I remember Physics in high school. I hated it. One might well ask how someone like me who hated Physics ended up with a degree in Physics. The answer is a great professor in college who helped it all come clear.

In high school, we did no labs in Physics. It was all lecture and problems. The teacher made up problems on the spot. He never learned the lesson I did: problems made up on the spot sometimes can't be solved. It's frustrating (especially to a high school student) to work on homework, fail at it, and then discover all that work was for nothing because the problem was insoluble.

This is not a lament about his teaching style. This is a discussion of labs and technology. At that time (1993-1994) computers weren't in our classrooms yet. We had a computer lab full of Apple IIe's. Admittedly, my school was a bit behind the times. He chose not to do any labs, even with stop watches and simple technology that was available.

I never saw what a high school Physics lab of the day could be until I student taught. (I won't discuss college because much more expensive equipment is available at that level.) When I student taught, in fall of 1998, we used tape timers to take readings of motion.

A tape timer sends a ribbon of paper tape underneath an inked hammer. It leaves dots on the ribbon. By measuring the distance between the dots and knowing the period of the hammer, one can calculate displacement, velocity, and acceleration. The problem with these labs was the incredible amount of time required to do a lab. The kids needed that time to measure each pair of dots and run the calculations. When they had bad readings, they didn't know until they did all the work for, sometimes, 100 pairs of dots. It was ugly!

My first time teaching Physics, I didn't have this equipment. I wound up using stopwatches most of the year. Finally I got frustrated enough to borrow some tape timers from a wealthier school nearby.

Fast forward a bit. I moved to a wealthier school and got an incredible grant to buy 30 graphing calculators. In return for this grant, the school bought CBLs and motion detectors for me. Suddenly, I was in heaven.  I could do decent readings of motion. When a student got a bad run, he knew immediately and re-ran the experiment.

The combination of CBL and calculator also gave students a great feel for graphical interpretation. This was actually a step up. My tape-timer students got so lost in tedious calculations that they never got this intuitive feel for motion graphs.

Unfortunately, motion detectors are limited to one dimension, and they don't seem to do so well in reading falling objects.

One year, while teaching projectile motion, it occurred to me to do a lab. I videotaped two students tossing a tennis ball in front of the chalkboard. I then loaded the video into iMovie. Then I advanced it frame by frame and exported each frame as a .jpg file. Then, I loaded the .jpg files into a graphics program called the Gimp. I layered them so that the ball could be seen at each instant as it flew through the air. Finally, I loaded the resulting picture into Geometer's Sketchpad. At that point I realized I had no scale! I was not about to repeat the experiment so I estimated and then plotted points for the ball. After a good 3-4 hours of work, I had a picture and data for my students.



It worked, but what a waste of time. I've reused this picture for a few years now because I have no desire to repeat the time investment. Admittedly, this experiment could not have been done when I was in school.

Technology has moved on. This year I have new software. I can record an experiment with my digital camera, put it on my computer, and just a few minutes later I have something like the above picture. I tried it out this week with a simpler experiment than the above. We dropped a coffee filter and a volleyball. A student stood in the picture with a meter stick so that we could see length. I highlighted the meter stick and then made dots on each frame at the location of the ball and coffee filter. I then had data I could manipulate and use to derive equations.

Now, the ability to study projectile motion from lab data is within the grasp of high school students. The picture below is from the program, but the screen capture I used for this blog didn't show all the dots I made.



My point is that technology is a wonderful thing. Sometimes we make sacrifices. The death of the slide rule destroyed the "intuitive feel" for numbers. This was a sacrifice. However, equipment like that I used in the picture above put the opportunity to work with real data into the hands of high school students. Now, rather than simply work equations, my students can actually see how things work. Furthermore, they can do so with minimal work on my part. After all, the kids should be working, not their teacher!

Earlier this week, I wrote about an article which noted that some states in America are performing better on tests than many European nations. Unfortunately, in the process of writing, I began to think more deeply about the article. By the end of my entry, I was more interested in the lack of true content in the article.

The problem is that these articles are written for a general audience. For the general audience, statistics would cause eye-glazing and a shift to another article. Those who aren't particularly interested in education, except perhaps in a superficial way, won't read something that is too technical.

This ties in with an entry by Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency (EIA). He noted a satirical website called saveourfailingteachers.org. At the bottom of the main page is a link to a Youtube.com video of  a teacher dancing badly to some classic rock. Admittedly, she has ruined the song for me. However, what is missing is the context.

Is this a regular event in her classroom? Perhaps it was an abnormal event. I've done things that would look bad out of context. Perhaps there was even an academic reason. A music teacher I know promised to dye her hair the school colors during homecoming week if she got a certain number of boys in choir. She figured it was a safe bet. Instead, she wound up with purple hair for a week!

Perhaps this teacher had just been through a really productive day with the kids or perhaps she just wanted to shake them up. The point is that it makes a good illustration of a teacher not teaching, but we need to know the story around it.

John Stossel has ben guilty of this. I like him. I often agree with him, even on education issues. He is one of the few people on Townhall.com to recognize the dangers of vouchers. He earns extra kudos from me for raising the ire of the teachers' unions.

Unfortunately, his 20/20 report "Stupid in America" was a bit misleading. It had some good facts in it and I agreed with a lot of its conclusions. What turned me off was all the "theater".

What is the one day of the year when student behavior is at its absolute worst? That would be the last day. He taped "typical" American classrooms on the last day of school and used these as examples of American classrooms.

He also gave a test to both Belgian and American students to show that the Belgian students would outperform the Americans. I would have to rewatch the segment to recall why he picked Belgium. (I have no TV, so this is coming from a motel room memory from some time ago.) However, two small samples don't compare the countries.

What angered me was the American education is weak. However, in his report he did not succeed in illustrating this. He succeeded in offering the unions ammunition to dismiss his report and gave people like me very little to support.

I recognize that television is a visual medium. I also realize that many people watched his report and accepted conclusions that I would like to see accepted. What I don't like was that there was nothing there for someone who wants to reason things out.

This all comes back to education because we are training students who grow into the adults who simply accept the superficial. I horrified one of my Biology classes one day on the topic of global warming. A girl was pointing out that the arctic ice is melting and then started on about how the polar bears were dying. Then she cited a picture she'd seen of a polar bear trapped on a floating chunk of ice.

My response was to ask why anyone cares about one bear. I said it was just an image to tug at people's heartstrings. Then I noted that we have record ice build-up in Antarctica this year and that the polar bear population is actually at a high. Then, I capped it all off by pointing out that, just a few centuries ago, Greenland was farmland. Ice and cold came and drove the farmers out.

Hopefully I've helped them question images a little, but, as sophomores, it's too little, too late.

It's well known that America ranks far below other countries in both math and science education. This is a common thread in both conservative and liberal discussions of education. Usually this is used as support for a desired change. Sometimes the statistics are protested for various reasons.

One thing that these studies rarely seem to look at is how the individual states compare to these countries. The NAEP test has done a good job comparing states to one another. It's no secret that Mississippi and Louisiana are at the bottom of the nation. North Dakota, Minnesota, and Massachusetts rank at the top nationally (at least in math and science).

This is why I found a recent article about how the states compare to other countries very interesting. It was even flattering. North Dakota apparently ranks above the other states in science. As a science teacher in North Dakota, I like to hear that!

The surprise for me was that some states rank above European countries (though not Asian countries).

However, I want to read the actual study. I started this entry with the plan of making some conclusions. However, after reading the whole article, I realized that it contains no actual numbers. How am I supposed to draw a conclusion or form an opinion on something like that?

I now have something to look for, when I have time, but nothing useful as yet.

This is an article meant for those who are looking for light reading, not someone looking for information.

The union would have us believe that the nation is suffering a massive teacher shortage. I've noted before that this is not the full story. The shortages are more specific to certain regions, certain subjects, and certain specialties. Utah is one of the regions suffering a shortage of teachers.

I found it disappointing that the article did not note the specific subjects and regions that suffer the shortages. Instead, it focused on what Utah has done to solve the problem. Mostly, they increased teacher salary across the board. Overall, it wasn't very helpful.

A study of the article comments gives some clues.

Utah has one of the lowest costs per student of any state. It also has quite large class sizes. This is one of Utah's secrets to low per-student cost. In the comments, one of the teacher complaints was large class size. This particular teacher planned to move to California which caps its elementary class sizes at 20.

The moral of this story is that the focus on teacher salary oversimplifies the problem. Money is nice, but is not the only thing teachers want. Smaller class sizes aren't even the only thing. Teachers want to be able to teach. They want schools that are orderly. They want support from their administrators. They want the resources to teach.

I post to a teacher forum and teachers there do not complain about their salary except in the context of "They don't pay me enough to put up with this."

Ending the teacher shortage will take a lot more than simply bumping up salaries. That solution is limited and patronizing. In most locations, schools would be better served looking at working conditions, not salary.

Just yesterday, I noted that the North Dakota School Board Association wants to eliminate collective bargaining over salary. Today, I read a Washington Post article that did some research on this very topic.

Should math and science teachers be paid more? There is a shortage in both of these areas. In the business world, one practice that is used is to provide incentives to attract certain skills. It would seem that this should apply to the education world as well.

The labor unions such as the NEA and AFT will fight this. They believe that teachers should be paid according to the same schedule because all teachers do the same job. I'd like to call them on this. I did the same job during my first year teaching as I will after 40 years teaching. Should I not then be paid the same?

What the original labor contracts recognized was that an experienced teacher is more valuable to a school. He teaches more effectively and gives better "bang for the buck."

It would follow that a good science or math teacher will give better "bang for the buck" than one who is not certified in the subject. Higher salary or other incentives may attract these teachers.

What about the relations with the other teachers? Are elementary teachers less valuable because there are more of them out there? NO! The higher salary is not about value. It is not saying that math and science are more important. The higher salary is saying, "Hey, we have a shortage here. Because there is a shortage, we have to pay more for this skill."

If, at some point, math and science become more common and the incentives disappear, this would be a sign that it was effective. If science and math teachers continually switch schools in pursuit of incentives, this would be a bad thing and a sign of a bad incentive plan.

I know a teacher who is currently an elementary teacher. She is a good elementary teacher. She has looked down the road and realized that her school won't be open for many more years. She will then have to hunt for a new job. She will be competing against younger, cheaper first year elementary teachers. She decided to get her high school math certification. I know that she will be working until retirement. It didn't take monetary incentives, but the incentive of future employment was enough to add a math teacher to North Dakota's ranks.

Incentives don't have to be monetary. I'd be attracted to a school that guaranteed me a certain amount of money to spend on lab equipment. A good lab would be another attraction. I could probably even be enticed away from my current job with the offer of the right combination of courses.

I might even move if a school offered me a good wife!

It would seem that the North Dakota branch of the teacher's union, the NDEA, has been up in arms this week. What raised their ire was a recommendation by the North Dakota School Boards Association (NDSBA). The NDSBA recently voted to recommend that teacher salaries be taken off the table in collective bargaining. This would mean that when the union negotiates contracts with the school board, salary will not be one of the things negotiated.

Frankly, I'm not taking this too seriously. School boards like the convenience of negotiating one salary schedule with one predictable body. Both sides are happy with the status quo.

So why did the NDSBA pass this resolution? The answer is that they are trying to make a point. They may even have some dim thoughts of flexibility.

The point that they are making is that the state is tying their hands. The state has been mandating minimum salaries for teachers. It has also been mandating how much of state money must be used on teacher salaries. This sounds good, since North Dakota ranks last or second to last in the nation for teacher salaries. However, this heavy-handed approach is not good.

Scenario 1
Imagine a hypothetical school that recently had some difficulty attracting teachers. To accomplish this, they goosed up teacher salaries. In order to afford this, they cut back in other areas such as maintenance. Now, the state has promised more money, but has mandated that it be spent on teacher salaries. The school is stuck because it already has good salaries and really needs to work on its windows/roof/infrastructure. Their hands are tied.

Scenario 2
Imagine a different school with quite low salaries. Certainly teachers at this school would like a raise. However, this school has no problem finding teachers. It's a small school located near one of the cities. Many teachers want to work there because they get the pleasures of a small school with all the benefits of being near a city. Low salaries are not a problem for this school because they have no trouble finding teachers. They don't see why they should be forced to spend money as the state directs. They have other needs in their district that are more pressing: perhaps an extra teacher for their increasing population of city workers who are using their town as a bedroom community.

I really liked the raise I got when the state mandated it. However, I don't think that is the state's job. If a school can't attract teachers, that is a problem that the school must solve in its own way. I know of two schools who prepared for the retirement of their science teachers by renovating their science labs for the first time ever. One of the labs was 70 years old (and that is no exaggeration). Another school I know has a full-time music aide as an enticement for a music teacher to come.

The NDSBA is making the point that the state is tying its hands by mandating how they spend the money. Local people know best what their needs are.

There are many in the union who believe that this is an attempt to get rid of a uniform salary schedule so that teachers negotiate contracts individually. Some schools may like that. They want to offer more to attract a certain teacher or skill. On the whole, however, the truth is that the salary schedule makes budgeting and salary much easier for the school board. I don't see this resolution being taken seriously.

Whether changing collective bargaining is a good idea or not is a whole different story that deserves time on another day.

When teachers go on strike, it does no serious harm to the school board, the administration, or the building. What it harms is the students.

I hadn't planned to post today, but I ran across this older article that I wanted to share.

It seems that, in protest of an impending strike, the students at Seneca School in Pennsylvania decided to hold a short walkout.

Their concerns are legitimate: effects on vacations, graduation dates, and assignments. Perhaps they are missing the larger picture that the teachers are holding the students hostage to their demands. However, they are, after all, high school students. Their needs and interests are what motivate them.

And what harm has the union wrought in the relationship between students and teachers in this school? It seems to the students that teachers care more about money than students. Is that a message teachers want to send?

On an interesting side note, Pennsylvania is debating a bill that would outlaw teacher strikes. While I don't favor limiting freedom, I do see this as a possible option.

Teachers have a freedom that they rarely use: the ability to find a higher paying job. They don't exercise it for many reasons including fear of the unknown, a love of the job, unwillingness to move, or family attachment. Teachers have low salaries because schools have very little trouble replacing them. If this situation changed, then salaries would shoot up or schools would look at alternative methods of delivering education.

Consolidation is a popular way to solve problems of declining enrollment in rural schools, but it is not the only way. It has a long history in most states as one-room schools consolidated into larger, regional schools. This was in response to changes in transportation technology.

Rural North Dakota (and other states) faces closing and consolidation of districts for different reasons now. The main one is declining enrollment. The rural parts of many states are losing people and the population is getting older.

The response in North Dakota has been to encourage schools to close and consolidate with neighboring districts. I teach in one such district. A neighboring district was down to 70 students in grades K-12. Their teaching staff was mostly in their 50's or 60's, and retirements were not far off. Replacements would be hard to find. The solution was to combine with the district where I teach. This had the added bonus of solving some infrastructure issues (a badly leaking roof on their high school among other things). It did, however, create some new challenges. The consolidated district covers nearly 1000 square miles. We also have concerns over loss of identity of the smaller school. By removing the school from that town, it is unlikely that it will ever reverse its downward trend. People tend to move to towns with schools.

However, consolidation can only go on so long. At nearly 1000 square miles, my district cannot grow much more. There may be some growth as we swallow one or two one-room school districts and another tiny high school, but we won't be growing much. We can't! We can't continue to expand through Western North Dakota.

What are the alternatives? My school does not appeal to a lot of prospective teachers due to its isolation. It is also quite small by most standards. Even with a full staff, we don't have the population to offer a lot of the classes we should. I'm pushing for Advanced Physics and Calculus next year. It will be for a handful of kids only and I'll end up teaching 2 classes in one period. We haven't worked out how to offer Calculus yet, though solutions are being looked at.

One option that has been employed with some success is distance education. Our school broadcasts pre-Calculus over ITV to several other schools. We also receive broadcasts of German, Advanced Composition, and a few other courses. There is also the technology to offer courses online. I'm using this as a partial solution in my own classroom. Realistically, though, some classes lend themselves better to this type of teaching than others.

This brings me to my proposal. It is nice to see my students 50 minutes a day, every day. I cannot claim that all 250 minutes per week are actually engaged in the task of learning. They should be, but they are not. What if we put more responsibility on our students, particularly the older ones?

We could make classes more independent by integrating distance education and online education. Does a class really need me there day after day? What if I design intelligent lessons and show up at the school 2 or 3 days a week for tutoring and to run labs and discussions? They could do the more rote work and other classroom work the rest of the time. With the online component, they could still submit work to me online. To some degree, the computer could even correct it and provide feedback.

Would this not be a more efficient use of teachers? It would also be an effective way to keep isolated schools open. We are still left with issues of supervision and the like. However, I think that this would be a great way, at least in some courses, to use teachers efficiently and to use student time efficiently.

We still measure student education by "seat time". It is time for us to start measuring what is learned instead. Our whole notion of a high school could change, and perhaps it should. By putting more responsibility on the students for their own education, we will help them actually become more responsible.

This is an alternative to consolidation, but it does not eliminate the need for consolidation altogether. Best of all, it is a realistic change to the way high school is delivered.

I love small schools. There isn't a week that goes by when I don't think back on my six years in small schools and wish I were back in them. Of course, I also remember why I left: lack of job security. Small schools are a dying breed. Naturally, at 450 students grades K-12, my current school isn't large by most standards.

I say all this to emphasize that I sympathize with the plight of Goodrich and McClusky. I like both towns. I even know people in both towns. I used to live near them and did a little work and training in McClusky. One of my favorite restaurants is in Goodrich. Ideally, both schools would stay open. Unfortunately, economics speak. A school district with only 37 students cannot remain open. I've clearly expressed that I favor consolidation with McClusky. This would ensure that a school remains in Sheridan County for the time being. It would also ensure that Goodrich has a voice in the education of its children.

Nevertheless, the voters of Goodrich turned down the consolidation. I expressed elsewhere the harm that this would cause to them and to the county. So why did it happen?

There is plenty of rumor and speculation. There was an anonymous letter circulated in Goodrich that was filled with misinformation. However, the reasons it was voted down are much larger than one letter.

• Publicity: The school board of Goodrich did not do a good job publicizing why consolidation was needed. Many people, especially those who did not have children in school, simply had no idea about the problems Goodrich faces. By getting the facts out, misinformation could have been countered.
• No horse in the race: Most of the residents of the Goodrich district are quite old and have no children in school. They don't see a problem and they fear change.
• Rivalry: It is very petty, but a certain segment of Goodrich voted down consolidation because of old sports rivalries. For over 20 years, Goodrich and McClusky have been playing sports together as one team. However, many people still remember the days when they were separate teams.
• Lack of Options: Many people in Goodrich felt as though they were railroaded into consolidation. They were not given other options. That there were no other good options is beside the point. They wanted some choice.
• McClusky Problems: Let's face it, McClusky isn't the best option for consolidation. The district has money problems. It has an old high school that will never be ADA compliant. It is small and may well close. All in all, McClusky is not the best consolidation partner.

While I don't think Goodrich made the right choice, I do accept that there were reasons for the choice.

My next question was one raised by the owner of the Harvester Restaurant in downtown Goodrich. She opposed consolidation because she doesn't believe that it is solving he problem of rural schools. The state is eager to shut the schools down and push the problem of declining enrollment off further and further into the future. It doesn't solve the problem of educating rural students.

I will discuss that next.

Yesterday I described the failed consolidation effort between McClusky and Goodrich schools in North Dakota.

Let's look at options. Goodrich was opposed to the consolidation for a variety of reasons. Some of them date back to old rivalries between the schools. In addition, there is a large contingent of elderly people in Goodrich who don't have children in school. They have no stake in the outcome of this vote.

Quite frankly, Goodrich has nowhere to go. It has been sharing all of its sports and some of its teachers with McClusky already. No other school is within a reasonable driving distance. Carrington, to the east, is quite far. Fessenden-Bowdon, to the Northeast is very far and not on a direct route. It also does not have much of a future. To the South are Wing and the recently closed Tuttle schools. These are poor options due to distance and poor roads (gravel). Harvey is closer, but is still nearly 40 miles away. Realistically, McClusky is a good bet for the near future. Consolidation with McClusky might even ensure that a school remains in Sheridan County.

There are no options for Goodrich. In short order, economics will force the school to dissolve. At that point its students will be scattered to the four winds and its land divided between surrounding districts. Goodrich will have no voice in the school boards and will become nothing but a memory. A deal with McClusky would have given them a voice in the school board.

My own district is a consolidated district. 3 of our board members are from the smaller school. We have employed nearly all of the teachers of the smaller school. We have even kept an elementary school in the other town. These are great benefits that ensure that this town is part of our district rather than simply a boost to enrollment.

McClusky is in a better position than Goodrich. With more students it can remain open longer. It will also receive Goodrich land and students when that school does close. Were McClusky forced to close, the Turtle Lake-Mercer district is 22 miles down the road. Though Turtle Lake-Mercer is working with Underwood, they would certainly welcome the added population and land that McClusky would bring. As an added bonus, Turtle Lake-Mercer is in a comfortable financial position with one of the better buildings in the area and a large land area from which to draw taxes.

Quite simply, Goodrich shot itself in the foot and may have sounded the death knell for any school in Sheridan County.

Next, I want to look at why they made this decision and what some alternatives to consolidation may be.

This week, the people of Goodrich, ND turned down the opportunity to consolidate with neighboring  McClusky, ND.

I don't know how long the link will remain available, but this article and its comments make interesting reading.

Consider this: both schools are struggling. They are in small, isolated towns. Enrollment has plummeted. Both schools have very old buildings. Both schools have difficulty attracting teachers. Both schools are staggering around on the edge of serious financial trouble.

Goodrich currently boasts 37 students in grades K-12. I am not exaggerating. Some grades have no students at all. Education in Goodrich costs in excess of $12,000 per student, per year. Goodrich is the third most expensive school (on a per-student basis) in the state. I have to admit, I do have a soft spot for Goodrich. I've always liked this town. It ranks as one of my favorite North Dakota towns.



Meanwhile, nearby McClusky boasts about 90 students, K-12, in its system. Classes are small and spread between two different buildings. There is a newish elementary school and the high school is located in an elderly building made up of many, many, many additions patched on slowly over the years. The high school has a startling number of stairs. Even entry to bathrooms and some classrooms involves climbing lots of stairs. Access to the science room involves going down stairs several times, crossing the gym, and climbing a long flight of stairs. Clearly, this isn't a great building. At around $9000 per student, McClusky is a bit less expensive. An added attraction is that it is only 16 miles from Goodrich.



The vote to consolidate these schools fell through. The original idea was to keep both schools open for 2 years and then ship students to McClusky. Goodrich voted it down, 102 against and 43 in favor. In McClusky, 200 were in favor and 46 against.

Now what does the future hold? I'll cover that in tomorrow's entry.

The stereotype is out there. Those centers of liberal indoctrination, the public schools, have trained our kids to hate all things military. Our students are well versed in protesting and resisting anything military. Our students don't rise for the National Anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance.

I'm happy to report that there are places in America where this is not true.

Today, my school held a Veteran's Day ceremony. The public was invited, the kids were there, and it went off without a hitch. Our local veterans had seats of honor on the floor of the gym, our kids sat with the public on the bleachers, and we went through the whole ceremony. Even when our two student trumpet players goofed (badly) on the National Anthem, there were no problems.

I am writing this to let people know that the America we think we remember still exists. The news media (especially the conservative wing) like to report on the ugly side. I suspect that if I group of our students had chosen to engage in a protest against Iraq, we'd have drawn the media like flies. (Then again, maybe not. My town is quite a bit off the beaten path.) This sort of incident gets noticed.

When things go the way they should, it is never noticed. Do not believe everything written about our schools and our children. Most are not liberal indoctrination centers, and most are actually quite proud of their country. Even if they are not proud, most understand how to respect differences of opinion and the service of others. One doesn't have to support the Iraq War to show appreciation to the soldiers who put their lives on the line to fight in it.

The "real America" is out there, alive and well.

Over the summer I visited an old school that has recently closed due to lack of students. I wandered the building and took lots of photographs and video. I then assembled a short movie about the building and posted it on YouTube. The movie itself appears in one of my older blog entries here on Townhall.

Most of the comments I've received on it have been quite pleasant. They ranged from alumni of the school to people who liked old buildings. Some had questions about why the building was being left empty, and one had questions about ghosts in the building.

Recently, a person from England posted a comment that suggested (amidst a number of 4-letter words) that I should have "trashed" the building. I chose to ignore the person and delete the comment. He posted again...and again. I gave the same treatment each time. Now I've done some checking on this person and blocked him from my video.

This person seems to take joy in the act of "trashing." He has bookmarked and made many movie clips about vandalism and destruction of other people's property.

What drives such a person? At 21 years old, is there nothing more to life than this? Such a person is what I would tend to describe as "scum".

I always try to take care of my own things, and I respect the property of other people. This is normal for most people. I've met very few people, including kids, who enjoy destroying other people's stuff. Most people are shocked by this.

Why destroy an abandoned building? Just because? A lot of us enjoy old things. A pastor here in North Dakota has made quite a hobby out of visiting and photographing abandoned farms. I love looking at his pictures because the only damage to all these amazing buildings and pieces of equipment is that caused by age. You get a glimpse of a bygone era.

Destruction for the sake of destruction is a sickness. I can certainly understand demolition of an old building. I hate to see it (I love old buildings), but I understand it. At times I've even encouraged it. However, this is a different thing entirely from simply destroying things for fun.

Scum.

I typically feel a bad classroom is one where the students are talking too much or there is too much off-task behavior occurring. (My Physics class yesterday. The lab equipment wasn't working right. Instead of moving to a different activity, I tried to fix it.)

Today I read something that made me realize that while I made a mistake yesterday, it was not a bad one. It also made me REALLY appreciate my students. Mine talk too much.

In this story, a substitute teacher endured (during one period):

1. Being cursed at
2. Several fights
3. Kids wandering out of the room
4. Damage to property
5. Threats to her person
6. A male student fondling a girl's breasts (and not from outside the shirt!)
7. Horrible, nightmarish behavior from nearby classrooms
8. The behavior was ignored by the Assistant Principal and by the security guards!

I don't know what to even say. This is not poor classroom management by an unprepared teacher. This is hell. I don't know how a teacher goes about running a classroom like this. Even in my worst days I never encountered anything like this.

I have no conclusion to draw from this. All I have is a feeling of total shock. I'm also grateful that I don't teach in this school.

Here is the link.