Senate Bill 2309 has recommended raising the graduation requirements for high school students. While I believe it is a necessary step forward, I also believe that it doesn't go nearly far enough. The ugly truth about North Dakota education is that we grew complacent at the top. We pride ourselves on how many students go on to college. We never mention that about half of our college students drop out. We need to either better prepare our students for college or guide them into something a bit more realistic.

Senate Bill 2309 takes the required credits for graduation from the current 21 up to 22 in the 2009-2010 school year and then up to 24 in the 2010-2011 school year. There are many problems with this approach. One of them is that many schools increased minimum graduation requirements already.

To put this in perspective, consider that the typical North Dakota school has 7 periods and that the typical student takes 4 years to finish high school. By the end of that time, the student could conceivably obtain 28 credits. If he receives fewer, this is because he has chosen to take some study halls. Under the current requirements, this means that a student could take 6 classes a day and 1 study hall for one year, and then take 5 classes a day and 2 study halls for the next 3 years.

In our defense, I will note that few schools allow this. I did work in one, but that school did not value academics and I am no longer employed there. Many schools, like my current one, take the approach of requiring a minimal number of credits to graduate, but then limiting students to 1 study hall per day. It accomplishes the same goal, even if it doesn't look as impressive on paper.

Even at 1 study hall per day, I really question the value of study halls. Are they the best use of students' time? I might discuss that another day.

What Senate Bill 2309 does not do is state what those credits should be. This is where it does not go far enough. The original version of the bill did so, but this raised the ire of schools which claimed that they could not meet the requirements. This has been set aside for further study. I really hope to see some action in the 2009 legislature. (North Dakota only meets once every 2 years.) I will talk about this in my next blog.

Last night, I was correcting papers online. I allow electronic submission, so there you are. The power went off. It was no surprise due to the howling wind and the driving snow and ice. It was disappointing because it meant I'd be getting up early to do it. This was ameliorated somewhat because I couldn't find a candle or flashlight and had to go to bed early.

Today, school was canceled. Apparently, the roads in the area are impassible and the visibility, outside of town, is down to about 0.

When I was a kid I liked snow days. Now, I only like them if we're in a stretch of the year with no vacation days for a few months. This was not the case with Easter coming up. Also, I'm not behind on my work, so I don't want the extra day to catch up.

So how have I used my day off? Well, I corrected those papers. I read an issue of National Review. I listened to Rush Limbaugh. I did my evening news reading. Tonight I will finish cleaning my house, a project that was not on the agenda until Sunday. (I'm strange because accomplishing something, especially non-school, makes me feel rested.)

I have an opportunity to get ahead on my work, and I probably will a bit. I'm not going to go too far, though. I just caught up from 2 days of meetings in Bismarck, a speech meet, and an unexpected sick day (second of my career). These were late nights and I want some rest. Maybe Sunday?

Meanwhile, there is that day of school I'll be making up sometime this spring....

No, I did not do anything strange with electricity.

In North Dakota, SADD (Students Against Destructive Decisions) has been pushing for a 1-penny tax on beer. The claim is that this tax will be used to fight alcohol and drugs. Because the legislature has not responded as desired, SADD is now circulating a petition in the hope of collecting 15,000 signatures.

Today I was approached by two different students to sign it. One was so shocked when I refused that he simply said, "OK." This is a student who is never silent and never at a loss for words. The other tried to discuss it with me, but my thinking was so foreign to her that she just couldn't process it.

With students, I'm careful with what I say. I essentially gave her the libertarian argument and the hypocrisy argument. I told her that I don't think that the state should have a role in this. (I'm actually not quite that libertarian, but my reasoning was based on my econd argument.) I have a large problem with the government using these "sin taxes" as a cash cow. The reason is that the government will want to keep the taxes coming. Because of that, they don't dare tax the industry into oblivion. Nor do they dare fight too hard against these industries.

The perfect example of this is the recent tobacco settlement. This was a much-touted attempt to hold the cigarette companies accountable for their product. The truth was that it actually was a lawyer-benefit program. More sinister, it was actually good for the cigarette companies because they saved quite a bit of money with it when compared to the court cases they could have fought. States were seduced by all that tobacco money being waved under their noses. The net result is that the cigarette companies are doing just fine and are protected against any of the legitimate grievances there may have been.

Now, these two students are quite idealistic, nice kids. To them, this legislation is nothing more than a way to help keep people away from tobacco and drugs. With idealists, and high school students especially, I'm kind. My arguments amounted to the above and an affirmation of support for SADD. I might even be willing to give  a private donation to the organization.

What follows are my more extreme views. I've offended a few people with some of this!

My first question is who benefits from this money? Is it truly just an idealistic search for money to help prevent alcohol and drugs? Or, is it a search for job security? There is a bureaucracy both public and private that makes its living off anti-drug programs. (And I'm not speaking of drug treatment or rehabilitation.)

They come up with clever slogans or images. What they don't do is tell the scary truth. One scary movie I can think of is Lost Weekend. This movie is scary. First there is the depiction of the lengths an alcoholic will go to for his fix (and to lie and manipulate family and friends). It starts almost humorous and builds to immoral and criminal. Then there is the depiction of the Detox Ward and the main character's experiences with the DTs. I'm getting goosebumps now just remembering it.

Others are The Man with the Golden Arm or Days of Wine and Roses. These are quite frankly scary. The advertisements we see are not. I might even suggest some experience that I've had as a volunteer EMT. There is nothing quite so shocking as seeing a 16-year-old girl at a party with college kids who get alcohol poisoning. There is also nothing like spending an hour in an ambulance with a man who is vomitting blood and going through the DTs. That is scary and it is real.

My next question is who is in SADD. There are a lot of good, idealistic kids in SADD. However, like any organization, there are a number for whom it is cover, a chance to be with friends, or something to pad a college application. Consider the red sash worn in the book 1984 which was a symbol of membership in the Anti-sex league. Julia, a main character, proudly wore it and quickly discarded it and her clothing with any available man. It was cover.

I am also troubled by the use of students to collect signatures like this. Most of them cannot vote. Most of them are idealistic and excited to be involved in a "noble cause" and have been led into this without really thinking it through. Although I have no problem with idealism and find this a lot more harmless than many causes, it does sadden me to see youth manipulated this way.

Finally, I think that SADD and many of these other groups tend to miss the point. I recall an often-mocked advertisement from my childhood where a father confronted his son with drugs he had found in his room and said, "Where did you learn this stuff?" The son responded, "I learned it by watching you, all right?"

Why are kids drinking and doing drugs? Lots of them grow up watching their parents do it. I get almost sick when I think of how many times I've heard my students tell stories about seeing their parents drunk. Also, many parents are too busy to be parents. Their children run freely and get into trouble while their parents are busy with their social or business lives. A child is not a pet to be fed, clothed, and occasionally played with. A child IS a lifestyle.

Parents do need to give their children more freedom with age, but there is something to be said for talking to them about where they went and who they were with. There is something to be said for having them call during the evening. There is even something to be said for a little common sense.  Too many parents have abdicated their responsibility to be a parent. I know it is hard. As a teacher I still have to fight that battle against wanting to be liked.

Divorce is a huge part of the problem. Modern technology and transportation are another pat of it. There is so much out there to destroy kids. Immature parents simply make it easier.

I will not be signing this petition. I have my "nice" reasons that I share with students, and then I have my scarier reasons that I talked about on this blog. If any of my students are reading this...well, now you have "the rest of the story."

This week I was invited to Bismarck to join an 8-person panel that was reviewing the alignment between the state science standards and the state science test. Four of us were teachers in North Dakota and four were from out of state.

The process we went through gave us an opportunity to review the standards in detail. I had a few thoughts as I reviewed them. I cannot claim sole credit for these thoughts. They are a mixture of my thoughts and that of others in the group.

• Our standards are written at quite a low intellectual level.
• Too many benchmarks are poorly written: they do not say what they were meant to say.
• There are several key areas missing from the standards.
• There is not enough specific science content. (This is my criticism.) There is too much on processes of science.

Does this mean that writing the standards was a waste of time? No. We set a base. We have a first set of standards that we can build on.

More importantly, we have an achieveable set of standards. American education isn't ready for true science standards. This is a good minimum level that we can work on reaching. It will give us a foundation. From there, we will be ready to move to a higher level. The plans are already in place to do this.

Fordham Foundation criticized us. In part it was deserved. However, Fordham is not aware of the battle we are fighting. They are aware of only what we should be doing.

The other day I posted a long, drawn-out discussion of rebels. Today I want to look at the relationship between rebels and schools.

It has been argue by people on all parts of the political spectrum that our public schools teach conformity. Liberals may say it is conformity to a racist, white culture and conservatives may say it is conformity to a politically correct culture. In either school, the non-conformist will have his individuality crushed out of him.

The truth is that there are too many different teachers for any sort of diabolical conformist culture to take hold in the schools.  Sometimes there is success in one particular school, but, overall, the schools have a wide variety of views in them. When the attempt is made to force conformity, it is resisted.

Most conformity comes from peer pressure and pop culture. These are outside the scope of my discussion today.

What schools should be doing is teaching students to think for themselves. This does not mean valuing every little opinion or juvenile outburst. It means giving students the general knowledge upon which to build opinions and then expecting students to use it.

For example, don't just affirm the student's belief in global warming (or disbelief). Instead, ask why he believes as he does. This is an important part of adult thinking and, indeed, thinking in general. Anyone can have an opinion. An intelligent man can defend that opinion. Please note that none of this implies one particular belief. There are plenty of intelligent people who disagree with me. There are also plenty of "idiots" who agree with me.

In class, we should be teaching this kind of thinking along with the general knowledge. Here are some of my suggestions for doing so. Please note, I have a science and math background, but most of it applies to other areas as well.

• Teach the content. By this I don't mean that students memorize it for the test and then forget it. I mean that they learn it and understand it. Hopefully they can also apply it. Simply memorizing terms and factoids is not an education, though it may be part of one.
• Use the content. In science, I like to do labs and other activities. I'll ask, "Why do you think that happened?" or "What do you think will happen...Why?" In both cases, they do more than simply parrot and answer. They actually have to understand the science and apply it.
• Extend the content. This means applying it somehow, whether in real life or in classroom situations. Often, students can use what they've learned in the classroom setting, but are unable to apply it to the "real world".

Unfortunately, many students choose not to think. Memorization is easier. It is also easier to simply accept a low grade. However, unless they can move beyond this, they will never truly become "rebels." My definition of a rebel is a free-thinker. To be a true rebel is hard. By understanding one's own beliefs, one is more likely to stand up for them. The effort to understand one's own beliefs can also require that some of them be reevaluated or changed.

Schools do not clamp down on non-conforming rebels. However, too many teachers find it easier to teach to the basic level of memorization, not to understanding. This makes it easy for students to never discover that rebel within. Pop culture and too many parents make it seem normal.

Pop culture emphasizes the decorations of the rebel while preaching a conformist message and encouraging the lowest level of thinking. (A topic for another day.) Too many parents want good schools and want students to be challenged, but don't realize that their own local school and complaining student are part of the problem.

Meanwhile, the Internet has provided a new avenue for the rebels to think and to learn. Discussion boards provide a public forum for debate, and blogs provide a way to express thought. I love getting specific feedback, whether in agreement or disagreement. The disagreements show me weaknesses in my argument or else give me insight into another viewpoint. Agreements point out where I'm doing well or else simply parrotting the "party line."  For all the problems it has created, the Internet has provided the ability to get the experiences that school should be giving students.

Let's not confuse surface appearances with being a true rebel. Nor let us confuse someone who is destructive with a true rebel.

In the 1770's, a group of rebels decided to break free of the mold and start a new country. They were rebels because they went against the status quo and had the courage of their convictions.

Consider some other rebels.

Martin Luther opposed the Catholic church in a time when he might have lost his life for this. He fought not out of wanton destruction but, at first, to fix what was wrong, and later, to replace it with something better. Though some of his tactics may have been juvenile or sensational, his rebellion created a new Christian Church and eventually caused necessary reforms in the Catholic church.

Martin Luther King was also a rebel.  Rather than accept discrimination, he fought it. However, he was not just a rebel because he fought discrimination. He also fought those on his own side who favored a more militant or violent approach. He was eventually killed because of his rebellion.

Albert Einstein was a rebel in a totally different way. His life was not at risk because of his rebellion. However, he opposed common scientific thought of his day. The universe was explained with a "clockwork" model.  Deviations from this model were explained as errors in measurement, minor things not yet understood, or something else along those lines. Einstein came up with a radical description of the universe. Many physicists of his day refused to accept it. It did not come to the fore until they were out of the picture.

Many people think they are rebels because they pierce obscure portions of their anatomy or  because they date an alternative gender or wear strange clothes. Others consider themselves rebels because they destroy things or "fight the system."

The accoutrements of rebellion are attractive. One gets to claim expression of individuality. It also often provides a ready excuse for satisfying carnal desires. This may be fighting the system but it is not true rebellion. Sometimes these "rebels" simply find themselves a new group to fit in with. Other times it is simply an excuse for laziness or destruction. Consider the person who thinks he is fighting the system because he vandalizes a building. Or, consider the person who wants to be a rebel because he won't dress appropriately for work.

The true rebel can have any appearance. He may be the oddly dressed one or the one with strange hair. He may also be the one who has a very conventional appearance. George Washington was a rebel, but quite conventional in appearance and, it could be argued, was a member of the larger society.

Rebels are not often appreciated. They are silenced or shut out. Many of them, such as Martin Luther or Einstein, try to work through the accepted norms first. They are often reluctant to turn to outright rebellion. Martin Luther's rebellion came only after many years of soul searching, a trip to Rome, and many attempts to work within established norms of the church to solve the problems he saw.

Another day, I want to talk about the role of schools in rebellion.

I very nearly used an education term as the title for this blog: Curriculum Mapping. I did not because it's one of those "education words" that is unfamiliar  to those who are not teachers. However, my current title describes quite well what I mean.

As we go about reforming education in America, one of the roadblocks has been a lack of communication. Teachers do not know what is taught in the other classrooms. Often, they aren't quite clear on what is even taught in their own classroom!

Schools try to get around this by using a common textbook series. An elementary school might purchase all Saxon Math. This doesn't give any information on what is taught.

Suppose the teachers in a school write down  what they teach on a month by month basis. They may even write down standards. However, just a short summary is a good beginning. Interesting patterns emerge.

In Bismarck, ND the elementary teachers discovered that a student could go through elementary school and study dinosaurs every year, but never learn any chemistry. This would occur just by having a certain series of teachers.

High school teachers were shocked to discover that elementary teachers were assigning research papers. Despite this, they were teaching the process as though it was the first time in high school. There was no building of skills.

The point I am making is that by "mapping" out the curriculum we can discover what we are teaching and what we are missing. Even in small schools such as the one where I teach, we are often unaware of what other teachers do. For example, I was shocked to discover the other science teacher was teaching molarity to her freshmen. I teach it to my Chemistry students. On the other hand (because she is a good teacher) she surprises me with some great projects. We also worked together to develop a common format for lab reports and teaching the scientific method.

Curriculum mapping also provides a great tool for the individual teacher. At the end of the year, I have a concise record of what I taught. I can check against the standards and see what I missed and what I did that was unnecessary. My first experience with curriculum mapping showed me that about 1/2 of my Biology course was a waste of time. I cut out the detailed study of each of the kingdoms and the majority of the phylums. I expanded my study of more important topics: ecology, energy and matter cycles, transport, taxonomy, genetics, evolution, and organic molecules. During the next year I noticed that certain portions of what I had cut were important, so I was able to work them in through the year where they were appropriate.

I am disappointed that my current school is not involved in curriculum mapping. I tried to get an idea what math the students had learned each year so that I knew how to handle it in my classes. I was not able to get a coherent answer. What was interesting to me was that the school had tried curriculum mapping and then dropped it.

One teacher made the comment, "I don't know why we bothered. We did all that work typing it in and then 'poof' it's gone and we do something else." In my discussions with other teachers (and personal experience) this seems to be a common problem. Schools jumped on the curriculum mapping bandwagon without a plan. It was a fad.

Curriculum mapping requires more than filling out the information. It requires that it then be regularly used and reviewed. This rarely happens among teachers. It requires leadership to bring it about. The leaders, in turn, must have an understanding of the process and a plan for its use. If they have implemented it to follow the fad, it will fail.

I've found it useful in my teaching. I really wish it would be done across the school. I talk to teachers about what they do, but this is difficult because they are either sensitive about what they do, secretive, or to busy to discuss it. As difficult as it is for me in a small school, I can see that it would be impossible in a large district.

Accountability is important. Many of us either believe that we are doing an adequate job or else have no concept of the individual areas in which we might be successful (or not successful). The standardized test is a good external check. It is not the only possible check, but today I am not interested in debating the merits of standardized testing.

• Set the cut scores high or low?
• 
  

I say high. We need to set the bar at the level we say it's supposed to be at: mastery of the standards.

However, there are two other factors that play in here. The first is that if we set them too high initially, schools will not reach them. The cut scores will then either be dropped or dismissed as meaningless. The other is that setting the bar too high initially will cause a lot of changes that are not for the better. Teachers need to learn how to teach to the standards. Parents and administrators need to learn that the curriculum is not following and regurgitating a textbook. This takes time. Too often, when tests become a serious issue, schools get into the "test-prep" business rather than the education business. This is also a weakness of Standardized testing.

So, the scores should be high, but we also need to work our way up. I am concerned that states lack the will to raise scores over time. I am also concerned that outside "experts" may pressure for high cut scores without being realistic about how scores are determined and the reality that we need to change the culture in our schools.

We must also remember that a science test is testing more than science. It is testing reading ability and math ability. As we expect more and more of our science students, we must also hope that they are also improving in math and reading. Science scores will not leap ahead in a school of poor readers, no matter how good the science teacher is.

The debate over cut scores at my meeting was quite contentious. There is the natural fear of the humiliation caused by the science department not performing well. There is also the concern that performance is up to students who may not care or who may come from terrible homes. Finally there is the fear of being forced to change.

We discussed American performance relative to other countries. This is done by the TIMSS test. We had teachers who refused to accept the results of that test. The test encompasses all students, not just the top students. One teacher in that room simply said, "I refuse to accept that." TIMSS also investigated how science is taught in different countries. This is valuable and eye opening, but, again, too many just refused to accept it. We will not change if we don't look at how it's done successfully in other countries.

The reality is that American schools are not doing their job. I'm trying to improve and so are many of my colleagues. Many of us know something is wrong but don't know how to fight it. Others of us try to improve things and are stopped by administrators and school boards. We also suffer because there is not a concerted effort in most schools to improve. Leadership is needed.

My hope is that Standardized tests will help "wake up" some of those who have grown complacent or resistant to change. For that reason, I've been involved in writing both the tests and the standards. We need fair tests and we need to teach our students the content on the tests.

Last week, I spent 3 days in Bismarck helping to set the cut scores for the state standardized tests in science. Most of this process is quite open and I'll discuss that part. If there seem to be any holes in my description, it's because those parts of the process are confidential. Since I signed a contract agreeing to confidentiality, I'll be good! For this blog I'll give a straightforward account of the process. Tomorrow (or tonight after my work is done) I'll editorialize.

The process began a few years ago with writing standards for science. There are 8 standards that cover different broad areas of science. Under each of the standards are a variety of benchmarks that are more specific.

The state hired a company (CTB-McGraw-Hill) to assist in the writing of the test. The company went through the standards and then chose questions from their bank of questions that matched up with each benchmark. They then had us go through them and then verify that each question matched a benchmark with at least 1 question per benchmark. The first time we did this part of the process, the match was quite poor, but the second time was a lot better.

The cut score setting process occurs after the students have taken the test once. Since this test is new to North Dakota, the test was taken in the fall of 2006. Many columnists mistakenly believe that these tests are like regular tests: the score is a certain percentage of the questions correct. This is not true because the questions are arranged by difficulty and given certain values on that basis. In addition, there are "statistical tests" items and other questions that ensure a statistically valid test.

However, the cut scores do no come out of the sky. We go through a process.

The first part of the process involved a review of the standards document and marking the difficulty level of each benchmark. I had trouble with this because the view of standards from a teacher's perspective and a test-writer's perspective is different. I view standards as something to be taught to mastery. The test writers rank them on difficulty level. Though it wasn't explicitly said, this part of the process was mostly to ensure all involved were familiar with the standards.

The next part of the process was to take the test. I'm happy to report that I did well.

We then went through another copy of the tests in which the questions were arranged from fewest missed to most missed. We analyzed each question for 2 things: concept tested and the reason more students missed it than the previous item.

The reasons they were missed varied from content to poorly phrased questions to poor reading skills. Some required extremely specific knowledge, but most were actually quite fair in this regard.

We then set "bookmarks" as individuals. This process was left to each of us. We simply placed three bookmarks at 3 different questions. These were the "Partially Proficient", "Proficient", and "Advanced Proficient". We were supposed to bookmark the minimum level for each category. Those below the "Partially Proficient" category were "Novice".  I know that some will attack this terminology because of its obvious bias toward self-esteem. It really doesn't matter because it's actually a 4-point scale like that used by most colleges. Schools want most of their students to be at least "Proficient."

The median cut score for each category was then found. For those of you unfamiliar with math, the median is the middle. Half the scores are above that value and half are below. We then saw how North Dakota would have fared with these cut scores. This is one of those parts I'm not allowed to discuss!

We then had a discussion at our table and repeated the process.

Once again, we looked at how North Dakota students fared on the new cut scores. We then had a group discussion. Because of the heated emotions during that part of the process, we were dismissed and allowed a night to think.

The next day, we had a final discussion with a different table group and then voted a third time.

This was essentially our cut score. There was a "smoothing" process. We had to make sure the scores at each grade level were roughly in agreement.

What is interesting to me is to compare this process to the national process with the NAEP. Unfortunately, it is not published how NAEP comes up with its cut scores. It makes a great club to hammer the states with, but we really don't know where (or if) we're going wrong. The NAEP needs to have an equivalent amount of transparency to its process. This will not affect the rigor of the test.

I'll editorialize on this later.

On Friday I had the opportunity to judge a Speech meet at a fascinating school. This school had two buildings: an elementary school and a high school. Both were built in the 1920's. The high school also had an addition that was built (at a guess..) in the 1950's or 1960's. This blog will not interest everyone. I am attempting to paint a picture in words to show how lack of money affects schools.

I love old schools. They are often quite attractive and show some amazing detail work and architecture. They have a lot of character. I enjoy photographing these buildings. In fact, the two buildings on this campus were in my collection and I'd always wanted to explore them. Here follows my description of these buildings. As you read, consider this: the school is gorgeous, but old. It has not been renovated, and much of the furniture is old and worn. The new addition is quite cheaply made. This school is the way it is because it lacks money. I have mentioned this problem in North Dakota on other blogs. This school is only in as good a condition as it is because in North Dakota our students tend to be kinder to their surroundings than in some inner cities. Also, though there are chair-lifts on strategic staircases, this building is not really ADA compliant and would not easily be made so.

The two buildings were connected by a long underground tunnel (with several turns) that would make a good setting for a horror movie. The janitor's office along this corridor (where I judged one event) would have made an effective dungeon with its crumbling brick walls, darkened arches, and single bulb for light.

At one end of the tunnel was a staircase to the high school proper and a floor-level entrance to the gym. The other end was the cafeteria (a scary basement room) and stairs on either side of it leading into the elementary school. The elementary school had three levels (including the basement). There was an entrance on all four sides of the building. The classrooms inside were large and well lit. One entered them first through an enormous coat room.

The top floor of the elementary school had been made into a library. It had a large stage in the middle of it. Behind the stage was on old science lab that was now a storage room.

The high school was quite a bit more of a maze. In the basement was the gym. It was quite "vintage". It had brick walls (which must make basketball accidents quite interesting). One side had a small stage with interesting plaster work all around it. The other side was the bleachers: simple concrete steps. On either side of the stage was a hallway leading into the newer addition.

The upper levels of the high school tended to twist and turn a bit. Like a modern high school, they were lined with lockers. The doors and woodwork were all original. The classrooms tended to be long and narrow. There was a library and a large classroom that were entered through French doors. A line  by line description would be boring.

From the top floor of the high school, one could exit through what had once been the fire escape into the newer addition. The view was impressive. This stair landing was 3 stories up. On one side was 3 stories of brick wall. On the other side 2 stores of classroom. Facing, at the end of this huge open area, were two and a half stories of glass. The second story hallway was open to the area below along one side. The basement hallway had the two science rooms and the main office.

The science rooms were sad. Part of the problem was housekeeping. This issue can crop up in any classroom (including my own sometimes). However, I then saw ancient textbooks that were still in use. The Biology room was filled with 2-person tables (like mine). However, they were cheap tables and too small: I was unable to fit my legs under them without tipping them over. I am tall, but so are many students. They also forced students to be quite close together. Another foot of width to the tables would have cured this. In the back was a sink and some storage cabinets. This room was inadequate for science.

The other room was much nicer. It was not arranged how I would like it, but was decently equipped with lab tables and equipment. It was all quite old, but the equipment was present. One impressive feature of this room was the presence of a vent hood over every lab table.

I could teach effectively in this school. I could not do my best. A number of things are cosmetic. Simply because something is old does not make it useless. The equipment is there. Unfortunately, a lot of modern equipment is not there. Also, the seating in the Biology room is not adequate.

People will point to schools like this as examples of the importance of adequate funding. They will focus on outside appearances. I would look at books (old), adequacy of facilities, and the ability to maintain the building. I would also look at whether the teachers can make adequate photocopies and where the money is spent.

I don't know exactly where I was headed with this blog. Consider it my text equivalent of a picture page of a fascinating old school.