Before becoming the pre-eminent English author of his age, (Dr) Samuel Johnson was a failed educator. But more about him later.
I’ve read with interest the Bill Hudson’s series on tax increases to pay for a “shiny new school” in Pagosa. Though I’m not a full time resident here, and as a retiree with grown children I have none in need of a “shiny new” education, as an Archuleta County property owner I have a taxable interest in the issue.
Here comes the part where in it sounds like, “In my day, I had to walk to and from school for miles in the snow, and it was uphill both ways!” Except that I grew up in Florida without snow, it was flat, and I rode the school bus. But my own experience with “shiny new schools” — or rather lack of them — is relevant to the discussion.
The elementary school I attended in the 1950s (grades 1 – 6) was there before the First World War. Built before air conditioning, it had tall ceilings and large unscreened windows that allowed for cross-ventilation in most rooms. It was still without AC when I attended, but since none of our homes had it either we didn’t really notice. The windows remained open throughout the day, even on the upper floors.
Somehow none of us ever managed to either jump from, or be pushed out of, the open, windows — and if our parents were ever concerned about such an event I never heard about it. There were certainly no meetings of “concerned parents” bitching about the “potential danger” and “demanding action”. The buildings still stands. Here’s a recent photo:
Note the “shiny” white paint, covering the red bricks, “shiny” permanently closed solar windows, and “shiny” green grass covering what was an all dirt playground.
From there I went to another relic of an earlier age for my ‘junior high’ years (grades 7-8). It was also not air conditioned, with open windows on multiple floors. That building was torn down after they moved us into a “shiny new” air conditioned school, without windows open to the fresh air, for my 9th grade year.
That “shiny new” school, now itself an “old relic”, is still in use as a “fundamental” school (whatever that means).
After spending the 9th grade in air conditioning without fresh-air ventilation, and coincidentally being elected class clown (no idea if there was a correlation), I went on to a high school (grades 10-12) which had been “shiny new” in 1956. Because it still wasn’t air conditioned, so the unscreened classroom windows remained open during the day.
Besides providing fresh-air ventilation, the open windows served another function — facilitating control of the classroom, as one of my fellow wise-ass classmates discovered. After a not particularly well worded zinger directed at the teacher, the student was summarily ejected from the classroom — through the open window. The teacher, a 40-something former college football player, was also the football team defensive line coach, and demonstrated his still considerable strength. Fortunately, we were on the ground floor.
As far as I know there was no consequences to the teacher for his actions, since we never heard anything further about it, and he continued teaching. I suspect most parents shared my father’s attitude about the incident — that the kid deserved it and will likely watch his mouth in the future. Such ‘street justice’ could not occur in our modern “shiny” new schools, because the windows (if there are any) don’t open to the fresh air.
I graduated in 1968. My high school is still used and, despite being over a half century old, is one of the top rated in the nation, although as the photo in that link shows, it does have a relatively “shiny new” gymnasium — built 20+ years ago!
But I digress. My point is that, except for the 9th grade, I never attended a “shiny new school”. Yet somehow I managed to obtain a high school diploma that prepared me to eventually obtain a doctorate degree, and have a successful career. Which raises the question of how it is that colleges with classrooms over a century old are considered “venerable old institutions of higher learning”, but a primary or secondary school needs to be replaced by a “shiny” new one after only a couple decades ?
In my experience the nature of the facility in which children are educated is not related to the education imparted. I belong to an IRS 501(c)3 tax deductible NGO founded by veterans. The focus of our work is building/improving schools in rural Thailand and Laos — the areas we served in during the Vietnam war. See here.
Many of those kids do walk miles each day (some of it literally uphill both ways) to attend school in basic structures. They learn because they want to, and their parents insist on it, not because classes are held in a “shiny new” building. So you’ll forgive me if I’m skeptical of the need for $37 million in new local taxes for “shiny new” schools in Pagosa.
But, advocates say, we need to do it “for the kids”. Which brings me back to my earlier reference to Samuel Johnson.
After unsuccessful attempts at teaching, and founding his own school, Johnson went on to become an astute observer of the politicians of his age. Perhaps his most famous observation was that, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel!”
Whenever I hear we need to spend tax dollars “for the kids” I think of Johnson’s words. When education spending advocates can’t otherwise persuade through logically convincing arguments, they invariably resort to the emotional appeal of “doing if for the kids”.
The “kids” are their last refuge.