"Negativity?"

I just wrote an article and noted how I rarely, if ever, use the word "boring." I certainly don't apply it to anything I do. Most people, I believe, don't know what "boring" means. If they don't like doing something, if something is difficult, if it is not what they want to do, well, they label it "boring." That is not what "boring" means.

Another word that attracted my attention over the past few days is "negative." I received an e-mail from a college classmate who remarked he enjoyed hearing from me because I am "so positive" about life. Within the past few months or so, I have received a number of similar comments (by e-mail, in person) about my writing about running. One dentist said, "You are always so upbeat, so positive." This was echoed by a woman I ran into at a race, a woman who has run more than 100 marathons. At the colleges where I teach, I hear very similar comments. I bring it up because, when I was teaching full-time, I had the reputation of being "negative," of harboring "negativity," of being "a bitcher."

Of course, the people who said such things fall into the same category as those who don't know what "boring" means. The people who said such things were public school administrators, so they can be forgiven for not being on the ball. It's in the nature of the being. (I've always maintained that administrators go to "dumb school.") They mistook "criticism" for "negativity." They, I guess, didn't understand that a person who really cares (Yes, I had two administrators tell me over the years, both the exact words, "Ron, you care too much." Isn't that a hell of a thing to say about a teacher? But, consider, they were administrators.) can only stand so much stupidity, so much lack of integrity, so much duplicity. And, they rarely, if ever, could defend what they were doing in light of the criticism (not "negativity") I offered.

I find it interesting to have received all of these comments about "so positive," "so upbeat," etc. I have always received them--outside of the public schools. These came from coaching (both at the high school level and in little leagues and YMCA), from writing (some say I gush too much!), from my teaching at the colleges, from being Dad and Grandpa, from everything, everything, that is, away from the public schools. Maybe, just maybe, someone should have been paying attention. Of course, they weren't. But, consider, they were public school administrators.

First, I just finished a book, The Leaders We Deserved. It's about Presidents and their qualifications and characters. But the generalizations can and should apply to all people in positions of leadership. What does the author note? Hmmm. Willingness to accept criticism. Willingness to concede others have ideas better than yours. Integrity and honesty. Humility. Vision. I could go on, but you get the idea. Rather than exhibit these characteristics, it was easier for school administrators to throw out labels, "negative," "bitcher," etc. Shame on them, each and every one of them, and shame on the other teachers, each and every one of them, who sat by and saw this happen, sat by and let this happen without a peep.

Second, Henry Steele Commager, one of the History professors at Amherst, wrote a piece that the most valuable members of a society are its critics. I copied the piece and sent it to a number of people who had labeled me "negative," "bitcher," etc. Of course, it did no good. But, consider that these were public school administrators. Professor Commager's essay was certainly over their heads.

Third, I make no claims to brilliance. I am hardly God's gift to intelligence. The older I get, the more I learn, the more I learn I don't know very much. That said, I was lucky enough to have received the best of all educations at Amherst. My professors, for the most part, were brilliant. They knew their subjects. They knew the right questions to ask. We had prodigious amounts of reading and writing. One AC grad, a bit ahead of me in years, went to Harvard Law and admitted it wasn't as demanding as AC. I once met a PhD in Psych from Notre Dame (no mean school itself) and he told me, "I know you worked harder for your BA than I did for my PhD." Maybe; maybe not. This isn't bragging, not at all. But it's just an indication that I know what quality education is, what it requires from both instructors and students. That is, perhaps public school administrators should, at least, listen to me instead of calling me names???? (Of course, even my wife doesn't quite get this one.) One of the best books I have ever read is Teaching: What We Do. It was written by a group of AC professors, yes, some of mine! They outline how they prepare--teaching, assignments, etc. It is fascinating and should be required reading for all teachers, regardless of level or subject. But, what do I know? (As I have maintained for years, I'm just a piece of mung.)

OK, am a bit misleading here. Stories coming home from my wife the past two weeks (she works in a public school district) and from employees of public schools (at social gatherings) reinforce one of my major concerns--that people making decisions in the public schools are people who should never be allowed to make them. I worked for four principals over the years. None of them, NONE, should have been principals. They didn't have the characteristics demonstrated in The Leaders We Deserve, no integrity, no courage, no willingness to listen to opposing views, no ability to surround themselves with people of strong ideas (of course, remember, they are public school administrators), etc. Use that and consider the assistant principals! Board office administrators, including superintendents, were worse because they had learned to "play the game" better than others--and I've maintained for years that education is a serious business, not "a game."

OK, enough for now. Out to make dinner.