Of course you have to do something before you can quit it. I was a novice politician for almost a year in 1993, the year I ran for a seat on the Los Angeles School Board. I walked door to door, badgered people on the street, debated my opponent at public forums and on T.V. I talked to the newspapers, gave them statements, bios, photos.My opponent was the incumbent, well connected in Democratic circles through his political family, fast with facts and figures, thinner and younger than I.
From the start I had dumb luck. Most importantly, the teachers' union, United Teachers of Los Angeles, declined to make an endorsement in our race, although they had supported the incumbent in his first campaign. I would have been dead in the water against them.
I also had luck in packaging. I was a classroom teacher, and this turned out to be a greatly saleable ballot label against my opponent's"Board member"(Political operatives have learned about this, and will scrounge deeply to find any past connection between the classroom and their candidates).
I stumbled into a lucky situation with a political sign company.The first company I approached, a major one in L.A., had been stiffed by a series of candidates and was reluctant to commit to me. My father had loaned me two thousand dollars for my campaign, and I blurted out that I would pay this up front in the form of a cashier's check. Within two days hundreds of signs saying"Keep Askin' for Lasken"were all over the turf in contention ( so called Region 5, the western edge of the city running north from Westchester to Chatsworth). Compounding this beginner's luck was what I found to be a striking naivety in seemingly sophisticated people. For instance, a school administrator, a follower of news and an activist in neighborhood politics, said in reference to the signs that she had no idea I had so much "support."
My timing with the issues was lucky. The opinion in the San Fernando Valley was almost entirely for breaking up the giant L.A. school district ( second largest the country after New York's), and the west San Fernando Valley, the part in Region 5, was the most intensely pro-breakup. The incumbent was not in a position to support breakup, and I had supported it for years.
The issue of bilingual education worked in my favor. Though I supported California's efforts to help non-English speaking children with native language support, I was opposed to the withholding of English language instruction until higher grades. This played well with voters, anticipating the landslide passage five years later of Proposition 227, which mandated English language instruction in addition to native language support. Newspaper editors, including the Times', liked the topic, and I was able to publish a series of articles on bilingual education; several appeared during the campaign.
One week before the election I got a call from a pro-choice organization. They had been planning to send thousands of mailers in support of the incumbent because he had paid them a sizable fee and, of course, was pro-choice. I had only evinced the latter virtue.It happened that someone in the incumbent's campaign had angered them,and they had decided to support me in the mailer for free.
Topping off my luck, I won a raffle that placed my name first among the seven candidates. The effect of " 1. Doug Lasken-Teacher" was hard to beat as product placement.
The result of my luck: I received 36,000votes, coming in second behind the incumbent's50,000 ( turnout was large in this election because of the Riordan-Wu race). Had I taken 1% more of his vote, we would have been in a run-off. The day after the election the L.A. Times referred to"...newcomer Doug Lasken's surprising showing."
I remember standing at a news standoff Hollywood Boulevard at 6:00a.m. reading, with trembling hands, the Times' hopeful obituary of me. Something sank inside me. The Doors'"This is the End" comes to mind. I knew I would not "capitalize" on my dumb luck, but I did not know why. I did not know why I had, at that moment, quit politics.
Well, perhaps what I didn't know was how to say it. I'm going to try to say it now: Politicians can't say "I don't know."
Politicians, in fact, can't say much at all of what they think.Well "Duh",you say. Yes, but when you're in a political situation where you're setting yourself up as the person who knows what's best, who has an answer to complex problems, there's a certain poignancy, a certain walled-in feeling that comes with the knowledge that you're constructing a facade, a veil of words that sounds right, while the much vaunted human cortex watches as from the end of a long tunnel.
The above mental state was produced by certain types of questions, such as"How would you increase test scores?" There is familiar boilerplate thunderous of this sort:"Every student must receive quality instruction...We must have accountability and standards... Education must be our number one priority...", etc. Not that there is anything incorrect in such sentiments, but if they contained any important policy ideas, we would be basking in a much larger sea of high scoring children. I did my best to sling a few slogans, and I used the English language instruction and breakup issues with some effect,but my brain was uncomfortable, my speech somewhat hesitant, and this perhaps cost me the1% and the runoff.
Delving deeper into my uncooperative mind, I found something truly scary. It's not just that I wasn't in a position to say what I really thought about raising test scores. My hands hover now above the keyboard, waiting for a sign. No sign comes. Some muse has got me this far, but at the crucial moment she stands silent.
What the hell, here goes. Well you see,the thing is... I didn't really know how to raise test scores. I did believe that breaking up the district might improve efficiency, and that teaching English would improve English skills, but I wasn't completely sure test scores would go up significantly as a result. After all, when we talk about raising test scores we're not really talking about a few numbers going up; we're talking about real improvement in children's intellectual abilities. How do you get fifth graders in large numbers to know their times-tables, and remember them into secondary school?How do you get secondary students in large numbers to read "Great Expectations", really read it, from beginning to end? Why would a few corrective policy changes affect such profound educational questions?
Hindsight has justified the hesitation I felt during my campaign. Proposition 227 reinstated English instruction. A well funded "Standards" movement has taken hold in California, as in the rest of the country, accompanied by millions of dollars in new textbooks and teacher training. There has been math reform, with renewed emphasis on basics. These reforms have helped a lot of kids, but they have not "raised test scores" in the real sense. In other words, although there have been small jumps in scores, there is no systemic, widespread change in our students. If you walk into a California classroom at random you are unlikely to find kids who can read well, or want to read, or who do math with the facility you find in Asia. Nor will you find this two years from now, or four years from now. It's not happening and it's not going to happen.
Why not? Because the discussion is political, and therefore incomplete. Standards are important, and logical instruction is important. But those are the easy parts.
Back to the reporter asking me how I would raise test scores. Let's say a cosmic force had ordered me to tell the truth. What would I have said? I might have stammered out"Well... I'm not sure." The reporter's brain would then have closed my file, stamping"loser" on it. If he was polite, though, there would be a pause, and then I ould begin to think. This in itself, the sight of a politician lost in thought while the world waits, is anathema to a successful image. But if the cosmic force could ge everyone to wait a bit, I could have given a decent answer. The discussion might have gone something like this:
Me: Well, we have a fundamental disconnect between our media based culture and the school setting. Virtually every kid is taught by the media to read colored images which ridicule schools and teachers. We have nothing effective to counter this.We have not figured out a modern motivation for students. The U.S.is one of the few countries in the world that has ruled out physical pain as an educational tool(Singapore, much admired by math reformers, achieves the highest math scores in the world partly by beating underachievers with bamboo canes). We do rely on the psychological pain implicit in the report card grade, but because of grade inflation,rampant from kindergarten through graduate school, and the glorification in the media of school failure, grades alone have become a weak motivator for all but a few students.
Reporter: So you advocate beating our students?
Me: Of course not.
Reporter: Then what do you advocate?
Me: We've forgotten economic incentive.
Reporter: For teenagers?
Me: Yes. Our surplus based society has extended childhood, allowing dependence on parents at later ages, but teenagers are in their physical and intellectual prime, and will remain so into their twenties. They are designed to create and work, but the automation that gave us our surplus has resulted in amore seriously underemployed society than we like to admit. There are over 100,000 gang members in L.A., but there are not 100,000 jobs for them, not even menial ones.The standard curriculum in high school does not relate directly to visible jobs. Perhaps shop and computer classes do, but the thousands of jobs it would take to rationalize that curriculum do not exist. Honors students, the handful of clever kids who know how they will work the system, put up with non job-related curricula because they see a path to employment based on grades and general literacy, but they too have to wait. It is arguable that one of the purposes of secondary school is to serve as a holding facility to keep teenagers out of the job market. The first several years of college may serve the same purpose.
Reporter: So...you would propose.....?
Me: Well, somehow we need to have an economy that can absorb many more teenagers and people in their early twenties, and a school system that clearly feeds into this economy. But our technology, automation, may have made this impossible.
Reporter: How do you propose to remedy this?
Me ( after very long pause): I don't know.
End of dialogue, and career. Even an answer like " We will have to replace our world economy, built up in haphazard form over two hundred years of industrial revolution, with completely new, rationally organized economy", impractical as it might be as a campaign position, would be better than "I don't know."Anything is better than "I don't know."
It might seem strange to an extraterrestrial visitor from an advanced civilization that we have no place in our public discourse for " I don't know", since we so often, clearly,don't know, but it's basic human psychology at work. Management theorists have shown that leaders get approval for making decisions, for being decisive, regardless of the results(an important finding for the current administration). This is understandable given the human condition. We really don't know what we are supposed to do, or even if we are supposed to do something. If our leaders admitted this in public, society at large might collapse in terror. Still though, it can be something of a hindrance to problem solving to maintain at all times that soothing platitudes are solutions.
So after a refreshing brush with the fast lane, I returned, sober but wiser, to the classroom, where I find I can say "I don't know" a lot,to students, to parents, to my colleagues, and they don't seem to mind.Hey wait a minute,these people vote, or will vote...Hmmm.
Doug Lasken teaches high school English for the Los Angeles Unified School District and is a language arts consultant to the California State Board of Education.