The waiting is over. Well, not really. Chester didn’t get a spot in any of the kindergartens we were interested in, so now we’re on waiting lists. More waiting – my favorite! For the time being, we have two options, neither of which I’m particularly happy with. How angry does it make me to feel like I have little to no control over my child’s education? It makes me very angry. We are the kind of people who spent hours researching a stroller for Chester. We’ve purchased entire cars with less time and effort than we put into selecting his first car seat. I know what that makes me: a freak. I admit it. Specifically, I am a control freak. I like having some semblance of control over what happens in my life. This kindergarten debacle indicates that control is decidedly absent and it’s very disconcerting. Not to mention the icky feeling that people are judging my kid. I don’t like it. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I want to tell them to take a long walk off a short dock at the very least or, more preferably, give them a good roundhouse kick to the head.
I suppose the good news is, if we end up at our public school, I’ll be paying about $10,000 a year instead of $20,000 – yes, ten grand a year for “pay-for-K” kindergarten and before and after school care at the community recreation center. The classes are large, the building is crowded, my kid will only get a half hour of art, music or PE a day, rotating every three weeks, but I’ll have a lot more money to spend on my jewelry obsession. For example, I couldn’t help having an “Everything is going to be just fine,” attitude if I were wearing this lovely multi-colored diamond angel wing pendant by Sally Sohn. There is something undeniably soothing about it, don’t you think?
Seriously though, I’m having a hard time accepting this school reality. We make all sorts of difficult decisions and work exceedingly hard to ensure that we have enough money (sort of) to send our child to a good school and then are denied the opportunity to pay someone our $20,000 a year. Really? Nobody wants my twenty grand? And we weren’t the only people scrambling to spend that kind of money. Most of the schools we applied to had well over 100 applicants for about 10 spots. I’m no economics expert, but clearly, there is much more demand than there is supply. Maybe I should start a school! Honestly, why not? I don’t have a background in education or any training in child development, but does that really matter? I don’t think so, and here’s why: I could bring something new and fresh to education, and when you’ve got new and fresh, who needs experience?
I’m being sarcastic. Of course I want experienced educators as my son’s teachers, but I’ve noticed an alarming trend lately – a disregard, a disdain even, for people with years of experience and the skills that come along with that experience. I first noticed this attitude in the realm of politics. How many times have you heard campaign rhetoric blasting incumbents as “career politicians” – uttered like the dirtiest words imaginable. Now I’m certainly not suggesting that incumbents are always the best candidates, nor am I implying that newcomers can’t bring great value to the political arena. What I find interesting, and disturbing, is the tendency to use the “career politician” label as a criticism. When I hear “career politician,” I picture this: years of service, loads of experience, a clear understanding of the system and how to work within it – all positives in my mind, which is unusual for me because, as anyone who knows me at all can attest, I am no Pollyanna. This trend is so prevalent in politics I notice it in nearly every race these days, from the presidential election down to bids for city council. I found it particularly egregious in Washington State Senator Patty Murray’s fall 2010 run for reelection. Whether or not you agree with Senator Murray’s politics, you’ve got to admit, she has been doing it for a long time, and she is a respected Senator who, by all accounts, fights valiantly for her state and her constituents. If you don’t agree with the fights she’s fighting or the side she’s taking, fine; base your arguments against her on that. What I don’t understand is putting her down simply because she has dedicated many years to public service and has a deep understanding of how to do it. What’s so wrong with that?
Another fine example of this anti-experience trend is Seattle’s most recent mayoral election. Incumbent Mayor Greg Nickels, a generally well-respected and experienced mayor, lost in the primary election. I don’t think Nickels was perfect, I mean the city got hit by that big snowstorm and he wasn’t able to snap his fingers or wave his mayor wand and melt it all away. What kind of a mayor is that? I expect my elected officials to be able to control Mother Nature! (Yeah, yeah, I know, I live his neighborhood. The streets of West Seattle were plowed and I simply cannot fathom how awful those TWO DAYS were for the rest of you delicate Seattleites.) My point is that by the time the general election rolled around, neither of the two candidates we ended up with had any experience whatsoever running a city, much less one the size of Seattle. It was entertaining to see the slight panic that ensued . . . “Hey! These guys don’t know what they’re doing. Now who do we vote for?” Gee, didn’t anybody besides me think of that during the primary?
I’ve noticed this trend seeping into other areas besides politics. The City of Seattle recently hired a new director for its Office of Arts and Cultural Affairs. This is a cabinet level position within city government. In the weeks before the job opened, I was dismayed to see The Stranger (self-proclaimed as “Seattle’s Only Newspaper”) run a piece entitled, “Hire One of These People.”
I don’t know any of the three candidates The Stranger was pushing. They certainly seem to be bright, successful people. However, all of them have one thing in common: no experience (at least none that was listed by The Stranger) working within the bureaucracy of a government agency as an arts administrator. The Stranger doesn’t think that matters. They seem quite certain, in their typical smug style, that vision and creativity is what it really takes to do the job successfully. The article described the previous director as “a respected arts administrator” as if that was a bad thing, and noted that a good successor would be “a notable person, not a career bureaucrat with the right resume.” Yeah, who needs an arts administrator for an arts administration job? Who in their right mind would want a “career bureaucrat” heading up a bureaucratic agency? Oh, the horror.
I am an arts administrator and have been doing my work in a municipal government setting for well over a decade. I guess that makes me a “career arts administrator” with no ideas and zero creativity. Vision is great; even necessary to do this job really well, but I can tell you that people seriously underestimate the unique challenges associated with running an arts program within a government bureaucracy. Call me crazy, but I think having someone who has experience leading a government agency would be a strong candidate for overseeing the arts program in a city as large and bureaucratic as Seattle. Could someone who doesn’t have specific government experience do the job? Sure. Does it make sense to immediately rule out the “career bureaucrats” simply because they have years of experience in a similar setting? I certainly don’t think so.
The City of Seattle recently filled the Office of Arts and Cultural Affairs Director position. In the end, they went with . . . (wait for it) . . . a career bureaucrat. In The Stranger’s words, Vincent Kitch is a “diplomat rather than a visionary” with a record as a “stalwart public servant.” I have no idea if Mr. Kitch is a creative thinking visionary. What I do know is that he has worked in arts administration for nearly 20 years, was most recently the Cultural Arts Program Manager for the City of Austin, was a program coordinator for the Michigan Council of Arts and Cultural Affairs prior to that, and also served as the Arts Program Coordinator for the City of El Paso. Clearly he is a “career arts administrator.” Appalling, I know. I guess we can’t hope for anything new or fresh or visionary in Seattle.
What is going on with this bizarre and pervasive trend? Does it have something to do with the internet and the fact that it allows anyone and everyone to see themselves as experts, curators, music producers and movie makers? I think the do-it-yourself capabilities that modern technology has provided are great, but let’s not forget the important contributions of people who have dedicated their lives to learning and perfecting a craft or skill-set. What’s next? Going to the shop girl at your corner boutique when a cavity needs filling? Having a plumber prepare your taxes? Looking up manicurists in the yellow pages when you need heart surgery? Think of all the new and fresh ideas a nail technician could bring to your operation!
So, I don’t see any reason why I can’t run the finest school in Seattle. I have lots of energy and fresh ideas. You might even call me a visionary. Give me your $20,000 per year . . . scratch that, I’ll do it for $15,000. Not having a clue what it takes to operate a school allows me to be innovative. Isn’t that great? I’ll give your kid the newest, freshest education you can imagine. Who needs career educators? Please. That’s just old and tired.
No comments:
Post a Comment