What's Love Got to Do With It?

So, there's a lot of excitement with the students in our school, because tomorrow is Valentine's Day.  For the youngest kiddos, this means that they will get a break from instructional time while they get to exchange cards with classmates and eat cookies.  For the last few weeks, we've been decorating rooms with hearts in pinks, reds and purples and spending time writing "love notes" for each other, kind words written on paper hearts.  To our students, Valentine's Day is just an extension of the sense of connection they already feel with their families and friends, a day to receive physical confirmation that they are valued in exchange.


Several people on my staff have asked me what I'll be doing for Valentine's Day.  Well, it's a Tuesday, I answer, so I'll be in jiu jitsu most of the evening, then watch a movie at home.  I think they immediately feel sorry for me, because I'm single and won't celebrate with wine and flowers.  Well, I can pour wine any time I like (except at work - they frown on that), and I'm not a fan of cut flowers.  They feel like a bouquet of impending death to me, and I'd rather my flowers be growing free outdoors.  See, even when I was half of a couple, I never saw the magic in Valentine's Day, at least not for adults.  It just feels like an excuse for Hallmark to sell more cards and a lot of men to buy candy and such in a state of bewilderment.  If Valentine's Day is supposed to be about love and romance, what part of forced gift buying feels romantic?


See, and I started thinking about that, because I'm not sure I actually have a good idea of what is romantic.  I've never been on the receiving end of some grand, dramatic gesture to express love.  Nor have I made such a gesture.  And I've lately started thinking that movies have kind of set us up for some very false expectations.  Almost everything I know about the concept of romance has come from the cinema.   From my early memories of Luke and Leia swinging across a missing bridge to the spaghetti slurping dogs from Lady and the Tramp, even Disney made its mark on what my friends and I thought of as romance.  At that age, I didn't separate romance and love.  Romantic gestures were how you demonstrated love.  It wasn't until much later in life that I had the epiphany of how softly love could come along or how subtle romance might be in most lives.


My parents were not romantic people, so they were not inspiring it this category, and it was many years before I saw adults really interacting in a way that made their love for one another abundantly clear to anyone around them.  Saw my aunt and uncle dance at a wedding, looking every one of their sixty plus years, but then seeing how my uncle still looked at his wife, as though she was still the eighteen year old girl he'd married.  He led her around the small dance floor in the way that men rarely learn these days, but all the men of his generation seemed to know, almost by instinct.  Or the boyfriend of a college friend who stayed home from a trip to take care of his very sick and very grumpy girlfriend.  Or a couple who had been together long enough to have accumulated a life-time of inside jokes and poked fun at one another always, but whose words were at odds with the way they would almost absently touch one another as they moved through their days.


Looking for good suggestions for romantic movies, almost every source lists the same movies, over and over again:  Titanic.  The Notebook.  Shakespeare in Love.  The Graduate.  Love Actually.  Singing in the Rain.  A Walk to Remember. Say Anything.   Pretty Woman.  Nothing wrong with any of those films.  Quite a lot right about the majority of them, and a couple of my favorite movies are counted in that list.  But, they wouldn't make my list of the most romantic movies out there, although Lloyd Dobbler holding up that ghetto blaster still makes my heart flutter just a little bit, and I doubt that I'm alone in that.


To me, some of the most romantic movies might be some of the most understated in terms of love.  But love walks quietly and my idea of romance flounders a bit, having abandoned my image of it from childhood dogs and pasta.  So, some possibilities of settling down with a good romance for me?


Remains of the day.  Anthony Hopkins.  Emma Thompson.  Period piece set among the rising tides of war during the 1930's.  Surely a romance between the very proper butler and the housekeeper could never truly come to fruition, but the tension between them, the verbal intercourse they share, the looks across a table...and then there is the scene with a book in Stevens' room.  The steam practically rose from them, though they rarely touched and never were anything less than proper.  Even in their later years, the excitement they each have in the prospect of seeing one another again is heartening and heartbreaking when it doesn't work out as you just darn well know that it should.  If only life were fair, it would work out.

Sense and Sensibility.  This is my favorite of the spree of early 1990's adaptations of Jane Austen's books.  Emma Thompson, again.  Alan Rickman (need we even go past him and his silky voice?).  Kate Winslet.  Hugh Grant.  Hugh Laurie.  Imelda Staunton.   The cast itself was enough to sell me on the film before I saw it.  But I was enchanted with parts of this particular adaptation . Jane Austen can get on my nerves at time, with her tongue-in-cheek satire aimed at her peers.  She was very young when she wrote many of her novels, and the relationships between them often show that, being melodramatic and full of many tears and much handwringing.  Many of her heroines are strong, modern women, who turn to complete fools in the face of love and marriage.  Such would be the fate of the lovely Dashwood sisters.  As much as Elinor is foolish for pining quietly and suffering silently with her love for Edward, so too is Mariane foolish in her reckless pursuit of the rakish Mr. Willoughby.   For a time, I was convinced the greatest love story of this novel was between the sisters, and while that may well be a kernel of truth, so too does the book have its moments of devastating romance.  When Elinor is, at last, relieved to find that her Edward has been true and has not married another young woman, the iciest, most practical woman in all of England very quietly and thoroughly goes to pieces.  Her moment of sobbing and Edward's bewilderment are one of the most endearing moments with that character, for he is rather bland as milquetoast.   But by far the most romantic moment in the film comes when Colonel Brandon follows Mariane out onto the moor, knowing her heart is breaking for Willoughby, knowing she does not see hearts and flowers when she looks at him, and he carries her back to the house in the pounding rain, wanting only for her to be well and happy.  In the end, his quiet love wins and out, as Mariane grows up, and sees what a love that can last might really be about.   It's a movie I could watch over and over.

So, I'm sitting here waffling between Before Sunset and Before Midnight.  Linklater doesn't make it easy for me to choose, yet I feel like I should be narrowing this down to one or the other.  Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy just killed it in this whole trilogy, not losing any of their magic with time.  In fact, I'd argue that the life experiences of the actors themselves helped shape the directions of their characters.  And so, saying that, I'm going to put Before Midnight as my pick for one of my favorite romantic movies.  Years and marriage and children have taken their toll, and the idyllic holiday in Greece seems almost too perfect at times, and yet the characters aren't perfect.  Their romantic night away together turns into a full blown fight, one that teeters on the edge of ending their marriage.  It could have ended their marriage.  Maybe if it'd been me, it might have ended my marriage.  But then, as Celine sits by the water, watching the faint lights of stars and moon reflecting below, and probably fantasizing about drowning Jesse in it, he returns to her, pretending to start over.  Not their night.  Their lives together.  And she lets him sit down at her table.  Not all forgotten, but likely to be forgiven.  To me, the romance is in the endurance and in the choice to stay together.  We're not all great at that.

The African Queen.   Bogart and Hepburn.  Pretty much wins, hands, down, just because it's Bogart and Hepburn.  Sometimes being together is a choice.  Sometimes, fate throws you together and gives you little choice, even if you start out hating one another.  This movie has quite a few clichés, with Rose and Charlie as much of an odd couple as you could ever imagine.  Cliches exist for a reason.  Somewhere, sometime, they have worked well.  This is an example of them working well.  The look that Rose and Charlie exchange after she's pulled leeches off of him and they communicate all the feelings as he turns around and slips back into the - presumably - very leechy water.  It's just as magical as the moment they go over the falls together.  Their romance is in their crisis fueled bond - fast, and strong and making each of them a little better (and a little more interesting, for movie goers).

The Quiet Man.  I can't have a list of romantic movies without mentioning this one.  It has long been one of my favorite movies for a variety of reasons - the scenery.  Maureen O'Hara.  The quiet strength that was John Wayne.  The drinking and the laughs and the moments of pure heat that run between the two of them all make it fabulous.  And the fight scene is one of the best ever filmed - where else will you see a fabulous brawl take a break for a pint in the local pub?  The scene at the castle in the rain is one of pure little girl fantasy romance.  But to me it's watching the spirited independent woman, Mary Kate, soften for Sean Thornton's quiet resolution and give in to her own feelings.  And that John Wayne would be welcome to break my bed any time.

Saved this own for last - Bull Durham with Kevin Costner, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon.  So, maybe baseball doesn't have a lot to do with romance, but I'm pretty sure that Susan Sarandon does.  I've never been a huge fan of Kevin Costner, but this movie works for him and Crash Davis and Annie in the bathtub and on the kitchen table...some of the sexiest moments ever in a film. It's the very adult honesty between the two of them - even when they're playing games, they know they're playing games - that makes it so incredibly right.   When Crash comes back and tells Annie that he's looking to stay in one place and manage a minor league team, and she says she's willing to give up her baseball boys, well, maybe that's about as good as it gets in the real world.  If only the real world made time for living room jitterbugging with Kevin Costner.

I don't know if any of those movies show much of real life, but at least they give us a glimpse of what romance might be about, whether it's in the quiet, still moments, or in the sweeping grand gestures. 

So, I've got plenty of cinematic material from which to choose for a Tuesday night, if I don't just fall asleep straight away from my time on the mats.  I will pour my own wine, and snuggle up with my cat.  From the movie Before Sunset, because I couldn't let go of that one either, "When you're young you just believe there'll be many people with whom you'll connect.  Later in life, you realize it only happens a few times."  Fortunately, even if I never have the kind of romance that Leia and Han did (because when I say "I love you," my cat doesn't say "I know," or much of anything, really, beyond "feed me, you weirdo."), I know that I can always lose myself in a good movie, because we can't all have John Cusak blasting Peter Gabriel outside our windows, but it doesn't mean we don't know love along the way.

Separate but Equal

Before today ends, we will hear a decision from the Senate that I'm taking a little more personally than maybe some people do.  With an expected very close decision, the president's nomination for Secretary of Education will be confirmed, or not confirmed.  See, I have nothing personal against this lady, as I'm sure she has very deep rooted beliefs about education, and I am positive she is knowledgeable about sections of the education sector.  But...from everything I have seen, her view is a very narrow one, a very privileged one - both in her own education, her career, and the educational path she has chosen for her own children - and she'd be governing our public school sectors.


My youngest daughter is a student in the Spring Branch Independent School District, and my oldest just graduated from that same district and attends a local, public college.  They both attended the private school where I teach for elementary school, but I purposely chose a public school for their high school, because I believe there are a different skill set that could be obtained there, beyond just academics, with a broader range of course offerings and a school that would challenge each of them to be more self-sufficient and to develop a voice for themselves.  Both their private and public school backgrounds have helped them grow as students and as people, in very different ways.


Growing up, we moved a lot.  My own education was a patchwork of different public and private schools, and I attended educational institutions that included rural public schools, a huge public high school, tiny parochial schools, private Baptist schools, independent schools with no religious affiliations, one charter school and one very interesting experimental school (and I'm not sure a diploma from there would have counted, but I was young and it was a good experience none-the-less).  I've been in on-level classes, gifted programs, and spent two weeks in special education in a small town Alabama school - because the teacher couldn't understand me when I talked without the same accent as everyone else.


As an adult, I didn't actually set out to become a teacher, but found myself gradually pulled in that direction.  It wasn't until I actually got into a classroom that I figured out where I had true passion and that it set me on fire to teach my students and provide opportunities for them.  Even now, it doesn't matter what the subject is, if I have a firm grasp on the material, I will fall in love with teaching and my students.  There is absolutely nothing quite like seeing someone light up when they take ownership of a new concept and have that "I get it" look on their face.  I love teaching and have worked in education for twenty years.  But...I'm not qualified to speak authoritatively for others on the subject, or make broad educational leadership decisions.  I'm good at what I do in my own little sector.  Just like Betsy DeVos is likely very good at her own little niche.  There are others out there with a wider vision, those whose experience and educational background gives them a voice that could speak for a broad range of students of all backgrounds across our country.


Public education in our country has never been a cut and dried proposition.  The first public schools were established in Massachusetts in the 17th century, by our Puritan friends who believed every child needed to be able to read, so they could live by the word of the bible.  Those public schools weren't free, and students had to have a base of knowledge before stepping into those one room school houses.  Fast forward a century or so, and it was widely recognized that there was a deeper need for public education.  But it wasn't as simple as all of that - who would pay for it?  Who was deserving of receiving that public education?   Thomas Jefferson - and I'll take a big deep breath and sigh here - he was a brilliant man, but something of an intellectual snob.  He believed in public education, but an education that was designed to further divide the workers and the elite.  He proposed a public system with two tracks - one for the laborers, and one for the wealthy leaders.  It would further cement your fate in life, by being set upon one track or the other.


Colonial society dictated that well-off young men attend schools.  Young ladies were educated at home by their mothers, with the idea of Patriotic Motherhood - it was the duty of all women to be able to teach their sons, so that they might better themselves.


In an interesting twist, Pennsylvania even called for free public education for the poor, while those families with the means were required to pay for education.


With the survey of the Northwest Territories, townships were formed, and space set aside for a public school each town.  Massachusetts continued to lead the way in education, providing the first public high school and making public school education available for free to all who qualified to attend.  The first school boards were established there.  Pennsylvania and New York took their cues from Massachusetts and education as flourishing in the north-eastern states.


But in the south, education was spotty and those from poorer backgrounds, girls, and African-Americans - free or slave - did not attend school at all.  Girls were educated at home, by their mothers, and economic status often dictated how much education a young woman would have available.  Beyond basic reading and arithmetic, most were virtually uneducated.


It was post civil war, when the country was torn apart in every conceivable way - socially, economically, geographically and architecturally wounded, and trying to rebuild that the idea of separate but equal was first brought into our common vocabulary.  It was a protection built into our fourteenth amendment.  Separate but equal sounds like it should be just fine on the surface.  You attend your school, we'll attend ours, and it'll all be fine.  We each have a school.


But equal didn't mean equitable.  Not all schools were created equal, and states were overseeing the governing of these separate facilities.  So, while black students were guaranteed a school to attend, it was up to the state to maintain the facilities, hire the teachers, and maintain the standards.  All black public colleges were established, but poorly funded in many states.  Often those separate schools had no books, few desks, and sometimes not even heat.


At the turn of the twentieth century, local representatives on school boards in most cities were eliminated, in favor of city-wide elections.  This means that, in most cases, the poorer districts lost representation on school boards, while federal funding was cut and those with interests in the more affluent families were making the educational decisions regarding budgeting and availability of resources.


In 1948, in the  Brown vs. The Board of Education decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that segregation in schools was inherently unequal.  But, on local levels, schools remained as segregated as ever, with geographical demographics and socio-economic lines firmly drawn and determining school placement.  Schools with poorer families continued to draw less funding, particularly during the years when standardized testing achievement helped determine funding within a district.  Don't believe that's true?  Check it out.  It still happens today.   STAAR testing anyone?  What did you think all those blue ribbon schools were about?


I attended a public school in rural Alabama in the late 1970's/early 1980's and it was there that I first met discrimination and the recognition that life wasn't fair.  I spent two weeks in special education - my classmates were two deaf children, two black children, and two students who spoke only Spanish.  We had no books, no windows in our closet of a classroom, and no materials of any kind.  The teacher was furnished with a blackboard,  tables (we didn't rate desks) and a dictionary.  Period.  My mother had me out of there pretty quickly, but those other students didn't have any advocates, and they stayed in special education, forever changing their educational trajectory because they were inconveniently different.


Over the last couple of decades, several states have allowed vouchers, to allow students to apply state funding to attend private schools, or religious based schools.  Students are allowed to transfer to other schools within their districts.  But, see, students who transfer schools are rarely provided with state funded transportation and those in poorer communities are often children of two working parents who cannot take the time to drive their children and pick them up, or pay for expensive after school care.  And so those children attend their local schools.  Schools where no one transfers, where their funding has gone into vouchers for students who DID manage to go somewhere else. So schools in poorer neighborhoods receive even less funding than before. 


At the turn of this century, more than a quarter of our children attend private schools now.  Everyone pays taxes to public schools, but not all schools receive equal funding.  We are WIDENING the educational gap, folks.  We are slowly chipping away at the middle class and recreating a society of worker bees and educated elite.


Now, the world doesn't go round without the worker bees - I get that.  Do whatever job you have and do it well.  But somewhere in there, somewhere in childhood, there ought to be a choice.  Not everyone is cut out to go to college.  I totally get that.  But everyone ought to have the opportunity to decide that.  The road we're headed down takes that choice away for many.


Betsy DeVos has a really good perspective on a narrow part of education, but her eye is not on the big picture - the one that is the view for the majority of us.  She's never known, personally, or with even second hand experience, what it's like to jump through the hoops that are associated with federal grants or financial aid so you or your kids can attend college without being in debt for life.  She's never had to put her kids on the corner to wait for a bus to take them to the public school.  I bet she's never gotten a frantic text from her kids that they are on lockdown and her kid is hiding in the tunnel beneath the stage in the school theatre.  Or that her kids' friend had their lunch thrown away because they were out of money on their lunch ticket.  Or any of the other realities that the rest of us face every single day in the struggle to make sure our kids get the opportunities they deserve.


So, yeah, I'm a little heated up about this.  Public school in our country is a mess.  Federal laws give just enough legitimacy that states are able to make some pretty horrible decisions at times, and still point at the umbrella of the federal government.  There need to be changes in public schools - no doubt what-so-ever.  But she's not the person to make these changes.  She will only reinforce the separate but equal that has still be slowly at work in our schools, long after it was decided that it was actually not constitutional.


So, yes, I'll be breaking my own rule about not checking the news during my work day - because it usually just distracts me and keeps me from being as good as I can be at my own job.  Because this is important.  I'm a teacher.  But even if I weren't, I'd recognize that education is the answer to almost every social ill.  Educate yourselves and vote.  I'll be saying this a lot - feel free to ignore me on that, if you can.  I'm kinda loud when it's something important.  Educate yourself and raise your voice, in entirely not separate or equal ways.

Upon Which I Blather About Because It's My Right

Let a crown be placed there upon, by which the world may know, that as far as we approve of monarcy, that in America the law is King.  For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.
                               - Thomas Paine


I stumbled across the above quote recently, and found comfort in the words.  It reminded me that our country is a democracy and though we may all voice our thoughts, and we may disagree, no one man can make decisions for all.  It was my thought last November, when I saw the upheaval that followed in the wake of our presidential election, that the constitution was steady, that the laws of our founding fathers were there to prevent any one person, or party, from taking all control.


Last week, I had moments of doubt about the strength of our own constitution, whether the branches could stand against the rising wind that is shaking them right now.  So, I went back, and I read the constitution, and all its amendments.  I reread the monumental decisions made in the highest courts that laid the foundation for the amendments.  And found comfort in knowing I'm not the only one doing so these days. 


As a nation, many of us have become complacent in our freedoms, lazy in our political participation, and ignorant of what our laws actually say.  I'm guilty of some of these.  And I find some satisfaction in knowing that all around me, a desire to participate in democracy is rising from across the country - all ages, genders, economic demographics, and races.  We the people means all people, and everyone has vested interest in what happens to our country.


See, I guess what does concern me is that our founding fathers couldn't have foreseen what the press would come to look like, when they were granted freedom of speech.  They couldn't possibly have even imagined ways in which someone could toss their thoughts out to the entire world with the mere push of a button, the immediacy of communication, and the devastating consequences of that power being abused.  Scrolling through my newsfeed, seeing the alerts that pop up on my phone all day long, I wonder what they would make of the incredible deluge of information we shift through every single day, often looking for just that one common thread of truth.


 They couldn't possibly have known there would come a time when no one would really need to own a gun to put food on their table, or defend themselves against wild animals or natives who were defending their territory.  They couldn't have imagined that the rifles and pistols they knew would give way to guns that could fire out several rounds per second and shoot through walls and doors and cars.  They didn't even know about cars. I mean, they knew about bears, and apparently we're supposed to worry about those in schools, so maybe defending with arms against bears was always their intent.  In that case, my apologies.


In other words, our founding fathers were flawed, but they were not fools.  They understood enough of what they didn't want for our country and did their very best to safeguard us for the duration.  Those white, free, mostly wealthy and definitely all male, people did the best they could within their own scope of experience to protect our rights and to set up a government that was able to balance itself.  A government that was designed to withstand some discourse and to allow representatives of all the people to come together and hash out their differences..


We did get to see a grown man come to power and then have temper tantrums publicly, through social media, because he didn't get his way.  Didn't get to have absolute power over absolutely everything, because the checks and balances those men put together in a document for us, over two centuries ago, stopped him from acting as a dictator.  Or a monarch.  Or one of any other type of government that doesn't allow its people to vote, and speak freely, and disagree with their government.   That's right.  We get to disagree.


Now, my neighbor might not agree with that, might call me a whiny liberal, but it's totally within my rights to voice my opinion, to do it publicly, to do it loudly.  It's not within my rights to block businesses, destroy property, or do anything that might cause harm to another person or their belongings.  And I'm appalled by the few people who have felt enough rage to do these things, because their actions drown out the words of those with similar opinions and a better way of expressing them. 


I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.  My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.
                                         - John Adams


The men who built our country were forged by fire.  The freedoms of their children and generations to come were secured through their actions, their faith in what liberties should belong to all men, and through their words.  These men were far from perfect - their flip-flopping over the wording in the ratification of the Articles of Confederation were what allowed slavery to continue to flourish far longer than most of them saw practical.  They resolved some matters, and left others to fester until there would be civil war a scant half century later.  But they had a vision, too, for not only what their country could be at the dawn of the 19th century, but what it could be for their grand children's grand children.  And they designed a document that would stand time, because, it could be amended.  They knew they couldn't foresee every scenario, and they left room to amend the constitution, but under strictures that would prevent a monarchy from forming out of any change.  The people still get a say, and no president can make all the decisions alone.


If John Adams dreamed that his grandchildren would have the freedom to study the arts, then he surely saw an end to the violence that had punctuated his early years and saw hope in the exhausting years he had invested in helping draft laws that would govern our country even today.  I've long been a fan of John Adams, as is no secret, and of his wife, Abigail.  I'll even admit that, if you can have a girl crush on a lady who lived two centuries ago, I do and she's the object of my affection.  Adams gave credence to what his wife said, took her opinion into account, and had great respect for women, not seeing them as lesser of anything, though like his peers, likely saw them as weaker and needing protection. 


It wouldn't be until much, much later that ladies would have a right to vote, a right to voice their thoughts, a right to be financially independent.  We enjoy those things now, but are still seen as far from equal in the business world.  But under our constitution, we have just as much right to an opinion, and to voice it freely.


We are just over two weeks into a new administration in our national government.  I don't know where this is going, but what I do know is that it has kindled an interest in government and history such as has not been seen in my lifetime.  While elections in my adulthood have been largely apathetic and poorly attended, I now see citizens who are fired up, and having heated debate over liberties - immigration, women's rights, gay rights, the right to speak freely, the right to protect our environment, the right to personal beliefs. 


Just as our new president has the absolute right to tweet whatever he likes, we have the right to dispute that loudly and -usually - with far more eloquence.  It's the gift our founding fathers left for us.  We are all still free men and women, and we still live under a document that covers us and gives a small layer of protection, despite the efforts to poke holes in it.  The key to all is to study, to educate, and then to speak with eloquence and passion.  I don't mean the kind of passion that throws bricks at glass windows, or makes ugly threats to people you have never met.  I mean the kind of passion that will reach out to help someone you don't know, to voice your thoughts, to become uncomfortable in an effort that maybe your grandchildren will live more comfortably, not afraid to show their race, or religion, or sexuality.


And, when I was thinking about this last week, this was the scene that came to mind, it's from a movie I've always enjoyed, though I first watched it because I had maybe just a little crush on Brendan Fraser.  But this speech by Joe Pesci is too good for me not to end this expression of free speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImTi03FPBr8