matching tracksuits

fun in threes, sometimes fours

Monday Thoughts

School Thoughts

We received a new student on our team today: a fifteen-year-old boy from Central America who doesn't speak a word of English and has not been in school since the first grade.

I have reservations.

I'm not fussing about any extra work entailed by having such a kid in my classroom. I've already got two complete-non-speakers and a fourth kid who barely speaks English. My reservations are about how effectively I can really help these kids. They are, of course, in my lowest level classes, which means there are a lot of behavior issues in those classes. I'm supposed to create a new curriculum for these boys because they're so low with their English that modified materials don't do anything for them in my class. In science, yes. In math, certainly. In social studies, a qualified yes. In English class, though? It's impossible just to modify the curriculum. This newest student is illiterate in his first language: I can't modify my curriculum that includes standards like "Determine one or more themes and analyze the development and relationships to character, setting, and plot over the course of a text; provide an objective summary" and "Determine the figurative and connotative meanings of words and phrases as they are used in text; analyze the impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone, including analogies texts." You can't do this with pictures. Besides, I struggle teaching the native speakers these things because of their low motivation -- teaching a non-English-speaking student with the aid of pictures? Not going to happen. So I'll have to invent a curriculum for these boys.

Is that type of teaching really in these boys' best interest? Wouldn't a part-time immersion with classes like gym and art coupled with a couple of direct English instruction courses be more effective? The people at the district office downtown will say, "No, the data don't support that." But I think that's bullshit. I know from my own experience in Poland that dumping me into an environment where I didn't speak the language without any direct language instruction would have only frustrated me, and that's with me being 22 years old at that time. If I were only 14 in such a situation -- forget it.

Parenting Thoughts

The Boy's church league basketball team had their last game this evening, which sadly they lost 22-30. It was a tough season: they went 1-8. But it wasn't the losing that bothered the Boy so much; it was the unsportsmanlike conduct so many of the players on the other teams exhibited. Tonight, for example, there was one boy who screamed at every shot attempt our team made in an effort to distract our boys.

I had some choice words to say in texts to K about this kid's behavior.

"Just keep your cool," she gently reminded me.

"Of course -- he's just a kid," I replied. But that type of behavior doesn't come from nowhere. Either his parents never tried to correct him because they saw nothing wrong with it, or they actively encouraged and/or taught him to behave like that.

Were I to coach such a kid, I'd tell him and his parents, "Look, if you do that, I bench you for the quarter. You do it again, it's for the rest of the game. And every time after that, it's for the rest of the game."

The Boy's inherently empathetic outlook on things means such behavior would never enter his mind. Was that something we had to teach him? I guess we did, but I don't remember doing so, and I suspect his empathy would lead him not to do that even if we didn't explicitly teach him that.

Hearts

The Girl

School Drama

How much of drama in the school is from adult modeling, both in the popular media and the home? The norm is to be upset about something, to be stressed about something, to feel wronged by someone. It's a victimization mentality, a life lived in the passive voice and ordered by second and third conditionals. What we see on the tabloids while waiting to check out at Publix is what the kids try to emulate in their daily interactions with others, both because of what they see in the media and because the media informs the behavior of so many adults around them.

Watch any reality TV show: it is one constant conflict. Granted, it's a hyped, artificial conflict: this or that individual doesn't want to get kicked of this or that show, and the backstabbing and conniving of other participants creates conflict and heightens audience self-identification: "Hey, I've been stabbed in the back like that myself!" we say when we known someone's scheming on reality TV has paid off.

That ain’t us

"Every single kid in this class been suspended at least once."

It was a fair claim, and honestly speaking, I knew the girl who said it might actually be right. At least for half a second, that's what I thought. A quiet voice beside me reminded me that that probably wasn't the case.

"I haven't."

The shy words came from one of the best students in the class, a hard work boy who never has any behavior problems. The two girls with whom I was speaking -- with whom I'd drifted so off topic from our classwork that I felt somewhat guilty continuing it and did so only because of a perceived need to explain some basic facts to some confused girls -- the two girls just looked at him. I jumped in.

"And in fact I can show you a whole class of students that have never been suspended." I had in mind my honors group, but times are changing, and being in an honors class no longer necessarily means perfect behavior, so they argued, tossing a couple of names at me. Knowing they were likely right, I persisted nonetheless in asserting that none of them had been suspended.

Finally, the girls turned to the fatalistic refrain of at-risk kids: "Well, that's them, not us."

"But it could be you," I suggested, and one would think I'd suggested that they could fly to the moons of Jupiter by their own power, such was the looks of disbelief.

"That ain't us!" they insisted.

The Bird

The kids are all taking a benchmark test. We're spending two hours of each of the two days students will be in school taking a district-mandated benchmark test, which, truth be told, will be of little to no value to me. I know where my students are; I know where we're going; I know what I haven't covered. Further, I know the students better than a benchmark could show

In the midst of all this, a bird flies up to the window and perches on the sill. It cocks its head as it investigates all the humanoid forms on the inside, all hunched over glowing boxes, almost all oblivious to the bird's presence. Except Anna. She's sitting next to the window and has watched the bird flutter up. She takes a break from her test and looks over at the bird, smiling and likely grateful for the break the bird's presence has brought.

Birds come to this window regularly, but their presence injects a bit of tragic chaos into the class atmosphere. Twice this year, birds have flown into the window with a sickening thud, only to lie outside the window slowly dying of the blunt force trauma the window and physics delivered. They flap about just outside our window as if they are trying to distract a predator to lure it away from its nest. These times, though, the bird is not faking. 

Startling Admission

When I listened to Pack's rant about the individual who left the RCG because he was tired of "faking it," my initial thoughts were regarding what the individual meant by "faking." It was only later that I considered the simple fact that mentioning it at all shows a startling lack of critical thinking, a Pack-ian level of egocentrism, or some combination of the two. It was a great and foolish risk Pack took because that comment undoubtedly resonated with members sitting in the headquarters building and reverberated throughout the small congregations worldwide.

Pack probably can't imagine the number of people in his church who heard that comment and felt it as an indictment of themselves. He suggested it was a question of lying; the individual who quit and everyone remaining who nonetheless relate to the statement all understand it as a question of self-preservation. Pack intended it as an insult to the individual of little faith who was lying by his very presence among true believers; his audience heard it as a tacit admission that the cognitive dissonance required to remain in the RCG is simply overwhelming for many. Pack meant to insult the former member; instead, he only drew attention to his own failures and the cognitive/emotional stress they create.

This highlights just how far Pack has retreated into his own ego. He can't even realize when the decisions of others are a clear condemnation of his own actions. Sequestered in his compound, his every need handled by others, he can't even imagine the mental anguish his followers are suffering. Everything he says and does filters through the lens of his own ego, and the refraction of that lens is so complete that Pack literally cannot differentiate his own ego from the world around him.

I know we all hate Hitler comparisons, but I can't help but draw parallels between Hitler's decision-making process at the end of the war and Pack's at what appears to be the end of the RCG. As the Soviets encircled Berlin and defeat became inevitable and obvious, Hitler moved battalions that essentially no longer existed and ordered attacks from army groups that had been decimated. He remained convinced of his certain victory, and he discussed the stunning blow his imaginary, newly-rebuilt Luftwaffe was about to deliver despite the fact that the Allies had complete domination of the skies of Europe. Surrounded by sycophants who were terrified of crossing him, Hitler lived in an echo chamber that only confirmed and compounded his delusions.

Even more telling, when the battle had begun turning months earlier, there might have been a chance for Germany to fight to a stalemate in the east and gain some time to rebuild its forces. Had Hitler ordered the cessation of transports to concentration camps and used those trains to shuttle soldiers to the eastern front, he could have at least slowed his defeat and perhaps prevented it completely. Instead, he did the opposite: he increased the transports to the camps and left his soldiers on the Soviet front with inadequate manpower and supplies. He couldn't see past his own ego and his sick obsession with being an ultimate "hero" by rendering Europe judenfrei regardless of the war's outcome. His inward-looking decisions thankfully cost him the war, because simply based on the numbers in 1939, Germany should have conquered Europe.

Similarly, we seem to see this playing out in Europe yet again. Putin has isolated himself, believes his own propaganda, and is convinced of his military genius and his force's ultimate strength. Since the outbreak of the Covid pandemic, Putin has lived in almost complete isolation, and his view of the outside world reflects that. He attacked Ukraine on an imagined pretense; he was confident of a quick victory because his army certainly had to be at least as strong as his ego; his forces suffer loss after loss because he either can't or won't concede that his tactics are not working. His ego inflates yet again and more people suffer as a result.

In just the same way, Pack's ego and his certainty in his prophetic acumen have swelled to proportions that conceal everything else. He, too, has surrounded himself with sycophants and isolated himself not only from the real world but from the lay members that constitute the intellectual isolation that is the RCG. The army that is encircling the compound at Wadsworth is more powerful than the Soviet army, more persistent than the Ukrainian forces: it's reality, the most merciless conqueror in history.

Kluski Śląskie

Aunt D

K and I went for the visitation for my Aunt Y in Rock Hill this evening, stopping by to pick up Aunt D.

"I've lost my last sibling," she said several times.

First Tournament Back

The Girl played in her first tournament since her stomach issues today. Her team went 3-0, not dropping a single set.

And our Girl was on the court again, doing what she loves again.

It was good to see.