Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Spirit of adventure

The hullabaloo over the rescue of 16-year-old Abby Sunderland during her failed attempt to sail solo around the world tells a lot about our current culture.

I’m amazed at the number of people who have condemned this family for allowing the girl to make the attempt. Personally, I salute them for inculcating the spirit of adventure in their children.

Abby and her circumnavigating brother obviously grew up sailors and as teenagers are more capable than the vast majority of adult sailors. Yes, they don’t have a lot of experience. Or, they didn’t. They do now.

Teenagers have been embarking on arduous adventures since time immemorial. Why shut that off now, when technology and equipment actually make such endeavors safer than ever?

Of course she was at risk; she could have died. The ocean is an uncaring and sometimes cruel mistress. But youth is made for adventure. Sometimes it goes awry and a young person dies. Of course that’s terribly sad. But it’s not irresponsible in the way it might be for a family man who has responsibilities to a wife and child to risk his life for thrills.

We need more can-do spirit, not more hand-wringing, risk-averse ninnies, more people pursuing their passions and fewer sitting on the couch. Hats of to the Sunderlands. Long may they sail!

Jim Cornelius, Editor

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Fix it or watch it die

Watching the nightmarish news from the Gulf of Mexico day in and day out, I am struck by how fitting a metaphor the massive oil spill is for the budgetary hemorrhage that is afflicting the Sisters School District and districts all across Oregon.

It’s abundantly clear by now that nobody really has any idea how to fix the problem in the gulf. Try this, try that, hope something works. Meanwhile, the oil keeps flowing and the worst-case scenario keeps getting worse.

I’m beginning to doubt that anybody knows how to fix public education funding, either — or at least there is no consensus and no will to do so. Meanwhile, we’re in the middle of our “rainy day,” we’ve already “fallen off the cliff” — whatever image you want to conjure to get across the point that things are bad and getting worse.

In the wake of the state economic forecast last month, the Sisters School District is faced with cutting something like $1.2 million from its budget for next year. That’s on top of about $600,000 in cuts that were made this year. And next year there will be more, to tune of another $1.5 million or so.

This year’s cuts probably should be even deeper than they are, if only to reduce the degree of next year’s cuts. But the point is sort of moot; we’re going to have to keep slashing away over the next two or three years. Mitigate the pain a little now, you’ll just feel it later.

Teachers still want to be well compensated for what they do — and believe me, they deserve it. I’ve spent enough time in classrooms to gladly doff my hat to their dedication and skill. I really don’t know how they manage their classrooms and keep their sanity, much less provide good education. I cringe at the thought of making them manage ever-larger classrooms.

So, yes, they deserve good compensation, good benefits. But where does the money come from to pay them? When the cost of labor keeps going up through raises and increased costs of benefits and revenue keeps going down, you’ve got yourself what they call an unsustainable situation.

So, you either freeze or cut compensation or you cut staff. (Cutting days is also a cut to compensation since labor agreements are based on contract days). In Sisters’ case (and everybody else’s) it’s going to end up being some combination of both.

The reality is that our kids will be getting less schooling next year and in the years following, with fewer teachers to teach them in larger classes. It’s going to be really hard to deliver “excellent” education under those conditions.
And nobody really knows what to do about it.

It’s tempting to think that this is a temporary situation that will get better when the economy turns around. But economic turnaround is expected to be slow and laborious and restoring cuts is a long and arduous process. Things aren’t going to look rosy for public schools for a long time — and maybe never, at least under the model we’ve got now.

And that’s where that helpless feeling we get from watching the endless spew from the oil well in the gulf kicks in.

We’ve got a mess and nobody has a fix — at least not one that has broad consensus and an impetus to move forward.

The fix will not lie in increased state funding. While an eventual return to prosperity will take some pressure off, the fundamental structure of education funding can’t get the job done. And there is no political or social will for significant tax increases to adequately fund K-College education. And it’s not clear that increased expenditures equate to better outcomes anyway.

What is needed is radical reform in the very nature of public education, redefining what it is and what it does.

Here are some basic and general ideas that I believe must be seriously considered:

• Public schools should focus on core competencies. Those must be narrowly and rigorously defined — not necessarily readin,’ writin’ and ’rithmatic, but some clearly laid out program of fundamentals that can be delivered in a cost-efficient manner.

• Public-private partnerships should be formed to deliver other high-value educational components, from sports to arts to career-related experience.

Schools are eventually going to have to offload sports into some sort of club structure that may affiliate in spirit with a school, but which carries its own infrastructure. Arts, drama, music and other programs might be delivered in school, but not by school-funded personnel. To be effective, this would require some means of allowing non-credentialed mentors/instructors to teach in fields of expertise.

By saying this, I am not downplaying the value of qualified teachers in these areas. Jody Henderson and Mike Baynes have to be at the top of any list of teachers who have touched students’ lives in profound ways. You have to keep people like these in play. The question is, how can you fund their positions? Perhaps they work for a foundation, not for a school district.

Non-profits with interest in development in the arts or in business or science and technology can access funding streams outside the state school funding matrix.

• Maximize the delivery of Web-based instruction. The failure of the Sisters Web Academy should not tarnish the image of Web-based education — the families who used the curriculum universally loved it. Home schooling and Web-based education has demonstrated that learning at a high level can be conducted with much greater efficiency through the use of technology.

• Merit pay. Nobody calls it that anymore because it’s such a hot button issue, but whatever you call it, you have to pay for quality, not seniority.

• I really don’t know how you efficiently manage special education and other special needs. Each situation is so individualized that it’s hard to generalize a “policy” for allocation of resources. My family was immersed in this issue for decades and there are no easy answers.

I believe that it is important to maximize the potential of every child, whether its a high-achieving high flier or a child who struggles to overcome disabilities or just an average kid. The question is, in a streamlined public education format that acknowledges limited resources, where are special needs children best served?

I don’t have that answer, but the question must be asked.

Change of any kind is scary and nobody wants their own ox gored. But it’s evident to me that public education is in a terminal crisis. We must either choose to be bold enough to change or watch public education bleed away like a dark cloud of oil flowing into the sea.

Jim Cornelius, Editor