Showing posts with label Oprah Winfrey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oprah Winfrey. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Just Waiting for Recess, Mostly

Bad teachers just now are very much in the media. I've watched and listened to quite a bit of the promotion for a new feature documentary on the subject, though I have no plans to see the film. To summarize the hoopla, for any who've missed it:

A rich, middle aged filmmaker, who matriculated at the Sidwell Friends School and Brown, who's children likewise attend private school, has made a new movie that asks the burning question, why aren't American public schools just as good as the ones to which the right people go? (One wonders he didn't just ask the maid, but then I haven't seen the film, so perhaps he did.) The answer, as I understand it, turns out to be, in large part, those damned unions. Shocking. That anyone working in the United States still has a union, I grant you, is unexpected. It seems, good or bad, teachers in America's public schools are still entitled to collective bargaining, seniority and the like. This revelation has, unsurprisingly, been loudly and roundly condemned by those champions of the common people, Oprah Winfrey & Bill Gates, among other billionaires. (You have to watch for the moment someone tells Oprah that there might be someone in America she couldn't fire. Priceless.)

Imagine. You see, while those damned unions are busy protecting the bad teachers, the good ones go unrewarded, even as they try so very much harder than the rest. While the bad'uns go home after only working a single shift, the good'uns seem to be available twenty-four-seven; happy to give out their private phone numbers to any ten-year-old with a question about their homework, or have a chat with your mum after bedtime. The good'uns, you see, never stop. That's what makes 'em so damned good. Public school teachers then should be more like, well, one's dear old Nanny, or a proper governess or private tutor, for the older nippers; always ready with a bit of French, or the odd square root, or a comforting word, that sort of thing, as needed. Simple. And when the old thing gets a bit unsteady on her pins or goes a bit dotty, well, then the family really ought to find her a room somewhere. Least they could do for dear old party, no?

(So why has nobody thought of this before?!)

The most amusing aspect of this "crisis," at least as portrayed in the popular media, has been the reflexive insistence with which everyone: billionaire and union rep, talk show host and street interview, upper and lower, has hastened to concede that many, if not most public school teachers are really just grand; selfless, devoted, effective, -- under appreciated, etc., but really, just swell, for the most part. Wouldn't want anyone to think anyone was suggesting otherwise. Ever.

That, to my mind, was the most interesting point inadvertently made in the whole gassy chat on education just now. Now, I had some bad teachers in my time. Had a few good ones too. On balance? More bad than good, though mostly not so bad as all that. Now, can my experience really have been so very different from the rest of America's?

I grew up in a rather old fashioned small town, quite some time ago. I don't say my experience speaks to much, but I should think it was more typical than not.

How harshly then can I really judge the majority of the people who ostensibly taught me whatever it was I learned in school? Who doesn't remember fondly most of the dear old mother-substitutes of of elementary school days? Those who nursed one through simple sentences and the times-tables? True, some showed a prettier cursive at the blackboard than others, and some were perhaps less kind or encouraging than they might have been, but not a bad lot by and large. Some did their hair more carefully than they did their lesson-plans, but I don't remember most as being anything much but neither better nor worse than they should have been. Truth be told, I don't remember most of them at all. (Who was that woman that taught my third grade? Name escapes me now, but she was alright.)

And later? In what's now called middle school, and later still in high school, there was the battalion of simple souls, men and women, tenured and tired, who taught just to the edge of their competence, relying on the printed questions in their threadbare textbooks, on film-strips, and faded mimeos that dated to their apprentice days, to see them through to their pensions. Pitiable examples of pedagogy, no doubt, but then I don't know that Socrates could have made me pay attention to some of that stuff, on a brisk Autumn day, with the sun blazing away, just the other side of the window. As the town I grew up in was rather at an apex of a number of small local colleges of various Protestant affiliation, these teachers were often aided by various exhausted and or ill-prepared graduate students, like the relentlessly cheerful gals just out of the Presbyterian teachers' college who rather mindlessly distributed stickers like confetti at a perpetual birthday party, or the great, oafish Methodist boys who still blushed when asked a direct question by a girl. (Now and again, one of the latter, I remember, would get himself in trouble paying too much attention of just the wrong kind to some high school sophomore girl, and not be asked back.)

Mustn't forget a mention for the largely anonymous substitutes who, when called on, taught auto-mechanics on Monday, English composition on Tuesday, and sex ed. on Wednesday, all with an equal and undisguised despair.

Now none of the above were necessarily bad people, or very good teachers. They just did their jobs, as best they could, which wasn't always very well. The suggestion that each and every one ought to have been better isn't without merit, but it does strike me as statistically unlikely. Largely unexceptional teachers teaching largely unexceptionable children sounds, to me, about the likeliest outcome of mandatory eduction in any roughly democratic society, no?

What then could be sillier than suggesting that these people, teachers and students, parents and neighbors, all ought to have been somehow better than they were ever likely to be? But then, I grew up in the days before every child was thought to be "exceptional" and every teacher "great." What balls.

Who remembers much of what was taught in school days, anyway?

The best teachers I had, all had something to say that may or may not have had anything much to do with the curriculum. Some, like Miss Joan Stuck, gave me genuinely useful information, like how a sentence might be made, and why it mattered. A few others directed me to books I might like, though these weren't the ones required. Some of the best teachers I saw in my day, weren't necessarily mine. I remember the patience with which some of them helped kids who were struggling. I struggled too, of course, but usually with what I would never need again, could not be made to see the point of, or was quite rightly convinced, even then, they'd somehow got wrong. I'd hazard a guess, for example, if I'm to be generous, and say half of the history I was taught was true. Not entirely the teachers' fault, I should think, as they may not have known any better themselves. Mr. Flynn introduced William Manchester at one one. That was rather a surprise.

It isn't really the well-intentioned or the competent though that I remember best. Who does? Other than the ones who actually made something memorable, like Ms. K. Gilliland, in her whirling peasant skirts, whirling her way through Shakespeare's tragedies as if, from somewhere, she heard a lute, mostly who one remembers are the cranks and the loonies, and the bullies, of course, can't forget them. Like the 9th grade science teacher and religious fanatic who "skipped" human evolution, and once told me, "privately," that Catholics went to Hell, or the mad war veteran who might forget a scheduled quiz and instead demonstrate between the rows of desks how to escape a submarine filled with smoke, or the militant Libertarian who taught the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression," and called Social Security, "a tragedy."

I don't know that any of those last three deserved employment in a public or any other kind of school, but realistically, they were rather a cross section of the community. I doubt it was their union cards alone that kept them on the payroll.

Now that this fascinating media "discussion" is underway, I find myself almost sentimentally defensive of the general run of my school teachers. Most were no better, and no worse, than most of the adults I encountered as a kid. Strikes me as both hypocritical and frankly more than a little ridiculous -- to say nothing of the underlying political agenda involved -- to hold teachers to a standard higher than that to which any or all of the ministers and priests I ever met subscribed, to say nothing of the scout leaders, the school administrators, the PTA, or most of the parents I've ever known, other than my own of course. I was lucky there.

And it must be a specially thankless job, teaching. Oh, I know, it is now the rule evidently that teachers must all be either great or nothing, but while that's obvious nonsense, I wonder how most people do it. I, for one, would be an awful teacher. Shiver to think. Never contemplated even the possibility. I've know some of my contemporaries who did, and then thought better of it. I know more than one brilliant student, now my age, who once taught for a bit, usually in graduate school, and then had the sense to become a librarian.

But I don't mean to defend the worst, either. I'm thinking of the truly memorable villains, not just the drunks and depressives, the dogmatists and the fanatics, but the real monsters. Everybody remembers the villain, no? The truly bad teachers I have in mind, were, quite frankly, just awful people.

All my monsters, or most of them, I should think, are dead. I can think of few human beings better remembered, or ironically enough, likely to be less lightly mourned, than one's worst teachers. Bad bosses, bad lovers, bad roommates, none but bad parents, I should think, come quite so quickly back to mind, or haunt whole areas of enquiry or endeavor so effectively, down even into the dignity of an otherwise contented middle age. I know many a competent, confident matron who can still be made blush passing a mirror by some thoughtless cruelty tossed off as a joke by some lumpen, hormonal lady-coach, and many a strong man who still can't figure a fraction without remembering the sting of a ruler across his palm. Literature is full of heartless masters thrashing their pupils into unconsciousness, wicked marms humiliating their tearful charges... worse. That my eighth grade algebra teacher has long since salted whatever sorry plot of earth into which she was finally felled, does not mean I can keep from still catching an echo of her insufferable rasp in every old woman who questions my competence to calculate the tax on a special order at the bookstore where I work. "What are you, stupid?" That my junior high school gym coach should by now at least be beyond the vengeance of any but the nursing home orderlies who -- one can only pray -- he also pinched and mocked in "special" gym, does not compensate me for my irrational horror of locker-rooms, communal showers and anyone for whom "fitness" may best be judged by completed laps and a stop-watch. (I suppose I might be grateful for the traumatic distrust of even the most seemingly safe and clean bath-houses he unwittingly instilled in me, as this may have inadvertently saved my life at the dawn of the dangerous eighties, but no, even that I refuse to put to the old brute's credit. May he rot.)

Had I the time, or was it my purpose tonight to call out all the martinets and bullies that ruled and ruined for me so many of the schoolrooms in that little town I've tried to forget, I could go on. If called on, I could provide a list. But I'm already weary of the topic, so perhaps another time.

Meanwhile, anyone with children really needn't pay any attention to me on this subject at all. I'm sure it matters very much, to you. Perhaps, given the publicity generated by this new film, something might actually be done to get the worst of them gone, but as for making all that great majority "great," well... I'm sure your children deserve no less. Good luck with that.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Hangin' With the Kids: Josh Kilmer-Purcell in Gum Boots

My dear friend, N., a.k.a. Signora Anita DiMartini, Book Club Queen of Seattle*, surprised me not a little in 2009 by picking Josh Kilmer-Purcell's memoir I Am Not Myself These Days as the March selection for the Seattle Gay & Lesbian Book Club. Surely -- sniff -- we were better than this? By that time, of course, we'd already abandoned the idea of reading only pre-Stonewall classics as having proved too depressing, even for us, but our reading list had still been pretty consistently highbrow rather than lowdown. The Signora's sudden enthusiasm for the then only three year old memoirs of a drunk New York drag queen, known as "Aquadisiac," and famous for keeping live goldfish in her plastic tits, was... unexpected. To that date, the book club hadn't much considered funny, or, for that matter: camp, drag, whores, booze or pets. True, Genet lay straight ahead, but then Genet was a classic, wasn't he? Dead, after all, and French, and that. Kilmer-Purcell, or rather, "Aqua," seemed something of a compromise of our standards, hardly likely company for Thomas Mann et al. Not even dead, this one, despite her best efforts.

Frankly, I questioned Anita's thinking on this one. But then, Signora DiMartini is always thinking, when it comes to her clubs. I, for one, have learned to trust her superior instincts, at least when it comes to book club selections. And again, she was quite right. I thought "Aqua" delightful. This queen was funny, and, I thought, she could write. Certainly reading that book was an unexpectedly happy experience for me. Had no idea. It was worth reading the book just for the story of the queen who'd decided to make a candy-cannon part of her act. (Read the book. I won't try to explain.) Besides the drag and the drugs and the drinking, at the heart of the book was a doomed romance with a high priced call-boy. That was not an unfamiliar story from the literature, but in Kilmer-Purcell's telling, the heroine not only survived, but didn't even get all preachy in her recovery. I loved it.

Not everyone in the book club did. Some seemed to think the author a bit too flippant about such serious dysfunction. Our group leader had hoped to entice some of the recovery crowd, who meet in the same space as the book club, to join us. Don't know how well that worked out, but there were those at the meetings I did attend who seemed to think the tone was lowered by the jokes. Recovery, for some, ain't the least bit funny. Oh well.

Still, when a reader's copy of Josh Kilmer-Purcell's latest came into the store, I was quick to snag it for Anita to read. Perhaps it was a case of once burned twice shy, at least in so far as the group's reformed tweekers et al were concerned, but for whatever reason, she chose not to make the new memoir an official book club selection. I might not have thought any more about the new book, had I not been surfing cable TV with the husband one night and come across a new reality show.The Fabulous Beekman Boys is the story of a successful Manhattan queer couple gone all Green Acres in upstate New York. Guess who?

Josh Kilmer-Purcell's new book, The Bucolic Plague: How Two Manhattanites Became Gentlemen Farmers: An Unconventional Memoir, ought not to be my sort of thing. The show was amusing, because these queens are funny, but also uncomfortable to watch; the boys never see each other anymore, what with the tall one working sixty hours a week at an advertisement firm in The City, just to keep the country house weekends going, while the little one wraps individual bars of handmade goats' milk soap, dreams of empire, and washes the barn windows for a garden party. Not my kinda people, really. Still, it's a cute young gay couple mucking around in gum boots. Kinda fun, in a Jean Claude Cardinot directed, doin' it in the barn kinda way, and after just the first two episodes, I was sure the little one was going to at least get his ass spanked. So I've stayed tuned.

Now, having grown up in the country, grubbing root vegetables out of the back garden, and surrounded by farmboy homophobia, the country, for me, holds no special charm. I do rural roughly once a year, on our annual pilgrimage back to see the folks in Pennsylvania. That's usually quite enough rednecking for me, thanks. Goats, and the men who tend them, smell bad. Not an issue, just watching television, but I remember.

Then there is the whole Martha/Oprah connection. (If I had to pick the two women in my lifetime who have done the most to undo the Women's Movement in America, these two would top my list. Martha Stewart and Oprah Winfrey, between them, taught a whole generation of women how to just be girls again. " Want a pony? Well, I got one. Everybody deserves a pony. Every one's getting ponies! Wish hard. Nothing wrong with wanting a pony, just make sure you only feed your pony organic carrots and pure, unprocessed cane-sugar. I'll show you how to make your own, homemade sugar-cubes!" It's female -empowerment by means of Disney princess fantasy. It's fatuous celebrity-capitalism, talk-show-tycooning, in which opportunities simply come to those who deserve them, as opposed to those who do well well in supposedly unscripted media, and hard work is rewarded with money, power and "a staff." Fame, real estate portfolios, ostentatious wealth and guardian angels, these things aren't just compatible with feminism, in this brave new world, but the natural outcome of personal growth. It's as if of all the labors of all the movements for social equality in this country were sweated and bled just to make a Martha Stewart Living Ominimedia, Inc. and or a Harpo Inc., possible. It's repugnant.) Kilmer-Purcell's adorable husband, lil' Dr. Brent Ridge, worked his way through medical & business school, to become Martha's director "of healthy living." In his new book, Kilmer-Purcell describes attending a taping of the Oprah show and coming away convinced that he too deserves to be living his "best life," or at least to be the star of a reality TV show. Oh dear.

So, why'd I read this book? Because Josh Kilmer-Purcell is not inspired. Thanks be. Inspiration, as it turns out, is dangerous as hell, hard as hell on a marriage, and a shitty business model. I realized as soon as I'd read the "Author's Caution," that I was in familiar and welcome company:

"This book is about living your dream. It will not inspire you," he begins.

What the television show can only uncomfortably suggest, and what the book is really about, is lovers in some deep shit. To use the language of the television chat shows, can a long term, committed, gay relationship survive separation, economic hardship and conflicting personal agendas? Now that's interesting, at least as Josh Kilmer-Purcell tells it in the book, largely because the author hasn't got an answer, or, often as not, so much as a clue. (I've been in just such a domestic situation for more than twice as long and my own understanding of how and why is still, at best, notional.) What Kilmer-Purcell does have is wit, a strong sense of narrative, and a beautiful, ridiculous house in the country. We don't have one of those. This might be interesting.

I should say, what Kilmer-Purcell and his partner have, is a mansion, the Beekman Mansion, by name. A beautiful, big old house, built in 1802 -- thus the eventual name of their farming enterprise/life-style-website, Beekman 1802 -- and the book is all about their struggle to keep it, and their marriage, going. It seems that, once upon a time, on their annual jaunt into the countryside to go apple-picking, the city-boys came across a restored house in a bucolic farm setting, and on something like a whim, they buy the joint. Keep in mind, this is a roughly million dollar whim, but at the time, lil' Dr. Brent is an on-camera cog in the vast Martha media machine and Josh has long since hung up his aquarium brassiere for a partnership in a Manhattan ad agency. These boys have done well, economically, and personally. Then came the market crash. Ad agencies don't do well in down markets. The good lil' doctor gets unsentimentally shit-canned from Martha's magic kingdom. There are dead flies all over the place. What was to be a country retreat for the weekends, in roughly a year's time, becomes a working goat farm (don't ask, it's a charming story,) a full time home/business for lil' Dr. Brent, and something of a curse for the boys. This then isn't a book about dreams, but about mucking through, the part of life called reality, with which media goddesses no longer concern themselves and about which they talk hardly at all. Not perhaps the story Kilmer-Purcell intended to tell, but the one he had the sense and grace to instead. It's a good story. Go looking for dreams and you'll find yourselves... weeding at night.

But what they also found in the country, besides a community, were some uncomfortable, and often hilarious, truths about what it means to lead what Martha/Oprah would call "an authentic life" and, by contrast, what authenticity really means: dirt, mess, imperfection, misunderstanding, hurt feelings, but also: tenacity, faithfulness, friendship, hope.

In the end, both in the book and on television, maddening as they can be, The Fabulous Beekman Boys are good company. and the artisan cheese looks delicious.



*Seems I'm the only one to call him that, or find it funny, but maybe if I just keep it going long enough...