This blog entry is a detailed response to Patrick Stone, who takes issue with me for my comments about Ulrica Corbett and the state of public education in the United States. Our dialogue is based on my original Ulrica Corbett post of several days ago. Ulrica Corbett is the school principal who ignored a request for a Marine to come and visit one of the classes in her school and thereby ignited an angry response from the pro-U.S. military portion of the blogosphere.
For the record, my problem with public schools is that they no longer make education a priority. Rather, in many cases, public schools seem to focus on indoctrination and medication.
US 15-year-olds scored measurably better than their counterparts in only 3 of 30 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in a new test of problem-solving in math.
1) Me:“It seems to me that Ulrica Corbett was the one muddying the issue by ignoring the request (for the Marine to visit).â€
Stone: Seems. Your assumption isn’t necessarily the truth and I see little to support such an assumption. Do you know something the rest of us do not? Have you done some kind of Vulcan mind-meld with her and now know her motives?
Me: Assumptions are a valid survival mechanism. I use assumptions to make decisions in situations when I am faced with incomplete information and time constraints. For instance, if I filled out a bureaucratic form and it was ignored, I might assume that I needed to proceed on my own recognizance.
2) Me: “Are you a public school administrator by any chance?â€
Stone: No. But then, the issue isn’t me, right?
Me: I’m not sure yet. I haven’t quite figured out why you’re defending Ms. Corbett so vehemently.
3) Me: “I can’t figure out why you are such a strong defender of someone who thinks that a U.S. Marine represents a threat to the safety and welfare of U.S. schoolchildren. Reaching such a conclusion is indicative of poor ability to reason on the part of Ulrica Corbett.â€
Stone:Wow… we’ve gone from her not approving a request to assuming she now considering Richardson a “threat.†You must teach me this Vulcan trick of yours. I would very much like to peer into the heads of others and divine their innermost thoughts. That’s remarkable!
Me: The words of Ulrica Corbett seem pretty clear to me, “My decision not to allow Zach Richardson to speak with the students on Monday came out of my regard for the safety and welfare of our children.” I too find her conclusion that Sgt. Richardson represented a threat to the safety and welfare of American school children remarkable. That’s why I’m blogging the topic.
4) Me: “By the way, you win the $2 fancy word contest for using discursive in a sentence.â€
Stone: “Discursive†is a fancy word? (Shrug.)
BTW, that’s suspiciously close to an ad hominem comment. Am I to be insulted for using “fancy†words? Does that make me a pointy-headed liberal elitist or something? Let’s keep the topic at hand in mind and steer clear of personal comments. Can we do that?
Me: We can do that.
5) Me: “So far, that I am aware of, her only statement has been that she was doing it for the “safety of the children,†which is an incredible pile of steaming bullshit.â€
Stone: Sigh… you don’t understand what she means by that because (as you have admitted) you don’t volunteer your time in public schools. You’re assuming she’s stupid and doesn’t understand what a Marine is. The reality is that she (along with the rest of our pathetically under-funded public schools) is under a lot of pressure to keep track of who comes and goes and to make sure someone *is* who they claim they are–and that takes time to do, time that they simply don’t have to spare.
Me: Pathetically underfunded? You’re living in a dream world. I suggest you read the article linked in the quote below.
Among more than 25 industrialized nations, no country spends more public and private money to educate each student than the United States, according to an annual review by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
School administrators should be focused on educating students, not “protecting” them. It speaks volumes about our society that our priorities for school administrators have shifted from educating students to nannying them.
Stone:What’s to stop a terrorist from dressing up and claiming to be an active duty Marine who wants to speak to the kids in some class? As a school admin, I assume you would throw caution and policy to the wind and bow down before the uniform and let such a person have free reign of the school, right?
Most terrorists don’t have a valid military ID card. Also, Matthew Lund is clearly not going to vouch for someone who is a terrorist. If I were a school administrator, I would a) trust my teacher to prescreen visitors they are requesting b) check Sgt. Richardson’s military ID card and speak to him if I had any feeling that things weren’t kosher c) called Sgt. Richardson’s command if necessary to verify who he was and d) thanked Sgt. Richardson for his service to country and for speaking to the kids.
6) Stone: Probably. Do me a favor. If you ever get into school administration, let me know. I want to keep my kids as far away from your school as humanly possible.
Me: I hope your kids manage to grow up with some common sense and independent thinking skills even though the odds are stacked against them. It could happen if they only pretend to swallow their Ritalin and spit it out when you and Ms. Corbett aren’t looking.
Update: Reason Magazine article called How Schools Cheat. Read it. Thanks to Liberty Dog for his related article.