Here’s an excerpt from an e-mail discussion I had about AP teachers, expertise and parallels in teaching.
An expert recognizes parallels - real parallels - in different activities and assigns the practice appropriately. The best example of this, in my opinion, is with the baseball player Ted Williams who, for those of you who might not be baseball fans, is regarded as the best hitter in baseball history. He didn’t hit the most home runs [though he is 15th all-time in that category], but he could hit any pitch off any pitcher. Last year the average major league baseball player reached base safely [with a hit or a walk] 33.6% of the time. Ted Williams’ numbers averaged over his entire career? 48.2%. He reached base safely - the object of a hitter’s every at-bat - 50% more than the average baseball player. He really knew how to hit. He was an expert.
In 1970 he published a book called The Science of Hitting. It broke down and explained his technique, preparation, etc. There was a memorable section that I won’t ever forget reading when I was 12 or so - he compared hitting to what he called the “dying act” of chopping a tree. To sum it up, an optimal baseball swing is at a slight downward angle with a release of energy at the point of impact between the ball and the bat. It’s exactly like chopping down a tree with an axe. The best part about practicing chopping down trees is that if your shoulder is too low or you’re committing some other mechanical flaw, you’ll feel it the next day and know your mistake.
Ted knew hitting well enough to find a perfect parallel. If you spent a winter with Ted Williams and chopped wood each day, when baseball season hit in the spring, you’d have improved a great deal without ever touching a bat or seeing a pitch. That’s the power of identifying real parallels and making them work for you.
And it’s the same thing with academics. If you know your subject well enough - and know your test well enough, like an AP exam or Regents - it isn’t hard at all to prepare students to score well without trudging through test prep or methodical review. A good teacher makes you a great hitter even when you’re chopping wood.
Experts can do this effectively. Hardly any teachers [HS or college] have this level of expertise in the subjects they teach or in teaching.
Nancy Flanagan at Teacher in a Strange Land is hosting the 172nd Carnival of Education.
She teaches in Michigan, which I guess is a ‘strange land.’ It does look like a mitten, after all, and there’s a big part that isn’t even really connected to the mitten! Weird.
There is historical testimony that at least one couple is quite happy in Michigan - originally told by Lefty Frizzell, Ron Warner tells the tale.
Darren at Right on the Left Coast gives his take on some Washington University graduates’ decision to turn their backs on their commencement speaker.
He titled that post “Free Speech and Rudeness,” a dichotomy that plenty of young people would do well to consider this Memorial Day.
Why do scoundrels like Ayers gravitate to public education when Plan A fails?
That remains unanswered.
Sherman Dorn has, however, thrown another tire on the fire re: dealing with scoundrels.
Incidentally, this is one of those “teachable moments” [eduspeak!!!], as was his “diabetes-sized buckets of cheap beer” comment. All burn-barrel-crazed rural heathens, myself included, know that vintage vinyl siding, stacked in a cross-hatch pattern, makes for a more economical base - and a more noxious odor for the neighbors! - for a good ol’ fashioned, week-long burn. And, as you’re cooking marshmallows on it, I recommend Genny.
Instead of a ballet on the palate like cranberry wine might perform, Genny holds more of a Hee-Haw kneeslapping hoedown in the gullet - and you don’t even have to poke your pinkie finger out when you drink it!
But I digress.
Dorn, that thrill-up-the-leg of Jay Mathews [I thought I felt it once, too - turns out it was just a rash] weighs in on dealing with scoundrelism in the education ranks:
I know that legally, all of these individuals have rights, and you don’t have be Mother Theresa to have those rights respected. Socially, I know what Miss Manners would say. On the other hand, neither of those answers the question that Petrilli asks, which is about public, professional recognition. My thoughts on the subject are usually along the lines of, “Okay, what do I do if I meet Scoundrel X in Situation Y, where I know of some pretty disreputable private or professional behavior, but where there is some work to do in that situation?” And my general answer is that if Yitzhak Rabin could shake hands with Yassir Arafat, I should be able to hold my nose and work with a lot people. (Don’t tell me about the results of that handshake. I’m talking about ethics, not a strict parallel on consequences.)
But saying that I will work with almost anyone to accomplish some good end doesn’t really address Petrilli’s question. I will confess that I have no good answers to the question of what we should do publicly with scoundrels. But I’m not sure Petrilli is willing to follow his own advice, either, because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Will Petrilli read the riot act to scoundrels on the right, publicly denounce them, and distance himself and the Fordham Foundation from them? And if so, what happens if he decides later that he needs to work with one of these individuals?
And here’s my take:
If one chooses to deal with scoundrels differently based on partisanship, they’re not terribly ethical.
That it’s even a question of what to do when one needs to work with a scoundrel is troubling - you do exactly what you’d do if they weren’t a scoundrel. Despising them, disagreeing, holding contempt, whatever - it doesn’t much matter. You get the job done.
Bill Ayers’ scholarship is, in my opinion, of little value. It isn’t compelling to me. That has nothing to do with his past in terrorism, who his wife is, or what his current politics are. Though looking at those things can sometimes help us understand some of his work better, a responsible judgment wouldn’t rest on them. Total objectivity isn’t possible, as we all know, but we aren’t slaves to selfish subjectivity, either.
I don’t know Mr. Petrilli, I just read and follow his work. Nothing suggests to me that his criticism wouldn’t fairly go both ways, and nothing suggests that he would throw up his hands in confusion if he were to work with a scoundrel. Positing publicly that he suffers from what is essentially a massive character flaw - the inability to judge fairly and evenly - is a bit rude.
