And Mr. Julian isn’t doing much to break it either. I find it telling that he doesn’t even address some of the points raised by said teacher and even stoops to that same level. Is this even an appropriate response?
Beneath some of the ranting, I think the “teacher” made some valid points worth addressing. For one thing, if in fact these teachers and principals are well-meaning and hardworking, as Mr. Julian concedes, then at what point are things going wrong? Is it just simply a cut and dry question for their competence or is there some fundamental, systemic constraint on their abilities to execute their jobs to the best of their potential? And as to the Moby Dick/Great Gatsby debate, I can sympathize with both sides and I won’t deny that literature is transformative in its own way. But I think the point the teacher brings to the table is entirely valid “on the ground” one. How do you teach difficult (and let’s be honest, sometimes boring) materials to kids who are this far behind? Sometimes, from a pedagogical standpoint, compromises have to be made...to get kids to feel, think, and participate. For those who are academically disengaged, reaching into their real-life trials and tribulations and tying it to “learning” in the classroom—well, it may have potential to yield something...hopefully interest or engagement on some level. Isn’t it likely that this is what the teacher was desperately hoping to find? If so...isn’t it worth trying?
For me personally, I would’ve much preferred to read a further clarification on what Mr. Julian probably meant when he was writing his original piece. I fundamentally agree with him, but certainly there are some things he could’ve addressed. Instead, we get the same type of ad hominem ranting. Isn’t time to cut this juvenile, condescension (the comments on grammar and the marlin to be particularly patronizing) and actually post a response worth reading?
June 30th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Does it get any easier than blaming teachers for problems in schools? You really took the easy way out and deserve the ridicule you receive. Is that really what you get paid to research? I think you are better than that.
Is it really teachers who “weren’t cutting it” when “kids in this school can’t break 1,000″ on the SAT? Those kids unperformed on an aptitude test.
Clearly, the kids in that school are low performing.
Does low aptitude fall on the shoulders of the staff at that high school? If a student cannot read what do you propose an 11th grade English teacher should do? What does your research indicate?
Where does that blame end? All high school teachers? Middle school teachers? Elementary?
Blame for these shortcomings should fall more with parents than anyone else.
Individual teachers see those students for maybe 40 min per day. While there are some terrible teachers out there no one can be expected to perform miracles in 40 minutes on a daily basis.
Blaming parents is not as easy. Everyone had parents and how can we blame everyone? Why not step up your critique a little further and not take the easy way out next time?
June 30th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Mr. Julian,
I’m quite curious to hear your response to the comments I left on your initial “Hard Times” post. While I don’t feel I was particularly skewered in your review, I do think your observations about the content I was teaching lack insight and context; of course, in a two-hour film, you can only get so much context, so I provided it for you with my response in the comments section of said post.
While it’s low-hanging fruit to pick apart the mechanics of an obviously agitated blogger, I think it’s fair to say that you are simply deflecting from the real point he (and I) hinted at: What kind of hands-on teaching experience in similar environments do you have, and how does it qualify you to speak with authority on what constitutes effective teaching practices?
I’d very much appreciate an answer to that because it will allow me to get a bit of insight and context regarding your opinions. More importantly, it’ll help me as I continue to “review” your work.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
sigh
June 30th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I’m not really one to post comments and feel somewhat silly responding for a second time but I confess I’m a bit steamed. You say we missed your point, cause we seem to you a humorless bunch, but it wasn’t really about that. Humor’s great. But what you call “funny,” comes off very patronizing. Hurrah for your polished, witty turns of phrases but where’s the substantive defense of your piece? I understand the instinctive need to address your critics and rigorously defend yourself (as you should), but you lash out at what you perceive to be insults. They’re not. It’s questions we have about your argument that you never sufficiently answered...either in your first post or in the update.
If you mean for this to be a genuine forum, and not just a free-for-all for your own witty amusement, what I had wanted to see in your update was YOUR answers to questions that others better articulated for that blogger. You didn’t and that was the point. What you skewered as gross violations of grammar and literary ignorance shouldn’t automatically invalidate someone’s opinion. You’re entitled to bring those things up to question someone’s credibility but you left off the part when you get to address some of the things he brought up. It’s called a debate.
By all means, use your wit and pen as your power to persuade but next time (just a suggestion), take issue with your critics’ actual charges and don’t focus solely on the peripheral issues. Debates are never this simple; it’s complicated, messy with emotions, and definitely not black and white. I’d like some acknowledgment of that from you with lots of that humor you promised and minus the glib, snark.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:47 am
I agree that Section 3-B applies in this case: If you call a blogger a vulgar name, he has a right to mock your inappropriate use of apostrophes and inability to distinguish between a fish and a marine mammal.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
The offer is still outstanding, but if you try your hand at teaching in an inner city school, please, please,please, don’t bring rule Section 3-B.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:41 am
This post has won an official ASEB award.
Click here for more details:
http://modestmeliorism.blogspot.com/2008/07/awful-state-of-education-blogging-3.html
July 1st, 2008 at 10:15 am
I’m torn because on the one hand I love a good flame war and on the other the point still stands that in your post you say you have all these critics (i.e. “the teachers”) and you respond only to this guy, who’s failure is apparent from a quick glance at his site. There’s a distinction between this guy and other people who might have taken issue with your NRO article without calling you names and bungling sophomore-level English. You could have done both - danced around and kicked this guy while responding appropriately to your more responsible critics’ rationale.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I believe you all are overlooking the admittedly subtle humor present in Mr. Julian’s post. I almost missed this ironic gem myself whilst wading through the turgid prose surrounding it...
“especially in an education-policy world where stolidly and solemnity rules”
Simply wonderful. It takes a real sort of genius to pen a lengthy screed on proper grammar and then undo it all with one use of an adverb when a noun was required. So postmodern. I love it.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Ah, stolidity, it should be. Hoisted by my own petard, Neil!
July 1st, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Mr. Julian,
“Hard Times at Douglass High shows that troubled urban schools can succeed only if they’re staffed by competent people. In urban education, good intentions alone will not yield good results.”
There is nothing more unnerving than the mechanic who attempts to perform heart-surgery. As a seventh-year teacher in the public school system, I must say that I find your irreverence for the scope of my profession quite offensive. This is not a game, Mr. Julian! American education is in trouble; suburban and urban. NCLB has been fuel to the fire because our POLICY MAKERS are not educators! For you to condense the culpability of this massive issue down to one minuscule group of people shows your lack of preparedness. You should not have written your article without further research…you deserve to be torn a fresh asshole due to your pompous oversight.
There is a recipe that one should follow when engaging in the proper education of a child: parents, community, school, and policy makers. Please notice that I listed four components…four…like the number of tires it takes to support a car. It’s a machine. What would happen to your journey if one or more of those components were faulty?
I viewed that documentary, and I saw a lot more than good intentions in the works. There were plenty of competent educators who were featured on Hard Times. As an individual who has never taught, I find it rather presumptuous of you to evaluate something you know nothing of. Please keep in mind that we need solutions in order to fix this mess…people who are able to view the “big picture,” and that picture boils down to this…policy, policy, and MORE policy; after policy…parents, parents, and MORE parents; after parents…environment…THEN, maybe THEN are we able to look at what I am able to offer in the classroom.
Sincerely,
Ms. Friendly
http://www.msfriendly.wordpress.com
August 24th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I just now stumbled upon this discussion, and so it’s possible that no one will actually read this comment, but I find it necessary to respond to one of Mr. Julian’s statements. In my post that Mr. Julian linked to, I did not say that black students should not read books by white authors containing white characters. I said that black students reading such literature will not address the underlying issues affecting our public education system. Students reading The Great Gatsby, as long as it’s made relevant by drawing connections to students’ experiences, is perfectly appropriate.
The mistake regarding Hemingway/Melville was indeed ignorant on my part, but to suggest that because of such an error that I know “next-to-nothing about grammar or literature”and that I should not be in charge of classrooms of kids is not respectful at all. It’s insulting to me and to any other teacher who has stepped in front of a classroom of kids and faced that immense challenge head-on. If Mr. Julian had spent any time trying to teach a classroom of kids like those at Douglass High, perhaps he would truly respect that.