School Work

There used to be a tradition among Princeton alumni to be coy about where we went to college. If the subject came up, we’d say something like “I went to school in New Jersey,” because merely admitting the fact that we’d attended Princeton could be seen as boasting.

I’ve lately come to wonder why attending an elite university is considered something one might boast about. It’s not as if I worked harder than my high school classmates in order to earn my spot at Princeton — if anything, I slacked off more than I should have. I simply was endowed with some character traits that made me more likely to get in: a capacity to absorb and retain information, an ability to write convincingly, and a knack for test-taking. I didn’t strive to acquire any of those competencies; I just had them. So what is there to be proud of?

So much of our social structure is built on the idea that anyone who works diligently enough can achieve success. In many cases, I’m sure that’s true — there are plenty of people who work hard and are rewarded for it. But there are just as many people who work hard and are not rewarded, and then there are those few who are rewarded without having to work at all. Some of these different outcomes result from racism, classism, and other forms of discrimination, but it seems obvious that most of the differences are the product of simple chance: Some people come into the world more athletic than others, some more cerebral, some more aggressive, some more intuitive. Whether such traits are the result of nature, nurture, or a combination of both doesn’t matter — the fact is that the people who have them have done nothing to earn them.

I recently saw a documentary about Ava Gardner, who was a popular movie star in the 1940s and ’50s. She was the daughter of impoverished North Carolina sharecroppers, and had no thought of modeling or acting, but she was offered a contract at MGM simply because a talent scout had been stunned by a framed photo of her in a portrait photographer’s window. It’s said of her that after becoming a star, she worked hard to become an actress. (I’ve heard the same thing said of Marilyn Monroe.) But she never would have had the reason or opportunity to do that work — at which, by all accounts, she succeeded — if it hadn’t been for her extraordinary beauty. That beauty wasn’t acquired; she was born with it.

I try to imagine a society in which people are rewarded not for qualities that they have by random chance, but for what they’ve done to advance from the place where they started. I don’t think such a thing would be possible, since there’s no objective way to measure effort or sacrifice. I do know that when I taught digital arts courses at a community college, I made it clear that students who appeared to have a natural talent for art or design would not be given any advantage over those who didn’t. Everyone would be evaluated only for their ability to master and apply the specific skills I taught in my class. Other art teachers took the opposite approach — for them, the important thing was the overall quality of a student’s work, since that’s what would matter in the professional world. But I couldn’t reconcile myself to grading students according to criteria that — at least, in part — they had no control over.

I like to think that in a just world, my spot at Princeton would have been given to someone who worked harder than I did to get there. They probably would have made more of the opportunity than I did. I’m not saying that my time there was wasted — I contributed a lot to the Princeton community, and a Princeton education contributed a lot to me — but I’m sure that would be equally true of almost anyone who got the chance to be a student there. These days, if I’m reticent to say where I went to college, it’s not necessarily to avoid sounding like I’m boasting, but more likely to avoid giving the impression that I was especially worthy.

Read Me 3 comments

Fetch

Not long after I’d acquired the minimal necessary reading and math skills, my father introduced me to line graphs. He showed me how a line projected from the X-axis intersected with a line projected from the Y-axis to form a data point, and how those data points could be connected by line segments to show a trend. I loved the idea that numbers could be converted into elegant drawings that would then reveal hidden information.

My father gifted me with a stack of graph paper, and I asked him for some data to graph. He complied by giving me paired lists of measurements: temperature changes by date, sales figures by month, population growth by year. In those pre-internet days, those sorts of statistics were difficult to come by, so he simply made up the numbers. I didn’t care. I delightedly graphed all of the information he gave me, presented him with the finished graphs, and then asked him for more numbers.

After a few days of inventing data sets and handing them over, he apparently began to regret what he had started. “You know,” he said finally, “you don’t need me to keep supplying you with data. You can make up the numbers yourself.”

I was crestfallen. Here was yet another instance of my father just not getting it. What possible joy could there be in graphing numbers that I’d concocted on my own? The whole point was to take data that was given to me in one form, convert it into another form, and hand it back in its improved state. If I was going to randomly invent numbers and graph them, I might as well skip the first phase altogether and simply draw random line segments on graph paper.  Without a sense of purpose, the task was meaningless.

In retrospect, I can’t blame my father for wanting relief from having to generate all of those figures. I’m surprised that he was initially willing to do it at all. Nevertheless, his abdication ended my interest in graphing, and my remaining supply of graph paper went unused.

In the sixty or so years since then, I can’t claim to have changed much. I’m still really content only when someone gives me creative work to do or problems to solve. Not only do I get the reward of making someone else happy; I also get to learn new things along the way. That’s why I continue to seek out work even in retirement, even if I don’t get paid for it. I’m like the dog who approaches with pleading eyes and a stick in his mouth, begging you to throw it so he can run and retrieve it. The dog isn’t about to toss the stick himself and then bring it back — what would be the point of that?

People are surprised that I carry my laptop with me when I travel, and that I happily tap away at it whether I’m on the deck of a cruise ship or in a booth at an English pub. Make no mistake, the middle of the ocean or the middle of London are two of my favorite places to be. But it’s never enough just to be in an environment; I have to do something while I’m there, and why not do the thing that gives me pleasure and makes me feel useful?

I seem to be in the minority in this regard. When I taught digital arts courses at Chabot College, I used to pride myself on coming up with unusual and challenging assignments for my students, such as “Create a still life using only two of the three primary colors,” or “Take an ordinary snapshot of a person and transform it into a glamour portrait.” No student likes to be confronted with a difficult exercise, so I tried to explain that I was actually giving them a gift. “Everything I’ve ever learned in my professional life,” I would say, “has come from figuring out ways to complete tasks that I was hired to do, in a way that would satisfy my clients, using whatever resources I had at my disposal. So what I’m offering you is an opportunity — an opportunity to learn.” I don’t think many of my students were convinced.

For me, at least, solving an assigned problem is the only way to learn. In cases where I don’t have a client telling me what to do, I have to invent one. For many years, I had to assign myself the project of creating something that could be called “art,” for a discerning client known as the annual faculty show at the campus art gallery.  And each summer, when I was preparing to teach new material in my fall courses, I would give myself an assignment that would require me to master new skills, such as “Use elementary JavaScript to create a virtual game of Whack-a-Mole” or “Construct a series of three-dimensional household objects using Adobe Illustrator.” The imaginary client in these cases would be my students, who would be ill-served if I tried to teach them skills that I wasn’t myself proficient in.

For this blog, you, the reader, are my client, and my task is to regularly find something to say that you’ll find unusual and interesting. Every time I’m able to finish one of these posts, it’s because I’ve summoned up a mental picture of you throwing a stick.

Read Me 5 comments

Monkeys, Apes, and Lunatics (2)

(Part two of two)

So-called “gifted and talented” programs have lately come under fire for their inherent racism and classism. No matter what criteria are used to determine eligibility, they tend to underrepresent (or exclude entirely) children of color and children who don’t receive educational support at home. Not surprisingly, the More Able Learners (MAL) cohort of which I was a member was 100 percent white and middle class. (Of course, this was in the 1960s, when “diversity, equity, and inclusion” was not a phrase that was yet in anyone’s vocabulary.)

When we look critically at exclusionary groups like the MAL program, we tend to concentrate (rightly) on the harm done to those who are excluded. But it’s also worth noting the negative effects on the people who are included. Spending our school days, year after year, with the same small group of students meant that we never developed relationships with the others who attended our school — not only those of other races and classes, but even those whose backgrounds were similar to ours, but who had not been given the same rich and intense educational experience that we had. We were set apart, ignored by most students and resented by others.

To be honest, I spent my first few years unaware that this was a problem. I had always been different, even within my own family, so social isolation was the norm for me. But within our class there was a mounting sense of discomfort. Spending our formative years in an unchanging social environment was taking a toll on our emotional development. We were getting on each other’s nerves. Some of us were exhibiting behavioral problems, or were paying less attention to our schoolwork. By the time we were in sixth grade, a school psychologist was visiting our class twice a week to talk with us, leading hour-long sessions that can only be described as group therapy. It began to dawn on me that being special was not all it was cracked up to be.

Our isolation was eased a bit when we got to junior high school (which, in our district, comprised seventh, eighth, and ninth grades). Outside of core subjects such as English, math, and science (in which MAL students were still a year ahead of our peers), we began to take classes with students from outside our program. We were, however, still geographically segregated — confined to a single school, which, in this case, was the less popular and less “cool” of our district’s two junior high schools. A couple of students actually dropped out of the MAL program so that they could be transferred to that other school. By all reports, they remained regret-free about their decision.

Our participation in this grand educational experiment ended when we entered tenth grade. At that time, students from both junior high schools were funneled into our district’s single high school, and the MAL designation was lifted entirely. We were suddenly normal, HR-level students, randomly mixed with other classmates from the school’s 3,000-student population.

For me, that initial encounter felt like what I imagined an anthropologist might experience when exploring an unknown culture. The conventionally-educated students seemed happy and well adjusted, with a thriving social network. They all seemed to know each other. So far as I could tell, they were as smart, capable, and imaginative as any of us in the MAL program. They still could do a geometric proof or dissect a fetal pig, even if they’d done those things a year later than I had. Not having read the Great Books, studied Impressionist art, or seen Marilyn Horne perform at the Metropolitan Opera didn’t seem to have damaged them at all.

I was in the familiar position of being on the outside looking in, but what I was looking at now was an alternate-universe vision of myself — the person I possibly could have been.

I don’t know whether the problem was with the MAL program itself, or whether it just interacted badly with my particular cohort. My sister, three years behind me, was herself admitted to MAL, and she didn’t seem to suffer any ill effects. (Unknown to me, she copied a term paper that I’d written in eighth grade, turned it in to the same teacher, and got a better grade on it than I had.) A few years later, the program was quietly dropped, although I have no idea whether it was for educational, social, or budgetary reasons.

Ever since then, however, I’ve strongly believed that what you learn is not nearly as important as the circumstances in which you learn it. Students who have been made to feel comfortable with who they are, who develop within a social environment based on mutual respect and the belief that everyone has a role to play in their community, are better prepared to make use of whatever education they receive.

Read Me 5 comments

Monkeys, Apes, and Lunatics (1)

(Part one of two)

One morning when I was in the second grade, I was unexpectedly excused from class and introduced to a school psychologist, who asked me to walk with him to his office. I still have a vivid memory of that walk, during which the psychologist first made some small talk (to the extent that one can make small talk with a seven-year-old) and finally brought up the reason for our meeting.

“Who do you think is the smartest person in your class?” he asked.

“Me!” I said. (Modesty was a concept to which I’d not yet been introduced.)

The psychologist seemed to agree. He told me that there existed a special program for the school district’s most gifted students, and his task that day was to decide whether I would be placed in that program beginning in third grade. In his office, he interviewed me and administered an IQ test, which I breezed through. (I was always a good taker of standardized tests.) I was then returned to my second-grade classroom, where I resumed my role as an ordinary student while inwardly picturing myself as a ruler of the world.

The special program was called “More Able Learners,” usually referred to as MAL (pronounced as the initials M–A–L, not as the acronym “Mal,” although its association with words such as “maladjustment” and “malpractice” should have been warning signs). It was still in an experimental stage, having been launched, if I remember correctly, just a couple of years before.

The Farmingdale, Long Island school district already had a tracking system — an arrangement that’s increasingly controversial today, but was standard educational practice when I entered school in the 1960s. Students were placed in separate tracks, with different curriculums and often different teachers, according to their assessed level of academic potential. I don’t know how these tracks were identified in elementary schools, but by the time a New York student reached high school, we knew our assigned track by the label HR (for “Honor Regents),” R (for just plain “Regents,”) or G (for “General Education”). Under that conventional system, I presumably would have been placed in the HR track.

The new MAL program — to which I was admitted shortly after my session with the psychologist — was different. Unlike the traditional system, in which students followed a track within their neighborhood school, all MAL students in a given grade were gathered into a single classroom in one designated school, regardless of where they lived. This same group of 20-odd students would remain together for the rest of our public-school careers, being taught advanced subjects by specially trained teachers, progressing from grade to grade in our own protected bubble.

From the time I met my MAL classmates at the start of third grade, we were continually reminded that we were special. Not only would we move through conventional academic subjects at an accelerated pace — for example, beginning foreign-language classes in third grade, algebra in sixth, biology in seventh — but we would also be exposed to subjects that other students were not, such as an intensive study of the “Great Books.” We were considered to be ideal guinea pigs for emerging instructional techniques such as programmed learning, in which specially devised workbooks (with the answers included) allowed individual students to master a subject at their own pace. Our teachers had an unusual degree of autonomy, and exercised a good deal of creativity, in determining how to use our time in the classroom.

MAL classes were the perfect environment for a curious and inventive student like me. Within the first two years, I contributed editorial cartoons to a class-produced newspaper, built and performed with a ventriloquist’s dummy whose head was made from a shoebox, wrote an award-winning civics essay, and composed a short piece of music that our music teacher later played on the piano. Taking full advantage of our proximity to New York City, our teachers took us on field trips to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Natural History, to a swanky French restaurant (where we, of course, ordered our lunch in French), and on a Circle Line boat tour around Manhattan. We discussed world events such as the move of Brazil’s capital to the custom-built city of Brasilia, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, and the war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

But the academic and intellectual benefits of MAL came at a price. Because each of us was being bused to a school in another part of the district, we lost our connection with the other kids in our own neighborhoods, and we spent our weekdays in a building whose other occupants were strangers to us. In those situations when we had to mix with non-MAL students — in phys ed classes, at lunch, or at recess — relations were icy. A few socially adept classmates managed to make friends, but the rest of us lived as misfits. We were thought to be stuck up, weak, nerdy — in other words, different, which among young students constitutes a social death sentence. The joke among the normally-tracked students was that the initials M–A–L stood for “monkeys, apes, and lunatics.”

(To be continued in part 2)

Read Me 4 comments

Because I Said So

Our fourth-grade teacher must have been friends with another fourth-grade teacher in another town. That’s the only reason I can think of why each of us was assigned a penpal in the other teacher’s class. My penpal was named Paul, and I remember nothing about him. I wrote to him because I was supposed to, and he wrote back to me because he was supposed to.

Toward the end of the school year, our teachers arranged a special treat: The penpals would get to meet! In preparation for the grand event, we were assigned to prepare a lunch box labeled with our penpal’s name, and to decorate it with complimentary adjectives starting with their first initial. Naturally, I hit the dictionary in order to come up with as long a list of “P” words as I could: patient, peaceful, perky, personable, perspicacious….

My teacher inspected the lunch box and told me that one of the adjectives — pathetic — would have to go.

“Why?” I said. “The dictionary says that pathetic means ‘deserving of pity.’ Why wouldn’t he deserve pity?” I imagined that if Paul broke his arm, I would say something like, “Poor Paul! It must really hurt,” to which my teacher would respond by snarling, “No! Don’t pity him! He doesn’t deserve it!”

I’d hate to be the teacher who had to explain to a fourth-grader the subtle difference between pity and compassion. Fortunately, I’m not that teacher — but then again, neither was my actual teacher, who engaged in her usual mode of problem-solving: “Don’t argue. Just get rid of the word pathetic.”

It’s understandable that in many situations, adults may lack the time, patience, or even the ability to explain sophisticated concepts to kids. That’s why every child eventually becomes resigned to hearing the all-purpose response, “Because I said so.” But I can still feel the sense of anger and helplessness that came from being deprived of an explanation.

When I was a third-grader, I won a contest by writing an essay about how great the American system of government was. (This was at a time when such sentiments were still expressed without irony or embarrassment.) I remember highlighting the idea that American citizens govern themselves by saying, “If the people want a road around Lake Whozit, the people get a road around Lake Whozit!” My prize for rhetorical gems like these was that I got to read the essay aloud to a school assembly.

Shortly before the public reading, my teacher told me that she needed to make a slight revision in the essay. It was in the section where I talked about the three branches of the federal government. I had written, “The Congress makes the laws, the Supreme Court makes sure the laws are constitutional, and the President carries out the laws.” She rearranged the sentences to say, ““The Congress makes the laws and the President carries out the laws. The Supreme Court makes sure the laws are constitutional.”

That seemed like a crazy revision. First of all, her phrasing wasn’t nearly as elegant as mine. But more important, her rewrite seemed to say that the Supreme Court determines whether a law was constitutional after it had been carried out. To me, it was evident that the system couldn’t possibly work that way. Surely the president wouldn’t want to enforce a law before knowing whether it was constitutional. If things really worked in the backwards order that the teacher was suggesting, then it was a stupid system, and why would I want to boast about it in an essay?

When I told the teacher that she must be mistaken, she assured me that she wasn’t, and that I should read the essay in the way that she had revised it. I did, but without nearly as much enthusiasm as the line about Lake Whozit.

Nobody clarified for me that judicial review was not called for in the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court rules on a law’s constitutionality only if someone challenges the law in court and the challenge works its way up through the appeals process. Again, I can understand why — that’s a pretty complicated thing to try to explain to an eight-year-old. But I was left with the embarrassment of having to read an essay aloud that I supposedly had written, but that I didn’t fully understand or stand behind.

I have no children of my own, and the classes I’ve taught have all been at the college level, so I’ve had fewer situations than most adults in which I’ve had to resort to saying “Because I said so.” I’ve still had to hear it, though — usually when I’ve asked a customer service representative why the company had done something unconscionable, and the representative replies, “Because that’s our policy.” It still makes me as angry now as it did when I was a child.

Read Me 3 comments