Recently I saw a cartoon that read "Shcools are fer preyin, not fer ejucashun". While the focus of the cartoon was on how conservative Christians are affecting school boards, it actually reflects a much larger issue. What is the purpose of public education in twenty first century America?

Is it to convey information? To teach students the proper respect for authority? Is it to prepare students to be good future employees? What role does teaching critical thinking play? What if this critical thinking encourages students to challenge authority? Where does media education fit in? How does it relate to the future of journalism? Where does civics fit? How does all of this relate to having a properly functioning democracy?

A few different articles have crossed my desk that tie into all of this, so I am going to go all meta for a moment and look at these articles, as well as the stories beneath the stories.

The first message I want to look at is about a Free Webinar for Board of Education members. It starts off with:

What would you do if the Assistant Principal of your high school threatened to quit if something is not done about a vulgar parody of him on MySpace? The parody portrays him as a violent pedophile and lists the names of his family and his address. Should your school board launch an investigation? If the perpetrator is a student, can you impose discipline?School districts across the country are being asked to address student misbehavior in the electronic world – both at school and away from school. When formulating an action plan or policy to address cyber-misbehavior, you need to consider state bullying laws, harassment liability, constitutional limitations on policy and action, and when law enforcement should be involved.

What I find strikingly missing is what I like to call the 'pedagogical imperative'. To me, it sounds like a wonderful teaching moment which the Assistant Principal completely missed. It comes back to the underlying purpose of public education in twenty first century America. If the purpose is to teach students to respect, and not question authority, then the questions of how to reply may need to be more focused on legal aspects. However, if the purpose of education is to teach critical thinking, effective communications and other skills, then a more creative response is called for. If I were in charge at the school in question, I would probably have told the Assistant Principal, you can't quit, you're fired.

The message went on to say that the webinar "will discuss what the school district did in the above situation and how the court ruled in J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District and Layshock v. Hermitage School District."

The ACLU has a webpage up about LAYSHOCK V. HERMITAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT which includes a link to a PDF of the offending website. The criticism of the Assistant Principal? That his biggest weakness and his biggest fears were students laughing at him. His reactions to the website appear to substantiate the allegations of the website. While I imagine the webinar is going to be very interesting and cover a lot of very important legal issues, I would love to see a webinar on more creative approaches to these issues.

Related to this is an email I received from a mailing list addressing the future of journalism. It pointed to Esther Wojcicki's article Journalism: English for the 21st Century.

Bill Densmore, who forwarded the article to the list highlighted several important paragraphs. The first two that he cited tie back very much to the Layshock case and many other cases about students rights.

"Most schools do not allow their students access to an uncensored Web; this is a trait we usually ascribe to China and rarely acknowledge about ourselves."

"The Hazelwood decision is now two decades old. An entire generation has lived its entire academic life—and is now moving into the professional ranks—under Hazelwood’s influence. Far too many of our future journalists, citizens and leaders unquestioningly accept that school administrators—government officials—should have the authority to dictate what they read, write and talk about. What this means for the future of press freedom in America remains unknown …"

The final paragraph that he quoted puts it very nicely into context,

"America is a nation that thrives on independence and on the entrepreneurial spirit. Yet our schools’ curricula do just the opposite by driving teachers to teach to the test and kids to be effective multiple choice test takers. Let’s offer our kids at least one opportunity in school each day in which they truly act with an independence of mind and with freedom to speak to the issues in their lives. That course should be journalism."

Other paragraphs went into details about what this might look like:

"The easiest way to pass on the skills and purpose of journalism is to have an online program, which is, after all, the future"

"Today’s journalism curriculum can revolutionize English education by making the writing curriculum relevant and exciting. In the process, it can also train an entire generation of citizens—many of whom will be doing what journalists do today—to be responsible contributing members of the digital society."

"Journalism also teaches kids how to collaborate both online and offline and how to work effectively with their peers both as leaders and as participants. These are skills employers are seeking in prospective employees."

It seems like an appropriate response to the Layshock case, instead of giving him a 10-day, out-of-school suspension, ordering him to finish high school in the Alternative Education Program and forbidding him from attending his own graduation in the spring, the school might have found that his education was incomplete and required him to take a course in journalism, similar to what Ms. Wojcicki describes. Such a course would explore the rights and responsibilities of the press in our society, including legal issues, such as defamation as well as how to voice criticisms more effectively. This reflects some of the ideas that I've presented in the past about the Avery Doninger case here in Connecticut.

Which takes me to the final message I want to explore. Today, Colin McEnroe wrote this on my Facebook page:

Aldon, I'm headed to Truro Sunday, sharks and hurricanes permitting.
You might find it interesting to listen and/or call in tomorrow as we discuss this:
Traffic Problems | American Journalism Review

When I read the title, I was tempted to respond back that we ran into very little traffic either going to or coming from Cape Cod. Yet that isn't what the article is about. Instead it is about:

How the drive to attract massive numbers of visitors to their Web sites (and the advertisers that might follow them) is having a profound effect on news judgment at traditional news organizations.

The article explores what is happening to journalism today:

High-minded headlines and stories about foreign wars, the federal deficit or environmental despoilage might have paid the bills in the age of Murrow and Cronkite, but they only go so far these days. Shark videos and "naked Lady Gaga" headlines get major play on "serious" news sites for an obvious and no longer terribly shocking reason: They draw traffic.

I'm very interested in the stories behind the shark and Lady Gaga stories. Why are we seeing an increase in shark sighting stories? Is it the titillating factor? Are there more shark sightings? Is it because we are better at sighting sharks, or shark populations are changing? If shark populations are changing, is it because of an increase in the seal population? Is it because of climate change? Are their other factors? And what about Lady Gaga? Is Lady Gaga a 'brand'? How do we understand personal brands in the age of social media? Is what she is doing 'art'? How do we understand 'art'? What is the relationship between Lady Gaga and Andy Warhol? What are the implications of personality in our political process, as we look at U.S. Senate candidate who is self-funding with millions of dollars obtained through entertainment based on sex and violence? To tie together Sharks, Lady Gaga, and Connecticut Politics, is Richard Blumenthal a shark and Linda McMahon Lady Gaga?

I've always thought that good journalism is a careful mix between what people want to know and what people need to know. Great journalism is when a writer takes what people want to know and leads them to what they need to know. Yet this brings us back to education, and Ms. Wojcicki's article. We need better education so that people will recognize and be drawn to great journalism, and we need better education so that students like Justin Layshock can become great journalists, instead of relying simply on the titillating without delving deeper into underlying issues. All of this, will hopefully lead to a better informed and more involved electorate.

So, what will Colin cover on his show tomorrow? Tune in and find out.