Among my favorite texts to teach every year in AP Literature is Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, which never fails to move me—and even occasionally has the same impact on teenagers who seem a bit more jaded than I am. I’ve had students weep in the last few moments of the play while we read it aloud, when Willy, the protagonist of the play, is confronted by his eldest son Bif.

If you haven’t read or seen the play, do yourself a favor and skip over this clip until you’ve had a chance to do so.

Lee Siegel, writing in the New York Time, worries that audiences today might not see the characters the way that Miller intended:

Mr. Miller’s outrage at a capitalist system he wanted to humanize has become our cynical adaptation to a capitalist system we pride ourselves on knowing how to manipulate. For Mr. Miller, Willy’s middle-class dreams put the system that betrayed them to shame. In our current context, Willy’s dreams of love, dignity and community through modest work make him a deluded loser.

Perhaps there is a simple, unlovely reason “Death of a Salesman” has become such a beloved institution. Instead of humbling its audience through the shock of recognition, the play now confers upon the people who can afford to see it a feeling of superiority — itself a fragile illusion.

I know some students react to the play in the way that Siegel describes, struggling to see him as a tragic figure because his dreams seem so mundane. The play breaks my heart because Willy, flawed though he is, represents values that still awfully important to me—an honest day’s work, building a little something for your family, and hoping for something better.

With the welcome news that the Department of Justice plans to investigate the handling of eighty rape reports in Missoula over the past few years, most officials in Missoula responded favorably, happy that the additional resources and expertise of the Department of Justice can help the city get a handle on the crisis.

Rather than welcoming the additional resources and opportunity to improve Missoula’s legal response to a culture that has enabled rape, County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg decided to attack the Department of Justice, in a rant that would not have been out of place during the 2011 Montana Legislature:

Fred Van Valkenburg denounced that action as an overreach by “the heavy hand of the federal government,” and insisted that his office has done nothing wrong.

That last line would be entirely correct, if only the word “wrong” were removed. The response to the series of sexual assaults in Missoula has been entirely inadequate and even damaging to women, as perpetrators have been allowed to flee the jurisdiction, charges have not been filed, and women have been told that their claims could very well be false.

Van Valkenburg

criticized Justice Department officials for refusing to explain what triggered the investigation and said they’re “essentially sending a message to every local prosecutor in America” that they can be second-guessed. “That’s wrong, and undermines the dedicated hard work prosecutors are doing across America to fight crime.”

Actually, prosecutors get second-guessed all the time. It’s the nature of our legal system, which has multiple levels of appeals precisely because of issues like prosecutorial misconduct. That the Department of Justice feels the need to investigate the failures of law enforcement and prosecutors in Missoula, a decision supported by Missoula’s police chief and mayor, is far more important than Mr.Van Valkenburg’s ego.

Missoula needs to become safe for women again. That’s the bottom line. A legal culture that has permitted sexual assault and minimized its impact on individuals and the community as a whole absolutely demands scrutiny, something Mr.Van Valkenburg seems entirely incapable of.

The posting has certainly been light here in the past few weeks as I go through an annual ritual called the Weeks of Doom with my AP Language and Literature students. Over a four week period, those 80 students each get the experience of writing 10 timed essays while I get the pleasure of commenting on and returning each handwritten essay—overnight. It’s an incredibly stressful time for both students and their harried teacher, who is slowly coming to realize that he might be getting a little too old to grade essays at 3:00 a.m., but it’s also excellent preparation for their AP exams and college, not to mention the profits of coffee producers in the local area.

During this time of year, teaching can occasionally feel like an incredible burden, and that’s even before I read today that it’s the “most overrated”career in the United States. Tensions are high, the paper load feels unmanageable, and sleep is fleeting.  And the constant attacks on the profession from a certain political persuasion certainly don’t help.

The past few weeks, though, have also provided reminders of just how lucky I am to be involved in public education, flawed and frustrating as parts of it may be. I’m not only seeing real growth in my students’ writing; I’m hearing from former students who are continuing to do amazing things. They are a reminder that I have the obligation to do everything I can to improve their education and that I have the privilege of proudly watching them as they achieve goals they probably couldn’t have imagined when they were 17 years old, counting the minutes until my class was over.

One, a teacher,  just had a beautiful baby girl; another just began a pilot for his own television show; a former debater is leading an incredibly professional statewide political campaign here in Montana. An incredibly talented musician is seeking funding to release her album while another is running for the state legislature here in Helena. Two have worked in health and education for the Peace Corps, while others are serving with the distinction in the armed forces.

For each of these successes that I’ve recently discovered, there are no doubt hundreds I haven’t yet heard about, but it’s a real pleasure to continue rooting for all of them. No temporary frustrations can ever diminish the good fortune I’ve had to be a small part of these amazing and evolving lives.

No sense of doom or exhaustion can ever diminish that.

While the Republican candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction seems less colorful than the candidate from 2008, it’s equally clear this time that Denise Juneau is the best choice to lead Montana’s schools.

I have no doubt that Sandy Welch cares about Montana students; I just don’t think she has much of a plan to improve their education.

Initially, it seems clear that Ms. Welch simply lacks the experience necessary to be the chief of Montana’s schools. While six years as a principal are certainly admirable, they are hardly sufficient preparation for managing OPI’s budget, balancing federal programs with state mandates, and providing guidance to the state’s teachers and schools.

It’s hard to get much of a handle on Ms. Welch, as her issues page simply lacks depth and detail. No one (other than Ken Miller) disagrees with the idea that schools should have “excellent teachers”—the challenge is ensuring it—and Ms. Welch doesn’t offer any solutions.

She also takes a fascinatingly contradictory position when it comes to the state’s role in education. On one hand, she falls in line with anti-conservative rhetoric about the Office of Public Instruction, telling the Flathead Beacon that “OPI has a lot of mandates. Schools need to have some of those regulations stripped away.” In her next breath, she seems to suggest an expanded role for the Office of Public Instruction:

Welch has introduced plans to “grant enhanced local control and administrative flexibility to high achieving schools, amplify teacher performance through mentoring programs, and ensure that all students develop a common foundation of literacy, numeracy, and critical thinking skills.”

Her interview with the Billings Gazette reveals this tension—in one paragraph, she’s decrying state mandates and in the next she’s envisioning the state deciding which teachers are effective and ineffective, rather than local school boards.

While the appeal to “local control” might play well in the Flathead, it’s clearly at odds with development of a “common foundation” of skills, which require state direction and input. And that’s just the problem: conservatives seem to want local control of schools only so long as their agenda is met.

The truth is that in an increasingly complex and interconnected world, with students moving all over the state and nation, we absolutely need to develop strong state standards for education, and Denise Juneau has led the way towards accomplishing that.

• Monday: Secretary of State
• Tuesday: Superintendent of Public Instruction
• Wednesday: State Auditor
• Thursday: Attorney General
• Friday: Governor

If you’re a Republican running for governor in Montana (and other than Jeff Essmann, who’s not these days?) it seems that there are really only three things you need to talk about: restricting the right of women to make decisions about their bodies, reducing the tax burden on massive corporations, and decreasing regulations that “harm” the business climate in Montana.

In short, the GOP slogan for this election might well be 1896: Not the Worst Year Ever.

The narrative, however, just isn’t true.

The Laurel Outlook made it clear this week that corporations just don’t pay their taxes if they don’t feel like it, putting the operational budgets of schools in jeopardy:

The total amount of tax revenues under protest in Yellowstone County amounted to almost $30 million at the end of 2011, including $13.35 million for just this year. The mounting total has a significant impact on the districts and jurisdictions which would normally receive the tax revenues, not the least of which is the Laurel School District.
The Laurel School District is projected to be down a total of $5,427,571 by the end of this fiscal year, June 30, 2012.

There are two main industries which are protesting taxes — oil refineries and communication companies. Conoco protested 31 percent of its total tax bill in 2011 and CHS (Cenex) protested 63 percent. The communication companies are protesting about 85 percent of their total tax bills.

Perhaps instead of constantly fighting for reductions in the taxes businesses pay, Republicans ought to focus on making them actually pay what they owe.

The situation in Marysville is even more instructive as it relates to regulation. The Independent Record reports that the new mining operations there have been incredibly damaging to the community, with impacts including flooding, noise pollution, dangerous roads, and depleted wells.

It’s bad enough that Representative Mike Miller agreed that the residents had legitimate concerns.

What gives the people of Marysville a chance to maintain their homes and environment in decent condition? The very regulations that Republicans decry as destroying business, the very laws which ensure our state never again becomes a victim of the kinds of excesses visited upon us by the likes of William A. Clark and Standard Oil.

Republicans seem to believe that regulation is stopping business growth in Montana, all evidence to the contrary. But it’s not “stifling regulation” when it keeps your property values high; it’s not “bureaucratic red tape” when it keeps your water safe to drink, and it’s not “job-killing” when it keeps your kids’ schools adequately funded.

It’s common sense—and the recognition that Montana was not better off a century ago.It’s ensuring that Montana remain not only a place to work in, but a place we want to live in.

Jhwygirl has the news that Ken Miller will be announcing the selection of conservative education opponent activist and Republican House candidate Billie Orr as his running mate in his futile bid for the governor’s chair.   (Correction below)

Republican legislative candidate Billie Orr is certainly going to have some explaining to do when it comes to her views on education.

I can’t wait to hear Ms. Orr come out against the “education establishment,” given her record as someone who took millions of dollars from the federal government, enriching herself and misappropriating taxpayer dollars during the education reform racket that President Bush’s misguided No Child Left Behind legislation ushered in.

A lot of details below the fold.

Just how did Ms. Orr and her organization spend these federal dollars?Under the direction of Ms. Orr and another Arizona politician, the Education Leaders Council spent millions of tax dollars on alcohol, meals, and entertainment, as Education Week noted on February 15, 2006:

Between July 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2004, the ELC received more than $23 million in grants from the Education Department’s Fund for the Improvement of Education for the project. Congress appropriated an additional $9.6 million for the project in fiscal 2005, prompting critics to question the group’s spending habits and effectiveness. (See Education Week, Jan. 12, 2005.)
More than 28 percent of the grant costs reviewed in the audit, which covered calendar year 2004, were either questioned or unsupported, the report says. Among the $232,000 in questioned costs were expenditures for meals, entertainment, and travel that did not appear to be related to Following the Leaders. Also included were expenses that federal grants cannot be used for, such as alcoholic beverages, fund raising, and advertising. The organization spent $4,913 on ads that ran in Education Week, the audit says.
The report notes that “officials and employees responsible for incurring most of the questioned and unsupported costs were no longer employed by ELC” when the audit took place.

A perusal of the organization’s audit demonstrates how money was being spent, on expensive restaurants and luxury hotels. And let’s not forget flying John Boehner around the country.

In fact, it got so bad by 2005, that the federal government restricted money to the organization, as Education Week noted on September 28, 2005:

The U.S. Department of Education has placed restrictions on money approved by Congress for the nonprofit Education Leaders Council, which has been criticized by some of its own former board members for its financial practices. (See Education Week, Sept. 23, 2004.)
“They have been designated as a high-risk grantee, and so the drawing down of their funds has special conditions on it,” Chad Colby, an Education Department spokesman, said last week. “They have to show receipts and get approval before they receive any [more] money.”

Ms. Orr also enriched herself to the tune of $200,000 a year, as the Washington Times noted in 2004:

The group’s auditors questioned the propriety of Lisa Graham Keegan, working under a consultant contract as ELC’s $235,000-a-year chief executive officer, sitting on the corporation’s board and helping set policy.

The auditors, Draper & McGinley of Frederick, said the arrangement conflicted with federal regulations.

Billie Orr, who just resigned as ELC’s $200,000-a-year president, also had worked under a similar automatically renewable contract arrangement.

Mrs. Keegan said she arranged the consultant contracts for herself and Ms. Orr “for tax purposes” through their respective consulting firms in Arizona when she resigned as Arizona’s state superintendent of public instruction.

Education Week also noted on January 24, 2004 that Ms. Orr and Ms. Keegan took far more money than the work they were doing warranted.

But a memo of concerns attributed to the food-industry magnate by the ELC says the May audit raises a number of “red flag” issues. Among them were questions about the employment terms of Ms. Keegan and her second in command at the ELC, then-president Billie Orr. Ms. Orr, who had health problems, retired last month.
Both Ms. Keegan and Ms. Orr, also a former deputy of Ms. Keegan’s at the Arizona education department, served in their positions at the ELC as independent contractors. Ms. Keegan, who earned $85,000 a year as state chief, is paid $235,000 a year, plus travel expenses. She receives no other benefits.
Mr. Hume’s memo seemed to question their salaries and their ability to fully oversee the council, given that both women maintained their permanent residences in Arizona and kept apartments near the ELC’s headquarters in Washington.

And finally, as Education Week noted on January 12, 2005, even Republicans in Congress didn’t support the program, because it didn’t have any evidence of success:

Critics of the program, including several nationally known education leaders, claim that the ELC has not been able to account for all of the federal money spent on the program. They’re also concerned that Following the Leaders primarily consists of technology-based products and services operated by private companies that have provided financial support for the council.
To date, the program has not produced any evaluations to show whether it’s effective in the 600 schools in 11 states that have signed up to use it.
Former U.S. Rep. Bill Goodling, R-Pa., who served on the ELC’S governing board and spent 26 years in the House of Representatives and six years as chairman of the education committee, called federal lawmakers’ decision to support the new round of funding “a terrible mistake.”

When Republicans talk about privatization of our schools and “school choice,” this is what they mean: individuals enriching themselves at the expense of our children. In this case, that sour dish is being served with a  heaping side of hypocrisy.

Correction: My apologies for the getting the initial post incorrect. In addition to the post mentioned at the top of the piece, another (so I thought) reliable source gave me the same information. Deliberate misinformation or a mistake, the error is on me.

Tomorrow, the Board of Regents is most likely going to vote former regent Clayton Christian in as the next Commissioner of Higher Education in Montana, offering a salary and benefits package worth over $80,000 more annually than the current Commissioner receives.

I have no reason to believe that Clayton Christian isn’t a decent person, good businessman and committed advocate for education. It’s possible that he may be the most qualified person in the United States to be the next Commissioner of Higher Education for Montana, but we’ll never know, because the Montana Board of Regents decided to retroactively offer Christian the over $300,000/year  position without a national search or job posting.

And that’s indefensible. Montana students, who are struggling with crippling tuition and fess, and Montana taxpayers, who are seeing increased tax bills, deserve the absolute best candidate for this position. The logic is simple: if the position is important enough to justify a salary that exorbitant, it’s worth the investment of time and money to find the best candidate.

And, somehow, I imagine that there may have been a few qualified people willing to apply for the position. Perhaps some who have been working in Montana higher education for decades.

The easiest way to see just how questionable this process has been is to compare the 2003 hiring of Commissioner Sheila Stearns and the 2011 hiring of Mr. Christian.

Consider this:

Stearns beat out 31 applicants in a nationwide search in 2003 to become the eighth commissioner of higher education in Montana.

Or these details from the process in 2003:

• On January 9, the Board meet to discuss candidates for Interim Commissioner.
• On March 3, the Board met for “Discussion and final approval of Higher Education Profile, Desired Qualities for Commissioner, and search calendar.”
• On May 29, the Board of Regents held a 6 1/2 hour meeting to review the applicants and interview the candidates for the job.
• On June 17, the Board met in Executive Session to discuss the merits of the candidates.

Now consider the process in 2011:

• Hey, we should raise this salary by $70,000.
• Hey, we like this guy who just retired from the Board and he seems like a decent fellow. Let’s hire him, without a competitive interview, national search, or public input.

Finally, Ms. Stearns has an incredibly impressive resume, including:

• a B.A. in English and History, an MA in History, and a doctorate in Educational Administration.
• a stint as the director of UM alumni relations and one as UM president of university relations.
• a tenure as chancellor at (then) Western College.
• four years as the President of Wayne State University.

In contrast, Mr. Christian

• is a successful business owner.
• has a B.A., a level of education that would make him ineligible to become a principal of a Montana high school.

And it was Stearns who had to compete against a field of 31 candidates for the position!

In the end, the Board of Regents has done a tremendous disservice to the University system, undermining faith in their hiring practices and judgment. They’ve also done a disservice to Mr. Christian, because even were he the best possible candidate, they’ve created a shadow of illegitimacy before he’s even begun the job.

Of course, the $300,000/year plus deferred compensation might cushion that blow.

You know, this one?

Oh, wait!

That’s it.

We’ve hashed around some debates about educational achievement before, but I wonder what people believe K-12 education should accomplish for students? What would define successfully having educated our kids mean?

In the New York Times, Gary Gutting offers this ideal vision:

Concretely, students graduating from high school should, to cite one plausible model, be able to read with understanding classic literature (from, say, Austen and Browning to Whitman and Hemingway) and write well-organized and grammatically sound essays; they should know the basic outlines of American and European history, have a good beginner’s grasp of at least two natural sciences as well as pre-calculus mathematics, along with a grounding in a foreign language.

Students with this sort of education would be excellent candidates for many satisfying and well-paying jobs in, for example, sales and service industries, except for those that require highly specialized skills. From the standpoint of employment, high school graduates would have no need of college unless they wanted to be accountants or engineers, pursue pre-professional programs leading to law or medical school or train for doctoral work in science or the humanities. Apart from this, the only good reason they would have for going to college would be for its intellectual culture.

It’s hard for me to argue with the premise of the first paragraph—and hard for me to argue that we’re accomplishing those aims. Are they worthy goals? How do we get there?

While I was teaching an exercise about paraphrasing in research papers today, I came across this quote from Adrienne Rich in her essay Taking Women Students Seriously:

"The undermining of self, of a woman’s sense of her right to occupy space and walk freely in the world, is deeply relevant to education. The capacity to think independently, to take intellectual risks, to assert ourselves mentally, is inseparable from our physical way of being in the world, our feelings of personal integrity. If it is dangerous for me to walk home late of an evening from the library, because I am a woman and can be raped, how self-possessed, how exuberant can I feel as I sit working in that library? how much of my working energy is drained by the subliminal knowledge that, as a woman, I test my physical right to exist each time I go out alone? Of this knowledge, Susan Griffin has written: ‘…more than rape itself, the fear of rape permeates our lives. And what does one do from day to day, with this experience, which says, without words and directly to the heart, your existence, your experience, may end at any moment. “

I certainly don’t mean to suggest that only women can be sexually assaulted, but outside of very specific contexts, women are far more likely to fear sexual assault in their daily lives than men.

One in five American women has either been raped or experienced attempted rape in her lifetime:

Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner. One in six women have been stalked, according to the report.

Our university system and police must do a better job of making women feel safe. Safe to be in the community without fear of assault and safe in knowledge that if they report a crime, they will be treated with respect and care, not accusations.

The past few months in Missoula must become a call to action, for the community, the university, and the police to do more than deal with this as an isolated incident to be pushed from the front pages as soon as possible.