There is nothing better than an outdoor festival. And the annual Taste of Tippecanoe is one of my favorites.
This was my first year to attend with the new(ish) Renaissance Place, which takes up a large area that used to encompass much of the activity. No matter - the organizers have shut down more streets, scattering the food and stages, and it all worked.
(We are lucky we live so near downtown - we walked, so parking woes were not part of our evening.)
The food was, as always, well .... tasty. I had a gyro and Gary got Indian food; the girls chose Fazoli's, which they followed up with ice cream. Gary and I went for Cannoli from La Scala - my favorite. We even found a table.
Then we were free to wander the streets, chatting with friends. We walked across the bridge over to the Chef's Stage, where we enjoyed free Coke Zero while watching an ice-carving demonstration. We then stopped and listened to a bit of the Lincoln Street Band, which I would have listened to much longer had others in my group not wanted to leave. From our perch on the bridge we had a fantastic view of the fireworks - even the throngs of people that crowded the steps weren't unbearable as we left.
I would have stayed longer - I wish we had arrived early enough to see Travelers Dream, and I would have loved to see Woodstove Flapjacks. But what we saw was fun.
Downtown festivals are the best that Lafayette has to offer. I look forward to many more.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
In Defense
I am going to make enemies with this post.
But I'm going to say this anyway: David Letterman's joke? Not that big a deal.
When he - or his writers - made the joke about Sarah Palin's daughter getting knocked up by A-Rod, I think we all knew which daughter he meant. He did not mean the younger one, the one who was at the Yankess game. He meant the older one, Bristol, the one who is already a single parent.
Now, to be fair, the joke was a little tacky. And I can understand how some people might take offense. And no, Bristol was not the daughter at the game; it was Willow, the 14-year-old.
However, to suggest that Letterman is a pedophile, or that he encourages statutory rape, is absurd. He got the identity of the daughter wrong, but in late-night humor, much exaggeration is employed. How many truths have been stretched to have fun with politicians, celebrities?
And the humor goes both ways - both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were run through the ringer. And with good reason.
It comes with the job.
Politicians' young children should be off limits. And they are - I have not seen jokes about Palin's younger children, or her son who is in Iraq. I didn't see jokes about Chelsea Clinton or about John McCain's teenage daughter. The Obama girls are seldom seen, thus not the butt of jokes.
Bristol Palin, however, is a different story. She has used her teen parenthood as a springboard to some sort of notoriety, appearing on the front of People magazine, become a spokesperson for teen abstinence. She is the one making the rounds of the morning talk shows. She has become a cause celebres, famous for being famous.
Which makes her fair game. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
If you find Letterman's jokes tasteless - and many people will - then turn him off. Boycott his sponsors. But to imply that he is a pedophile? Seems a bit much. As a parent, Ms. Palin, rather than making this any more an ordeal than it need be, you might be wiser to simply not respond. Take the high road - Letterman didn't, yet he's the one who is seen as less reactionary in this scenario.
And for someone watching her political future, one less misstep might be advised.
But I'm going to say this anyway: David Letterman's joke? Not that big a deal.
When he - or his writers - made the joke about Sarah Palin's daughter getting knocked up by A-Rod, I think we all knew which daughter he meant. He did not mean the younger one, the one who was at the Yankess game. He meant the older one, Bristol, the one who is already a single parent.
Now, to be fair, the joke was a little tacky. And I can understand how some people might take offense. And no, Bristol was not the daughter at the game; it was Willow, the 14-year-old.
However, to suggest that Letterman is a pedophile, or that he encourages statutory rape, is absurd. He got the identity of the daughter wrong, but in late-night humor, much exaggeration is employed. How many truths have been stretched to have fun with politicians, celebrities?
And the humor goes both ways - both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were run through the ringer. And with good reason.
It comes with the job.
Politicians' young children should be off limits. And they are - I have not seen jokes about Palin's younger children, or her son who is in Iraq. I didn't see jokes about Chelsea Clinton or about John McCain's teenage daughter. The Obama girls are seldom seen, thus not the butt of jokes.
Bristol Palin, however, is a different story. She has used her teen parenthood as a springboard to some sort of notoriety, appearing on the front of People magazine, become a spokesperson for teen abstinence. She is the one making the rounds of the morning talk shows. She has become a cause celebres, famous for being famous.
Which makes her fair game. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
If you find Letterman's jokes tasteless - and many people will - then turn him off. Boycott his sponsors. But to imply that he is a pedophile? Seems a bit much. As a parent, Ms. Palin, rather than making this any more an ordeal than it need be, you might be wiser to simply not respond. Take the high road - Letterman didn't, yet he's the one who is seen as less reactionary in this scenario.
And for someone watching her political future, one less misstep might be advised.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Speaking Up
You could see the gates in the background as President Obama spoke at Buchenwald last week.
The gates read Jedem das Seine. Literally, it means, "To each his own"; figuratively, it means, "Everybody gets what he deserves." At Dachau, near München, the gates read Arbeit Machts Frei, or "Work makes one free." Messages steeped in irony.
It was with a mixture of pride and sadness that I watched the President make that speech, in a place where unspeakable horrors took place. It was significant that he stood there, making it clear that his administration does support Israel, does support the plight of the Jews. And he reiterated that he could not tolerate the views of those who would deny the Holocaust:
"We are here today because we know this work is not yet finished. To this day, there are those who insist that the Holocaust never happened—a denial of fact and truth that is baseless and ignorant and hateful. This place is the ultimate rebuke to such thoughts; a reminder of our duty to confront those who would tell lies about our history."
My pride was mingled with sadness, as it often is, when I am reminded of the atrocities that took place some 70 years ago. And the sadness returned yesterday, when an 84-year-old white supremacist opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, killing Stephen Johns, an African-American security guard, the man who opened the door to allow the gunman in.
Here we are, 64 years after the end of World War II, more than 40 years after the Civil Rights movement. And still, we have people filled with such hate. People who hate indiscriminately, with a bias against those of another race, religion, or sexual orientation - to name a few.
Where does it end?
Did we not learn from the Nazis, and their needless hate and fear of another religion? Why the hatred against those of another race? Why the need to judge people based on what they look like, or what religion they practice, or whom they love? Why not judge people on, to quote the great Dr. Martin Luther King, the content of their character?
Jedem das Seine. Everyone gets what he deserves. Do we not all deserve the same thing? The "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" as outlined in the Declaration of Independence?
The shooter in the Holocaust Museum was in his 80s. With luck, the hatred, the divisiveness belongs to a different generation. I can only hope that with my own children, such prejudices will fade away, and that truly we will see people as we should: as equals.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me. - Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984
The gates read Jedem das Seine. Literally, it means, "To each his own"; figuratively, it means, "Everybody gets what he deserves." At Dachau, near München, the gates read Arbeit Machts Frei, or "Work makes one free." Messages steeped in irony.
It was with a mixture of pride and sadness that I watched the President make that speech, in a place where unspeakable horrors took place. It was significant that he stood there, making it clear that his administration does support Israel, does support the plight of the Jews. And he reiterated that he could not tolerate the views of those who would deny the Holocaust:
"We are here today because we know this work is not yet finished. To this day, there are those who insist that the Holocaust never happened—a denial of fact and truth that is baseless and ignorant and hateful. This place is the ultimate rebuke to such thoughts; a reminder of our duty to confront those who would tell lies about our history."
My pride was mingled with sadness, as it often is, when I am reminded of the atrocities that took place some 70 years ago. And the sadness returned yesterday, when an 84-year-old white supremacist opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, killing Stephen Johns, an African-American security guard, the man who opened the door to allow the gunman in.
Here we are, 64 years after the end of World War II, more than 40 years after the Civil Rights movement. And still, we have people filled with such hate. People who hate indiscriminately, with a bias against those of another race, religion, or sexual orientation - to name a few.
Where does it end?
Did we not learn from the Nazis, and their needless hate and fear of another religion? Why the hatred against those of another race? Why the need to judge people based on what they look like, or what religion they practice, or whom they love? Why not judge people on, to quote the great Dr. Martin Luther King, the content of their character?
Jedem das Seine. Everyone gets what he deserves. Do we not all deserve the same thing? The "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" as outlined in the Declaration of Independence?
The shooter in the Holocaust Museum was in his 80s. With luck, the hatred, the divisiveness belongs to a different generation. I can only hope that with my own children, such prejudices will fade away, and that truly we will see people as we should: as equals.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me. - Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
No Child Left Behind?
It's official: We have a failing school in our midst.
Not that this is a secret, by any means. I've followed the news reports, and I've received my official notice from the school corporation: Miller Elementary has failed to achieve the mandated Annual Yearly Progress as outlined by No Child Left Behind. I've also received notice that the school my child attends has been identified for improvement.
Miller Elementary is our neighborhood school. According to data compiled by the Lafayette School Corporation, Miller has higher numbers of students who receive free/reduced lunch, are minority, have limited English proficiency, and are in special education. Because of these statistics, and with such a high number of at-risk students, it is no surprise to anyone that Miller has failed to meet the AYP guidelines.
I should back up a bit. Miller School is located at the juncture of several neighborhoods. There is the neighborhood where we live, older homes, mostly owner-occupied, some rental. Housing prices range from $150,000-600,000; annual incomes include everything from hourly employees to physicians and attorneys. The neighborhood just south of Miller is also mostly owner-occupied houses; it is a more modest, working-class neighborhood with property values ranging from $60,000-100,000. A third distinct area feeds into Miller, with the houses that are west and north of the school. Many of these are rental; many are much more modest. This area tends to be a bit more transient.
Up until 2005, Miller's district comprised primarily these three areas. In the fall of 2005, students from nearby Washington Elementary, a school further north of downtown Lafayette, were sent to Miller when LSC made the decision to close Washington. This move placed more of these at-risk, lower-income students at Miller.
Four years later, and Miller is still struggling to reach these children. The result? The school corporation, under the guidelines set forth by No Child Left Behind, must decide how to deal with Miller School, its principal, and its staff and their combined failure to improve test scores. The options include replacing the staff at Miller (which implies that the staff is wholely responsible for the students' failure), closing the school and reopening it as a charter school, or hiring a professional management company to come in and help turn the school around.
All the responsibility for the failure of these students - more than 80 percent of whom are eligible for free/reduced lunch - is being placed on the staff. Yet I had a very good experience with this same group of teachers. I knew them as a dedicated group of professionals, teachers who were entirely vested in not only the success of their students, but in the school as a whole. My own children attended Miller from 2000-2006. All three of them passed the ISTEP every time they took it; all three of my children have gone on to be placed in gifted/talented programs.
Who is responsible for the success of my children? Did their grades and test scores come about because of the teachers they had? Or did they succeed because of encouragement they got at home? If the latter is the case - which is likely a major factor - then conversely, wouldn't the failure of some students also be in direct proportion to the help they get at home?
It seems like such an easy conclusion - and it's one I know the school corporation understands. I've heard superintendent Dr. Ed Eiler give a talk about how schools are measured and what students bring into the school; already, by age 5, children bring in habits and background from their home life that affects their school performance. Given the transient circumstances in which many of these students live, their income level, and the general lifestyle to which they are exposed, it's no wonder many of them find success in school to be a challenge.
I should note here that while it's easy to blame parents, the socio-econcomic status of these students makes the entire equation very complex. These are not all parents who do not care about their children, but often parents who are too overworked or underwhelmed or simply ignorant of what their role as a parent should be. If proper parenting has not been modeled, how do these adults know how to do what is best for their children? If no one read to them as children, how do they know that's what they should be doing for their children?
Bottom line? The No. 1 factor in a child's success in school is involvement of the parents. Which is why home-schooled children typically do well - they have the undivided attention of an adult who is completely vested in their success.
In short, the problem here is not the staff at Miller School. The problem is with this law, the fact that legislators, and not educators, have taken it upon themselves to come up with the matrix by which we determine a student's success. It's a categorical flaw in our social stratification, in which the divide between the haves and the have-nots continues to widen.
I don't claim to have all the answers. But one thing I do know? Closing Miller School will not change a thing.
Not that this is a secret, by any means. I've followed the news reports, and I've received my official notice from the school corporation: Miller Elementary has failed to achieve the mandated Annual Yearly Progress as outlined by No Child Left Behind. I've also received notice that the school my child attends has been identified for improvement.
Miller Elementary is our neighborhood school. According to data compiled by the Lafayette School Corporation, Miller has higher numbers of students who receive free/reduced lunch, are minority, have limited English proficiency, and are in special education. Because of these statistics, and with such a high number of at-risk students, it is no surprise to anyone that Miller has failed to meet the AYP guidelines.
I should back up a bit. Miller School is located at the juncture of several neighborhoods. There is the neighborhood where we live, older homes, mostly owner-occupied, some rental. Housing prices range from $150,000-600,000; annual incomes include everything from hourly employees to physicians and attorneys. The neighborhood just south of Miller is also mostly owner-occupied houses; it is a more modest, working-class neighborhood with property values ranging from $60,000-100,000. A third distinct area feeds into Miller, with the houses that are west and north of the school. Many of these are rental; many are much more modest. This area tends to be a bit more transient.
Up until 2005, Miller's district comprised primarily these three areas. In the fall of 2005, students from nearby Washington Elementary, a school further north of downtown Lafayette, were sent to Miller when LSC made the decision to close Washington. This move placed more of these at-risk, lower-income students at Miller.
Four years later, and Miller is still struggling to reach these children. The result? The school corporation, under the guidelines set forth by No Child Left Behind, must decide how to deal with Miller School, its principal, and its staff and their combined failure to improve test scores. The options include replacing the staff at Miller (which implies that the staff is wholely responsible for the students' failure), closing the school and reopening it as a charter school, or hiring a professional management company to come in and help turn the school around.
All the responsibility for the failure of these students - more than 80 percent of whom are eligible for free/reduced lunch - is being placed on the staff. Yet I had a very good experience with this same group of teachers. I knew them as a dedicated group of professionals, teachers who were entirely vested in not only the success of their students, but in the school as a whole. My own children attended Miller from 2000-2006. All three of them passed the ISTEP every time they took it; all three of my children have gone on to be placed in gifted/talented programs.
Who is responsible for the success of my children? Did their grades and test scores come about because of the teachers they had? Or did they succeed because of encouragement they got at home? If the latter is the case - which is likely a major factor - then conversely, wouldn't the failure of some students also be in direct proportion to the help they get at home?
It seems like such an easy conclusion - and it's one I know the school corporation understands. I've heard superintendent Dr. Ed Eiler give a talk about how schools are measured and what students bring into the school; already, by age 5, children bring in habits and background from their home life that affects their school performance. Given the transient circumstances in which many of these students live, their income level, and the general lifestyle to which they are exposed, it's no wonder many of them find success in school to be a challenge.
I should note here that while it's easy to blame parents, the socio-econcomic status of these students makes the entire equation very complex. These are not all parents who do not care about their children, but often parents who are too overworked or underwhelmed or simply ignorant of what their role as a parent should be. If proper parenting has not been modeled, how do these adults know how to do what is best for their children? If no one read to them as children, how do they know that's what they should be doing for their children?
Bottom line? The No. 1 factor in a child's success in school is involvement of the parents. Which is why home-schooled children typically do well - they have the undivided attention of an adult who is completely vested in their success.
In short, the problem here is not the staff at Miller School. The problem is with this law, the fact that legislators, and not educators, have taken it upon themselves to come up with the matrix by which we determine a student's success. It's a categorical flaw in our social stratification, in which the divide between the haves and the have-nots continues to widen.
I don't claim to have all the answers. But one thing I do know? Closing Miller School will not change a thing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
