What's In A Name? The Long, Strange Saga of Arvada High School and Its Mascot

 

Arvada High School is one of the oldest schools in the Denver area, it is the school I graduated from in 1989 and the school where I spent the first 16 years of my teaching career. While I was teaching at Arvada, the school formally adopted the Bulldogs as its mascot. How the school went from the start of what was originally known as the "Arvada School", to the Arvada High School Bulldogs is a twisty, strange, bizarre story. One that captured the nation's attention for a time and put the school, its students, and its staff directly in the crosshairs of the nation's culture wars.

The Start

    Arvada, Colorado had been a remote farming community sitting between Denver and the foot of the Rocky Mountains. By the late 1800s enough people had settled in the Arvada area that a school was needed to educate the children in the area. A one room brick school was built on what is now known as "Olde" Wadsworth Boulevard between what is now 57th Avenue and Grandview Avenue. At first the school was only for primary grades- essentially an elementary school- but by 1900 the school added grades through 12th grade. In 1904 the first senior of Arvada School graduated, Miss Angie Bates. This original one room schoolhouse still stands today and is currently the barroom for the School House Kitchen and Libations in Olde Town Arvada. Eventually there were enough students in the area that the community decided it needed a separate school for secondary grades and in 1922 the new Arvada High School building opened on the corner of Ralston Road and Wadsworth, today the location is a 7-11.

The First Mascot

Originally the school lacked a mascot. The school and its sports teams were called the "Cherry-Whites" after the colors of the school; Cherry and White. When the new school building opened in 1922 a new Agricultural Arts and Welding teacher was hired, Tom Vanderhoof. Vanderhoof started the first football team, built the football field for the team and coached the football team, as well as several other sports, for many years. Coach Vanderhoof was also the one responsible for the first mascot of Arvada High School.  

The football jersey's of the 1920s were essentially wool sweaters. Since the school colors were cherry and white, the sweaters were dyed cherry red. When the football players would finish practice or a game, many would remove the sweaters as they left the field and as a result of the sweat the dye would transfer from the sweater to their skin, coloring their skin red. Due to this the students began to call the football players "redskins". Because of this Vanderhoof wanted to make Redskin the official mascot of

Arvada High School. The 1920s were at the end of what was known as the Progressive Era in American History and Vanderhoof supported several progressive causes. Concerned that the name "redskin" may be offensive to American Indians, Vanderhoof sent letters to all of the registered tribes in Colorado asking for permission to use the name Redskin for the Arvada High School football team. All of the responses Vanderhoof received back from the tribes did not express any concerns about using the name Redskin so the name stuck and soon a depiction of an American Indian became the mascot of Arvada High School. Arvada High School would be the Redskins for the next 70 years. Until 1993.

The Controversy and Change

In the early 1990s a Jefferson County parent organization, the Jeffco Native Americans Parent Organization asked the school district of  Jefferson County as well as the administration at Arvada High School to consider changing the name of the school citing the offensiveness of the name since it was a racial slur towards American Indians. And thus began one of the most unique, bizarre, and uproarious years ever witnessed in any high school in the United States.

During the 1992-93 school year Principal Jim Melhouse, under pressure from district administration, considered changing the mascot of Arvada High School, and the circus began setting up its tents. Various groups quickly organized in support of or against the name change and began lobbying anyone and everyone they could find in support of their goals regarding the mascot of Arvada High School. The emerging story captured the attention of the national media and soon stories about the controversy were appearing in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, on NPR, and national newscasts. A community meeting was held in the auditorium of Arvada High School so that supporters, opponents, students, faculty, alumni, and community members could express their opinions. Security for this meeting was tight as there were threats of violence and media coverage was intense. The popular late night ABC News program Nightline did a live broadcast from the school auditorium about the issue and school mascot names. 

Unfortunately, as is always the case with such volatile  issues, the threat of ugly acts of violence were made by people who somehow feel threatened by change or when things are not going the way they want them to go. Because of death threats against him and his family, Principal Melhouse was given a bulletproof vest to wear in public and the Arvada Police escorted him into and out of the building. Furthermore, Melhouse had to remove his children from the neighborhood elementary schools because of threats of violence and kidnapping against his children.

Ultimately Melhouse, who was in favor of changing the name, decided that the faculty would vote to change the mascot of the school or to keep it the same. At this point, somehow organizations both for and against the change, got a hold of the home addresses and numbers of the faculty resulting in both sides beginning to lobby the faculty at their homes attempting to influence how they would vote on the issue. In a close vote, the faculty of Arvada High School elected to drop the Redskin as the mascot of the school.

Following the decision to change the mascot of the school, the parent organization that initially forced the issue came through Arvada High School and pointed out everything that had to be removed from the school. Essentially any thing with the word Redskin or any depiction of Native Americans had to be removed. The only thing depicting an American Indian that was allowed to remain in the school was a podium that had been built by a student and on the front of that podium was a painting of an American Indian that had been done by another student. The parent group determined that it was an honorable depiction of American Indians and not exploitative, so it could remain. This podium was in the classroom of Social Studies teacher Zeph Villano. I have since inherited this podium and it continues to sit in my classroom at nearby Pomona High School.

Aftermath

Following dropping the name Redskin, Arvada went through a number of new mascots. First up was a Harlequin, a type of clown dressed in costume with a diamond shape pattern. This mascot never caught on and unceremoniously disappeared almost as quickly as it had appeared. Next, the school was just known as the “Reds” without any mascot of any kind. The Reds remained the name of Arvada High School throughout the rest of the 1990s.

Shortly after the mascot changed, Social Studies teacher and graduate of Arvada High School, Craig Wilkie- who was in favor of dropping the mascot- proposed creating a museum of Arvada High School since it was the first school in Arvada and one of the oldest schools in the Denver area. In this museum would be artifacts from the school telling the story of the school throughout the nine decades of its existence. This museum would obviously incorporate the story of the Redskin mascot as well as feature artifacts depicting the former mascot. There was pushback from some that this was simply reintroducing the former mascot back into the school, however Wilkie successfully argued that museums are designed to preserve and inform others of the past. Sometimes that past is distasteful or uncomfortable but it doesn’t change the past. You can’t erase or ignore history just because some may not like it. In fact, you should preserve and talk about the past for that very reason. You have to remember the past to understand where you currently are and help you figure out where you go from here. Ultimately Wilkie’s argument won out and with the help of several students and faculty members the Arvada High School museum was created and featured prominently in the lobby of Arvada High School for the next 30 years. 

From A Color To An Animal

In 2000, new school Principal Robert Lopez decided that it was time for Arvada High School to get a new mascot and the students would be the ones to decide what that mascot was. Three possibilities were proposed as the new mascot of Arvada High School: a Miner, a Titan, or a Bulldog. Visual renderings of these three possible mascots were created by an award winning art student and were all featured in a mascot campaign put together by the Arvada Student Council leading up to the election for the new mascot. At a Spring Pep Rally the results were revealed and overwhelmingly the students had chosen the Bulldog to be the new mascot of Arvada High School.

However, the switch from a color to a Bulldog as the new mascot of the school was not without its own controversy. All of this took place in the wake of the tragedy of Columbine. Jefferson County Schools became hypersensitive and created a special committee to review all mascot depictions in JeffCo to ensure that they were not unduly aggressive or encouraged violence. The original Bulldog mascot created by the student depicted a very burly, muscular bulldog in a spiked collar, bearing sharp teeth. The Jefferson County Schools Mascot Review Committee determined that all of this was inappropriate as it encouraged violence, aggression, intimidation, and bullying and they ordered that that mascot be toned down. So, a softer, more friendly version of the Bulldog emerged. However, the original mascot that was too mean was somehow magically painted one weekend on the wall of the new band room at Arvada High School, and to the best of my knowledge, is still there today.

The End Of The Museum

The Arvada High School Museum that had been created by Craig Wilkie with the help of students and other faculty members in the mid 1990s endured for the next 30 years as a source of pride for the school and interest for all who visited. After Wilkie had retired several teachers and students served as the curators of the museum faithfully maintaining, cleaning, and updating it.

Recently the State of Colorado has determined that the museum violates state law because it tells the story of the Redskin mascot and has mandated that it be removed from the school by October of 2024. Apparently neglecting the argument of Craig Wilkie about the reason for the museum and ignoring one of the key lessons from history “If learning history doesn’t make you uncomfortable, you are learning the wrong history.”

Christianity, Religion, Classrooms, and The United States.

First let me tell you where I sit, before I tell you where I stand. I am a Christian. I was born, baptized, raised a Catholic and still consider myself to be a Catholic today. I hold my religious beliefs close to me and tend to be quiet about what I do and do not believe in terms of religion. My faith is a private matter and between me and my God. I do not feel, nor have I ever felt, compelled to involuntarily share my views on religion. I am not threatened or scared by others who have different religious beliefs, or those who have no religious convictions. What does alarm and frighten me is when others feel so threatened by the presence of other beliefs that they feel compelled to loudly proclaim and impose their religious views upon others. That is the purpose of this blog.

Recently Louisiana passed a law requiring the 10 Commandments be posted in every classroom in the state. Oklahoma now requires that the Bible be used as essentially a textbook in history and English classes. There are renewed calls for "God/prayer be put back into our classrooms and schools". All because of this belief that the United States must return to being the "Christian nation" our Founding Fathers created. Any legitimate scholar or student of American history will tell you this notion is indefensibly wrong. The United States was not founded as, nor is it now, a Christian nation any more so than it is a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation or a Hindu nation.

In The Beginning...
During the Colonial and Revolutionary Period one of the few views that the colonies shared collectively was Anti-Catholicism. Catholics were widely disliked and mistrusted in the colonies. In 1774 England passed the Quebec Act which stated that Catholics in Quebec would receive equal protection of the law. The colonies were shocked and horrified by this law and the Continental Congress even passed a resolution condemning this law stating that Catholics did not deserve equal protection and deserved whatever bigotry and discrimination that happened upon them. Then, as is still the case today, most Christians in the world are Catholics. Therefore, being openly hostile and prejudiced against most Christians makes it hard to argue that the founders desired a "Christian Nation". While it is true that many of the Founding Fathers were Christians and some were deeply and devoutly Christian, there were just as many for whom Christianity was not a strong guiding force in their lives, and there were a fair number of Founding Fathers who were Deists or for whom religion was a concern at all.

For those who were deeply and devoutly Christian, their Christianity was very different from those who claim to be, or truly are, devout Christians today. For devout Christians during the colonial/Revolutionary period their Christianity was very focused on God and theologizing meaning that they were focused on studying the Bible to find answers to the fundamental questions of life and they mostly kept their views contained to themselves or discussed it among other equally devout Christians. Whereas devout Christians today are focused on Jesus Christ and evangelizing meaning they are interested in proclaiming and spreading the "word of God" and share their views widely and publicly. The devout Founders would be very uncomfortable with the emphasis and focus of today's devout Christians.

Founding Fathers such as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington Christianity was not a strong influence in their lives. They were members of Christian churches but their church attendance alternated between frequent to infrequent throughout their lives. They occasionally would reference biblical passages or teachings and would from time to time invoke God. But Christianity was not a strong guiding force in their lives or a potent moral compass. Their religious beliefs are probably more reflective of the religious beliefs of most Americans today.

For the Founding Fathers who were not necessarily Christian or even religious- such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison (known as the Father of the Constitution), and James Monroe- they were either Deists or were skeptical of religion as a whole or simply did not really have an interest one way or the other in religion. Deism believes that there is one creator of the heavens and earth but does not have any influence in daily life or events, this philosophy was very popular and a powerful school of thought in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Thomas Jefferson famously removed any mention or event from the Bible that was "supernatural" (miracles) or he was otherwise suspicious of the possibility of the event happening, creating what has become known as the "Jefferson Bible" and can still be found today...you can buy it on Amazon. Madison was particularly repulsed by religion, in particular Christianity, because of the suffering, strife, and killing that had happened throughout human history in the name or defense of religion. So concerned were these Founding Fathers that the United States not be recognized as a "Christian Nation" or any type of theocracy that they insisted that 'freedom OF religion' be mandated in the 1st Amendment. Meaning that this government would not impose or require any religious belief upon its citizens but rather that the citizens held the right to choose which religion they wish to follow or, more importantly, which religion not to follow. Furthermore, it is worth noting, that not once is God ever mentioned in any manner in the Constitution, and in the Declaration of Independence there only four mentions of a God. However, those four mentions of "God" in the Declaration of Independence do not resemble the Christian understanding of God; it is as the "Creator", "Nature's God", "Providence" as well as a mention of a duty to a "sacred Honor", all of which reflect the Deist view rather than a secular, or Christian one.

"GOD" And Federalism
Much has been made recently about "returning the nation back to God", meaning that somehow the United States has lost its Christian roots and the time has come to turn back to God- meaning Christianity. The implication is that the Christian God has always been present in American society. However, this is simply not the case.

"In God We Trust" was not always present on U.S. currency. That phrase does not appear on US coins until 1864 and is not on paper currency until 1957. Prior to "In God We Trust" the Latin phrase "E Pluribus Unum" meaning Out of Many, One, which is the national motto of the United States appeared on US currency. In 1864 the motto was replaced with the phrase "In God We Trust" on coins in reaction to a sudden surge of religious fervor in the nation as the Civil War was entering its final stages. Recently, the profile of Washington on the quarter has flipped so that instead of facing the phrase, Washington is facing away. Christian Nationalists hold that this an indication that the US has turned its back on God and are clamoring for the nation to turn back to God. In all actuality the reason for the flip of profiles is because the painting that was used for the image on the quarter had Washington facing to the right instead of the left but was inadvertently flipped was flipped in the wrong direction. Changing the direction of the profile was correcting the error and honoring the original portrait. 

In 1957, the phrase began appearing on paper currency as more of a effect of the Cold War than it was a proclamation of religious zeal. Because the Soviet Union was officially an atheistic state and did all it could to stamp out religion in the Soviet bloc. The United States saw this as a way to highlight the differences between the two powers. The United States allowed the  belief in God whereas Communists did not, thus the phrase made it onto our paper currency. It was not about religion, or Christianity perse, it was about Cold War ideological differences. It was also because of the Cold War that the newest line of the Pledge of Allegiance was added.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by minister Francis Bellamy, who interestingly was a socialist- GASP! When it was originally written it did not include the phrase "under God". Those two words were added in 1954, again in response to the Cold War and atheistic beliefs of the Communist world. Despite what many Christian Nationalists believe, the Pledge of Allegiance is still recited often, if not everyday, in every public school that I know of across this nation.

Religion And The Classroom
Which brings us back to the beginning of this discussion- religion in the classroom.

Many charge that 'we must bring God back into the classroom!' Many want school prayer be brought back into the classroom. In all actuality it had never left. I have personally witnessed several students throughout my career openly read not only the Bible, but also any number of other religious texts, in my classroom during some free time they may have. I have never once told them to stop or put it away, furthermore those students were able to read their religious texts without ridicule or bigotry from other students. I have also observed students openly pray in my classroom. A few times I have had Muslim students who would leave my classroom for short periods of time so they could pray. I have never, nor has anyone else, tried to stop or prevent these prayers being said.

Hallmarks of those who wish to "return the nation to God" is what Louisiana and Oklahoma have done. But these acts are fraught with problems. For Louisiana, which version of the 10 Commandments will be posted? The Jewish version is different from the Protestant version, and both are different from the Catholic version. Will all three be posted? I assume Louisiana will choose the version that the state "believes" to be the most accurate and faithful.
For Oklahoma, similar questions exist. Which version of the Bible will be used? The Catholic Bible is different than Protestant Bibles. Will the King James Version, which is riddled with mistranslations, be the one used of will it be other, more accurately translated versions? Furthermore, will the Koran, the Torah, the Hindu Vedas, and the Buddhist Tripitaka be used as textbooks as well? If not- which I know is the answer- then what makes the Bible more reliable and accurate than the others? The answer is, of course, that the state of Oklahoma has "faith" in the validity of the Christian Bible over the other holy texts.

And that "faith" expressed by the states is where all of this breaks down. These cases will no doubt be brought before the United States Supreme Court. I firmly believe, even with this Supreme Court, that these laws will be struck down and found Unconstitutional. Despite the beliefs and desires of some, the United States is NOT a Christian nation. It may well be a uniquely religious nation, but it is not a Christian one. The Founding Fathers did not want it to be one and did not believe it should ever be one. It clearly states in the very first amendment to the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."  We are no more a Christian nation, than we are any other religion. We are first and foremost Americans. Free to believe, or not to believe, in any religion we choose. 

When I Solved The Most Vexing Problem In Education or The Time I Was Almost Arrested At School

If you were to ask educators what some of the most frustrating, most infuriating, most maddening issues in education today were you would get an array of answers. Some of the responses would probably be topics such as the over-reliance on testing, administrators that are either incompetent or micro-mangers or both, the extraordinary amount of unnecessary meetings, or how education as a whole has commitment issues because what we teach and how it is taught never lasts long enough to see whether it works or not. But if you asked educators (particularly secondary educators) what was the Number One biggest problem in education the response would probably be overwhelmingly cell phones. 

Fighting cell phones has become not a daily fight, but a fight that educators wage constantly. Initially, when cell phones were first able to text as well as make calls, the problem was irksome but wasn't bad. It was essentially the same as writing notes in class just electronically. This was something education has had to deal with since the dawn of classrooms. However, the entire world changed around 2007 when the first smart phones hit the market, now it was possible to access the internet from your phone, on top of this new frontier social media was just getting started. At this point the dam broke and whole new version of student distraction came flooding into the classroom. Teachers were ill-equipped to deal with this and the education system as a whole was oblivious to the issue because this also happened to around the time that it was believed testing was the solution to our educational issues. Since you couldn't test on cell phone use, it was a problem that did not exist. Now be sure, teachers were pleading for some sort of guidance or policy around cell phone use but the response from the education lords was usually something like: "We don't have time for that, because CSAP/TCAP/Dibbles/BEAR/IOWA/SAT/PSAT/ACT/PACT (insert your own testing acronym in here) will be here in 6 months and we've got to be ready!" So teachers languished in their classrooms fighting to get students ready to take some silly test while students were far more interested in disappearing behind their screens to see how many "Likes" their recent post had received. For students it was far more important to them how many bars their phone had than how the Bill of Rights was important to their lives. And so teachers trudged on teaching their content while students had their hands below the desk and their eyes looking at their laps while thinking they were cleverly fooling their teachers into believing they did not have their phones out. It was exhausting and infuriating for educators. Then I decided if the educrats or other educational leaders weren't going to do something or recognize the problem, then I would. I figured out a way to solve the issue, and that almost got me arrested. Now that you know the problem, here's the story.

It was 2013 and cell phone use had only gotten worse. It wasn't an isolated case of one or two in class, it was an issue with 1/3, 2/3, 4/5's of the class. I had heard about these devices known as "cell phone blockers" and I immediately was intrigued. These devices emitted a signal that jammed cell reception meaning that the phone would not be able to make or receive calls, send or receive texts nor could it connect to the internet. This was an amazing invention! I looked on Amazon and VIOLA! You could buy them from Amazon! I chose one of the devices listed and excitedly read the description: It blocked all cell reception and data. Great! It was perfect for dinner time or bedtime in households with teenagers. It was great for schools and movie theatres. Perfect! I had to get one, this was the holy grail that I and virtually every other teacher had been looking for. I couldn't order it fast enough, after I had ordered it I got the disappointing news that it wouldn't arrive for six to eight weeks because it had to be shipped from China. Total bummer, but totally worth the wait. Visions of late 1990's and early 2000s classrooms danced in my head. Six to eight weeks couldn't go fast enough.

Finally the day arrived. My package had been delivered. It was a black square box, about two inches by two inches and maybe one inch in depth. It had two black antennas that screwed into the top of the box and were about an inch and a half tall. The box plugged into an outlet and there was a switch on the bottom of the box to turn the blocker on and off. The next morning when I got to school I moved a bookcase I  had over an outlet, plugged in my device and turned it on. Sure enough all of the bars on my phone disappeared, I couldn't make a call, send a text, and most importantly I could not access the internet. I moved my bookcase back in place and waited for school to begin. Shortly after first period began I noticed my students were perplexed, many of their brows were furrowed with frustration and angst as their phones could not connect to anything. Some of the more brazen students even raised their phones in the air and swung them wildly about trying desperately to get something, anything on their phones. Nothing worked. Alas, their only outlet was to learn about the New Deal. The first few days were baffling to the students, but soon they seemed to resign themselves that their phones just were not going to get reception and the phones all but disappeared. As the phones vanished the amount of work and effort increased. I soon found out that the device not only worked in my room, but apparently had also knocked out the entire third floor of the school. The third floor of the school now cell phone free. I let the other teachers on the floor into my secret and they were pleased. Education once again ruled supreme and liking posts had been laid low. It was glorious...for two weeks.

It was during lunch on a Friday, I distinctly remember it was a Friday during lunch. My social studies department members and I were gathered as usual in the social studies office eating lunch together. As was par for the course during our lunches we were discussing current events, laughing at events from the morning in our classes, and making jokes at each others expense. It was an otherwise unremarkable normal afternoon. Then came the announcement over the intercom. "Teachers, please check your emails immediately for an urgent message." We opened up the email on the computer in our office to find an email from our principal labeled in all capital letters URGENT! The email said that an there were a few satellite trucks in our parking lot from AT&T and they had found a cell phone blocker being used inside the school. They asked the principal to get it taken down within the next 30 minutes or they would would be able to pinpoint exactly where the blocker was and whoever was employing the blocker would be arrested for violating FAA laws because the blocker was denying access to data and satellite services that a customer had paid for. The email ended with the plead to do this or one of you will be taken out in handcuffs this afternoon. Well, that seemed overly dramatic and a bit heavy handed, but since it has always been a goal of mine to not go to jail, I really didn't want to find out if this were true or not so I went an unplugged the blocker. As lunch ended and the students filed into my classroom they were abuzz about the satellite trucks in our parking lot and the hubbub that surrounded them. They also quickly discovered that their phones had bars and they could access the internet and thing quickly returned to they way they had been...sadly.

The fallout was almost as comical as the story itself. I got called down to the principal's office that afternoon. This principal and I had an increasingly frosty relationship and this was just another layer. My principal told me that she knew it was my teaching neighbor- with whom she also had a very strained relationship with- that had the cell phone blocker. When I told her that I was the one with blocker, she assured me that she knew I was only covering up for my neighbor. When I insisted again that I had the blocker, my principal again did not believe me and told me to not take the fall for someone else. Then my administrator went on to tell me that AT&T had a search warrant to enter the school to find the blocker and they were ready to arrest and press charges against the culprit. However, my principal pleaded with them to allow her to try and get it taken down without incident because she didn't want to see my teaching neighbor or anyone else taken out in handcuffs. To this, I raised my eyebrows. I cannot imagine AT&T having a search warrant to find a blocker- that seems a bit ridiculous and I promise you, at this point in our relationship if either myself or my teaching neighbor were going to be possibly removed I cannot imagine our principal standing in the way of that. Furthermore, according to my principal, the blocker not only knocked out the entire third floor, it was much more serious that that. To hear the way our principal tell it, the blocker knocked out an entire area of the city! Cell phone reception was down for up to a mile away, the police radio in our school police officer's office was destroyed because it fried it's ability to get reception, it would not have surprised me if I had been told that the entire area had become a communications dead zone and planes were dropping out of the sky when they flew over. To hear my administrator tell it, this small $60 black box from China had caused a small Electromagnetic Pulse over a square mile of Arvada, Colorado. Who knew?

So, there is my story about how I, for a short time, solved one of the most frustrating problems in the classroom while at the same time apparently almost got sent to San Quentin in solitary lock-up for life. After that my teaching neighbor's and I relationship with our administrator went from being very strained to an all out war ending with myself and my teaching neighbor being moved out of our school and being placed in different schools with orders that we could never again be on the same staff- but that is a totally different story that maybe I'll tell someday because it too is a good story. Students went back to being on their phones and the problem has only exacerbated in the years since. The battle has gone from being irritating in 2013 to exhausting and disheartening in 2023. It's hard to compete with 45 second cat and dance videos or constant selfies with filters in order to get those desperately needed "Likes". Teaching now is not near as enjoyable as it once was, but I couldn't imagine anything doing anything else. And for a brief two week moment in 2013, the third floor of Arvada High School won the war.

Eternal Folly: The Absurd, Perpetual Treadmill To "Fix" Education

 

In 1983 the U.S. federal government issued a comprehensive report of the state of public education in the United States. A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform presented the shocking results of the study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education. Among its findings was that there were an appalling number of functionally illiterate high school students, plummeting student performance when compared with students in other industrialized nations, and low standards at all levels of education. In short, the report concluded, "the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people". Since that jarring report American education has attempted time and again and again and again to reformat, restart, re-imagine, and reform American public education. In the 40 years since the publication of the findings education has scrambled looking for the antidote to remedy the seeming collapse of American education and in the mean time looking to respond to the critics of public education who often view it with great contempt. In short, over the past 40 years not much has changed; scores remain fairly constant where they were in 1983, reformers  and "education advocates" continue to look for the silver bullet, and critics remain convinced that public education in an enemy of American society. Now, exacerbating this situation, the Trump Administration is attempting to dismantle and eliminate the Department of Education. Because, somehow, getting rid of the agency specifically tasked with improving American education will somehow improve American education... absurdism abounds in Washington D.C.

However, I believe that American education is not as circumspect as many would have you believe and that the real problem is, at best, misplaced. The problem with American education is not who is in the school classrooms or the students themselves, the real issue with American education lays with those who proclaim the problems and then attempt to remedy them. To rephrase an old adage: Those who can teach, do. Those who cannot, reform. 

The Snake Oil That Is Testing

"Accountability" is a big buzz word in the education world (eduspeak is full of buzzwords). One of the ways devised to hold educators, students, and the education system as a whole accountable is through standardized testing. The idea being that all students will take the same test and then we can see where students have learning deficits, what schools are excelling and which are not, and, in many cases, see which teachers are skilled at their jobs as well as see which teachers are not as skilled. Noble idea to be sure, however, upon closer inspection the reality of this notion is far removed from its grand premise. The entire argument that standardized testing is a good or fair measurement of student progress and/or ability is truly one of the great fabrications of our time. To fully understand this, we only need to look at the purveyors of these tests. In the interests of simplicity we will focus on Pearson, which is the largest and most used educational testing company in the world, but there are a number of other educational testing companies out there whose methods and purpose are very similar. 

Pearson creates a number of educational tests for all levels of education and contents. The most used test is the PARCC test which is administered to a wide variety of grade levels throughout the United States. These tests are purported to measure mathematical skills, scientific understanding, critical thinking, analysis, as well as the comprehension of students. The claim is that these tests give districts, schools, parents, and teachers a clear indication of how our students measure up against other students around the state or nation as well as showing how many students are performing "at grade level". All of this is, in a word, hogwash. Supposedly this is determined by how many students score above the "cut score". The cut score is the minimum score a students needs to achieve in order to show proficiency. Guess who determines the cut scores? The same testing company that created the test. The test companies do claim that the cut scores are created by educators who employ complex mathematical algorithms to determine the cut scores. While it is true that educators are involved in this intricate process of determining "cut scores", it is ultimatly the testing company, or the state, or the individual school districts who determine this cut score. Moreover, these scores change every year and very often the formula used to determine these scores change as well. Why is this done? It's a pretty simple answer: Money. 

Testing companies receive millions of dollars from states and districts to create and provide these tests for their students. So, testing companies want a test that shows rigor and some degree of intellectual challenge, but at the same time have enough students pass the test that it seems to show that educational systems are not failing. If the cut scores are too low, then obviously the test does not have enough rigor (another favored eduspeak word) and the state or the district will look for another, more challenging test perhaps from another testing company. However, if the cut score is too high and not enough students perform well, then there will be a fear among states and districts of a political backlash because obviously our schools are not educating our students properly forcing the testing customers to find a new test, perhaps with a new testing vendor. Therefore, the cut score must find the perfect balance- enough students pass the test that it seems to be a fair test, but enough don't pass the test so that it seems to have rigor. To further complicate the process of cut scores, states or districts- depending on who is administering the test- can adjust the cut scores above or below the recommended cut scores so that the results meet their desired outcomes. For instance one study found that in 2010 nearly 50% of all 5-8 students in Kentucky passed the reading comprehension test, while only 30% of all 5-8 students in New York passed the exact same Pearson created reading comprehension test. Does this mean that the education in Kentucky is better than in New York? Or that students in New York are not as smart as students in Kentucky? Of course not. Kentucky lowered the cut scores to benefit them while New York increased the cut score for their own benefit. Scores are manipulated to reflect whatever outcome is necessary.

To say that standardized testing is far less about improving education and far more about money, here is an even more insidious example. Let's say that students are not performing as well on these tests as we would like. Too many are falling below the cut score- which we know to be arbitrary at best- or there is a large number who are "line dwellers", meaning the students are just above or just below the cut score. Is there anything we can do to help these students? You bet you sweet #2 pencil there is! There are a number of ready made interventions and curriculums to help these students...for a price of course.. And guess who makes these products? The exact same company that writes the test! This is a scam of monumental proportions. Pearson will enter into a contract for millions of dollars to create a test that they can guarantee a certain number of students will not pass and then create a curriculum that they can sell to states or districts to help students perform better on a test that, again, no matter how well students actually do, a certain number are guaranteed to fail. This isn't about improving education, it's only about using education to make money at the expense of education.

Side note on "data" (another favorite eduspeak word). Data can be useful and helpful, but in fields such as education, data can also be very inefficient. Data is cold, impersonal, rigid, and unfeeling. In short data lacks soul. And truly effective education relies on soul and warmth and compassion all of which data does not have. Test scores don't tell the story. Not the real story. The real story of teaching requires a soul, a heart, and compassion all of which test scores lack.

Reforming the Reforms

Education has a commitment problem. Anyone who has been in education for any length of time knows this to be true. If education were a man, it would be the type of man that women hate. He's really interested early on and enjoys your company, but never is willing to really commit to the relationship because of a belief that there will be something better and new to come along. And once something new and more interesting comes along, he moves on. This is the uncomfortable truth about education.

 Education is in constant search for that one elixir, that one silver bullet, that one reform, that one program, that one curriculum that will be the answer to fixing whatever is wrong with education. Every few years the school year will begin with the introduction to a new, shiny program replete with its own vocabulary and acronyms (eduspeak LOVES acronyms, the more the better) that promises to right all the wrongs, fix all the failings, and forever change the way we teach and students learn. Educators are promised this is a long-term commitment, that we are in this for the long haul. Then a few years later, perhaps less than a few years later, educators are confronted with a new, shiny program with its own acronyms and vocabulary that promises to be the new savior of education and, we are assured, this is here to stay...until it is inevitably not.

However, if you find a program that you really like, worry not because in a few years it will come around again just with a different name and new acronyms...because we all know different names and acronyms makes everything work better. This is why educators such as myself and others who have been in this profession for the long haul derisively roll our eyes and sigh a heavy sigh when the next program is introduced, we know its not for long and we've probably seen the exact same thing before. Cynicism in education is a learned response.

One of the key issues with educational reforms is that they are almost all created by people who have not been in the classroom for years- if ever. Their ideas usually sound good in theory, but as is often the case, theory fails when confronted with the realities of life, or in this case, the classroom. One only need to look no further than the current educational gods: Robert Marzano and John Hattie. In many educational administrative circles their reforms are religion and their studies are the Bible. It is very difficult to go to an educational conference or training without hearing, "As Marzano states...", "Hattie says...", "Marzano wrote..." or sometimes you are blessed with the educational holy binary "Marzano and Hattie agree..." Marzano and Hattie are no doubt brilliant people who have the time and financial backing to conduct lots of studies, however, do they have the classroom experience to give credibility to their findings? For me, the answer is, no. 

Robert Marzano claims to have taught English in "New York City schools" from 1967-1968, despite the fact that he graduated from college in 1968- not sure how that works. Then in 1969 he went to Seattle where for two years he was the English Department Chair at an elite private school. Hardly real classroom experience but for many administrators he only speaks the gospel. 

John Hattie, who holds an impressive number of degrees, has a very thin classroom resume as well. According to his own Curriculum Vitae, Hattie only spent a total of two years as a full time classroom teacher, once in 1972 and then again in 1974. The last time Hattie was in the classroom I was three years old. Ironically my age at that time would be one more year than his entire classroom teaching experience. And yet, Hattie is seated at the right hand of educational theology. 

It is a foundational belief of mine, that people who have been out of the classroom for more than 5 years should  not be making suggestions about how to improve education and teaching. If we want true, sustainable, and impactful changes to education it must come from those who are in classroom on a consistent basis, who know the realities of today's classrooms and its students. Ask those who are doing the work, how to improve the work.

It's Not As Bad As It Seems

We have heard it time and again: American students are lagging behind students around the globe. Or another very popular refrain: Students today just aren't as smart as when I was in school (or X number of years ago). Both are popular beliefs and both are inaccurate. 

The United States is the only industrialized country that tests ALL of its students. In many parts of the world students with learning disabilities or students learning the native language are not tested, in the United States for the most part, they are. In most industrialized nations only some of the students will go onto high school- or secondary school. In many industrialized nations secondary school is for those who can or want to go onto college, others go to schools that prep them for careers after school, sort of like a trade school. Therefore only those who are college bound are tested. In the U.S., all students- those going to college and those who are not- are tested. Knowing this, it only stands to reason that scores of American students would be lower than those of their global counterparts. 

As for the argument that students are not as smart or as high achieving as they were X number of years ago is also something of a fallacy. If we were to compare the textbooks and lessons for students 100 years ago, we would find that what students are learning today is far more complex and rigorous (there's that great eduspeak word again). Furthermore, it seems to be quite a generational phenomenon to view the younger generation as somehow intellectually inferior. We can look at articles from any time period of the past about the intellect of the young people of the day and most of them will call into question the intellectual abilities of the younger generation. Today is no different and make no mistake when our students today become the adults of tomorrow, they too will make the same accusations.

To be sure, education in the United States can be better, it can be improved, and we should work to do just that. However, we can't just rely on numbers and graphs to guide us. We can't continue to look for the answers from a vending machine of solutions wrapped in fancy names but regurgitating old solutions. Nor can we take as the gospel solutions from those who haven't been in charge of a classroom for years. Those who are in the game and play the game know the game better than anyone else and those are the ones who can make the game better. Those who are in classrooms know best how to improve education. If we truly want to improve education in this nation I propose a novel idea: Provide the materials to teachers, get out of the way and let teachers do what they went to college for, what they were hired to do, and why they have always done; TEACH!

DONE

Exhausted. Dead-tired. Drained. Enervated. Fatigued. Spent. Debilitated. 

There simply are not enough adjectives in the English language to describe how I feel at the end of this school year. I am in the midst of my 24th year of teaching and am exasperated from the past almost two years. This feeling of exhaustion certainly coincides with the pandemic, however, it is not because of the pandemic itself- which, to be sure, exacerbates the issue. These problems are scion's of the pandemic. The compounding of the issues has begun to wear on not only me but scores of other educators down to the point where we no longer view teaching as a calling but is now nothing short of a penance. As recently as a year ago I knew I would certainly teach beyond 30 years. I might do 35, 37, maybe 40 years. I loved teaching, I loved interacting with students, and the annoyances were tolerable so long as I was in the classroom. Now, however, I am at the point where I find myself saying 'Just six more years'. I know I am not alone. I know there are many in classrooms today saying to themselves 'Just six more months'. This malaise is palpable in schools across the nation. For me, this feeling is not all that prevalent when I walk into my classroom, shut the door and its just me and 25-30 teenagers learning American History. That, for the most part, is still enjoyable. I still love teaching. I still love interacting with students. I still love history. Inside my classroom when the door is shut it is still chillingly exciting and wonderful. It's when the door is open and I step outside of my classroom or the outside world creeps into my classroom that is so very wearing. 

Over the past year and a half teachers have gone from heralded heroes of American society to enemies of society in the eyes of many people. Around this time last year, because I am currently the Vice President of the local teachers union, I was contacted by several people in the community accusing me of being against students because the teachers union was advocating for mandatory masking in the schools as well as maintaining the schedule of only half of the students being in-person with the other half being remote. I answered every email I received, I even had a few meetings with some of these individuals. In every interaction I was always polite, professional, and never attempted to dodge their questions or accusations. I can honestly say some of these individuals did not reciprocate. Most were very nice and and respectful, but not all were. Some accused me of simply not caring about the well being of students. I completely understood the frustrations and angst about online learning. I hated teaching online, and I despised even more teaching in-person and online simultaneously. I wanted nothing more that all students to be back in the classroom everyday, but only when we were reasonably sure it was safe for all. I loathe wearing a mask. It is cumbersome, uncomfortable, hot, and makes it difficult to hear what is being said. I want nothing more than to pitch the mask, but not at the risk of making others mortally sick. However, many people firmly know they know things about what I and other educators believe and want without actually knowing anything about our intents or beliefs. Being attacked in such a grievous manner is certainly taxing mentally and emotionally. It is very wearing.

As students began to return to the classroom- wearing masks I might add- a new bogyman appeared on the horizon, becoming the siren-call for many and placed a new target on educators, particularly American History teachers. Critical Race Theory. Suddenly, many believed, CRT was being taught in elementary and secondary classrooms across the country brainwashing American students turning them into good little Bolsheviks. First, let me be clear that CRT is an academic theory to explain the unfortunate prevalence of and role that racism has played in shaping American society. The theory has been around for decades and is primarily taught in graduate level political science and law classes. It is not taught in public classrooms. Believe me if I had the ability to brainwash my students I would be teaching them to put away their phones and turn in their work, it would not be teaching them to be Anti-American Communists. I have been asked by parents as well as community members if I taught CRT. My response is always the same. I simply reply, "I do not teach CRT. I teach what happened. Some of American history is good and inspiring. Some of it is bad and some of American history is awful and shameful. But good citizens should know the good to use as a blueprint for the future and they should know the bad to know what to not repeat." Racism is a thing, and it has played a role in American society. Slavery existed, it was real. Segregation happened. All are indisputable. No one should ever be taught to be ashamed of the color of their skin or of their nationality, and that does not happen in the overwhelming number of classrooms in the United States and it certainly does not take place in my classroom. However, if teaching and learning about what actually happened in our history is offensive, then the problem is not with schools but rather with individual sensibility. But, because many people believe that schools are destroying the fabric of America, teachers- history teachers in particular- are being targeted and attacked on false charges. When all you want to do is teach, this is beyond demoralizing and dispiriting

Perhaps the last component in all of this are the students themselves. I read an article recently that described them as "feral". This is a very apt description. I still really enjoy them and have a good time with them, however, over the past 18 months they have forgotten how to, for lack of a better term, "student". Since they returned full time this past fall the work ethic, which had become very suspect during remote learning, did not return as hoped. Cell phones which have always been the bane of my teaching have become even more of an issue to the point where the students don't even try to hide the fact that they are on their phones during class. And new to this year, is a wonton disrespect for the school facilities. Bathrooms are being mindlessly destroyed. Fights have become more frequent and brutal. Worse still is the fact that in the past other students would come to get an adult when such boorish acts were being committed, now students response is to get out their cell phones to record these behaviors. These unconscionable actions only compound the other new issues that have sprouted in the last year and a half. Altogether, they become a dispiriting, disheartening, dismal and crushing weight.

Teaching has never been easy. It has always been hard. People know when they enter the teaching profession they won't be paid well, respect is tenuous at best, and everyone is an educational expert willing to give their advice because they were students once as well. None of that has changed, it is still true. What has changed are new pressures and demands being placed upon teachers. Worse still, is that many of these new issues are completely unfounded at best and unfortunately very often completely irrational. Teachers are trained to use logic and rationalism when dealing with problems, but when confronted with aberrant rants the weapons of teachers are of little use. If I could remain in my classroom, with my students and my corner of the educational world, I could happily teach another 10-15 years, it is when my classroom door opens and the world outside slinks in that six years seems so far away. My parting words for my educator friends is this: I know we are all very tired and exhausted. It is real and it is palatable. Winter Break is rapidly approaching. Take advantage of that time. Go home, reconnect with your loved ones and recharge. That's what breaks are for. You sacrifice enough of your time during the school year, don't do it during break. There will always be planning to do, there will always be meetings to attend, there will always be problems to address, but time with those who are most important is limited. Do nothing but enjoy the holidays, your loved ones, and your time off. 

The Suffering of Suffrage

Voting has long been held as a right of citizenship in the United States. However, how voting has been conducted has changed quite a bit over the course of our nation's history. The way we vote has changed several times and more importantly WHO gets to vote has evolved over the last 230 years. What is curious about these revisions is that very often they are created less out of standards of fairness and adherence to the lofty ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence but are more about political benefit to one group over the other. These Machiavellian suffrage maneuvers continue still today as some again begin to question who exactly can vote, when people can vote, and how citizens can cast their vote. 

Early in United States history voting was conducted in a few very different and inexact methods. One way was a method known as viva voce, which means voting by voice. Early on local officials would walk down roads past houses as eligible voters (white, land owning men) stood on top of their houses and shouted their vote as the local magistrate came by their house. This where the saying "shout it from the rooftops" comes from. In larger towns and cities, men would gather at the local courthouse or another central building in the area and would shout their preferences when they were asked how they would vote. Another way voting that was conducted early on would be for all of the men gather at the town square and were told to physically go to one side of the area or the other to show their voting preferences. Whichever side had the most men was the side that won. By the mid 1800s the United States began using paper ballots, however these paper ballots were very different from any paper ballot we would be familiar with now. Initially voters would simply write their choices on a paper and put them in the ballot box. However this was very limiting because knowing how to write was not a given at this time as well as corruptible because if you didn't know how to write you could have someone else write your choices for you and there was no guarantee that your surrogate elector would write out the choices you actually wanted. Eventually parties began to print their own pre-printed ballots with only their candidates names on the ballot. These ballots were then distributed to voters for them to cast. However, this was also corruptible because very often these ballots were distributed at the local saloons or party sponsored picnics which were nothing more than a bacchanalia of free alcohol. Which ever side provided the most free adult beverages would earn the support of the drunken voter. 

With the arrival of the Progressive Era in the late 1800s voting reform came in the way of the "Australian Ballot", a pre-printed ballot with all of the candidates names listed and this ballot was only distributed from the local government, not from political parties. With this reform elections became much more fair and counting far more accurate. As our methods for voting have evolved for the better, the question of  who could actually vote has always been a political football. Any notions of this question being one based upon the desire to fulfill the mandates of democracy, meeting the promises of the Constitution, or other equally noble aspirations is naïve at best. The question of who can vote and the ease of access has, and is still today, rooted in political gains for one side or, at the very least, politically damaging the opposition. 

The first major change in who was able to vote in the United States occurred during the 1820s and 1830s during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Jackson narrowly lost the 1824 election to John Quincy Adams. Jackson and his supporters- many of whom were poor, uneducated white men- cried foul and accused Adams and Speaker of the House Henry Clay of fixing the election in favor of Adams, the so-called "Corrupt Bargain". Jackson spent the next four years expounding on the rule of the "elites" (educated, land owning men) at the expense of the the "common man". Realizing that by extending the vote would benefit Jackson because there were far more "common men" than elites, Jackson supporters began to get states to repeal the land owning requirement to vote. In 1828, Jackson ran for office again, and with the expansion of voting to almost all white men, not just land owning men, Jackson won the election handily.

Following the Civil War, the franchise was extended to all former adult male slaves in the South. In the 1868 presidential election Republican U.S. Grant won the election thanks in large part to the large black vote for him in the South. Recognizing an opportunity to expand their voting base and possibly begin to dominate American politics, Republicans passed the 15th Amendment in 1870 extending the right to vote to all black men in the United States. As a result, Republicans did begin to dominate American politics as African-American men at that time overwhelmingly voted Republican.

American women suffragettes, who for a long time were also ardent abolitionists, were shocked and repulsed when the 15th Amendment was passed. After all, they argued, white women had always been viewed as citizens whereas African-American men had only been recognized as citizens beginning in 1865 and yet former male slaves got the right to vote before them. Thus, the women's suffrage movement, more motivated than ever, continued their push for the right to vote. This cause was advanced in the early 1900s by the Republican Party, who were growing alarmed at the continuing rise of the Democratic Party on the national level. It was on the vote of the Republican congressional members that the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920. The Republican Party again benefitted from supporting the expansion of the franchise as women overwhelmingly voted Republican in 1920 beginning a decade of Republican domination of American politics.

The next major expansion of voting was again done with eyes on political gain, however, those hopes were not initially realized. In 1971 the 26th Amendment was passed lowering the voting age to 18 years old. The argument was that if young people were old enough to be drafted and sent to war (which they were) and were old enough to drink beer (at that time the drinking age was 18) then young people were old enough to vote. This argument was championed by liberals who were alarmed at the war in Vietnam and the rising popularity of Richard Nixon. Advocates looked at college campuses and the unrest there among young people. If these young people could vote, it was theorized, the war in Vietnam would come to an end and the likes of Richard Nixon would not be elected. However, the hopes were dashed after the passage of the 26th Amendment. Young people who could vote in 1972, did not in large numbers and Nixon was re-elected in one of the greatest margins of victory in American history. In fact, despite having the right to vote for the last 50 years, it was not until the 2020 election that large numbers of young voters actually cast a ballot.

This leads us to the movement taking place today. Unhappy with the election, many Republicans are advocating for laws to restrict access to the ballot claiming this is in the name of "election security". Despite the fact there has not been any evidence produced that shows widespread voting irregularities or fraud. In fact the Department of Homeland Security, whose officials were all Republican nominees, proclaimed the 2020 election the "most secure election ever in the history of the United States". But because the election was a record turn-out (indeed more people than ever before voted in the 2020 election) and Joe Biden won, there of course must have been fraud. Therefore steps must be taken to ensure that all future elections are "safe" and maintain the integrity of our democracy. The way to do this? Restrict access to the ballot box. This is a curious path being taken because, as we have seen, usually political parties have viewed increasing the franchise as the way to increase their political power. Aside from the Jim Crow laws passed in the South following Reconstruction which were aimed at taking away the right to vote from African Americans, political parties have usually wanted to expand not limit the ability to vote. And yet here we are, limiting the number of ballot boxes and voting precincts, not allowing food or water to be given to those waiting in line to vote, and severely limiting if not outright denying early voting. 

So, where do we go from here? I don't really know. I hope contraction is temporary. I hope that decisions are based on verifiable facts, not wild conspiracies. The right to vote is a basic American right. The right to vote shall not be abridged on account of race or sex.