I have just purchased a new car after resisting that urge for ten years. I listen to "Car Talk" regularly and am accustomed to hearing people say they've gotten 225,000 miles on their vehicles with no problem. So because I hate car payments, I had preventive maintenance done like clockwork, and it was a good run. I'm donating the old car to a good cause, so hopefully somebody can have wheels who wouldn't otherwise.

I am now basking in the glow of newness, and I have made a vow to vacuum this silverblue beauty weekly, no less. I will only take it through touchless car washes. I will never take a crumb of food into its pristine interior. I will never put my metal-footed purse on the hood to search for my keys.

I got a good price because I've always driven stickshift, and see no reason to change this. I was shocked to hear that the woman selling me the car couldn't drive it, and also that the wonderful man (married to a dear friend) who went with me to help with negotiation also couldn't drive it. So maybe this means that the car is less likely to be stolen--that would be good.

So in 1998 I was a different person in many ways. In 2018 I will be a different person in many ways. It is quite a time warp, life is. Funny that I remember all the cars I've owned. Some people drive a car for 2 years and trade it in. My cars are like chapters. I must say that cars used to have more character. But for advanced electronics, reliability and gas mileage, I'll go with new.

The next generation of vehicles will hopefully bring us many more choices. As people have drifted toward driving tanks down the road, it has become scary to drive something small. In Europe, they have lived with high petrol prices for decades, and their vehicles have generally been smaller. They have different expectations.

I renew my commitment to moderation as I drive my moderately priced, moderately fuel efficient car at moderate speed. While I'm trying to be a good citizen, I'm thinking maybe we could elect more moderates who are willing to tell the truth, talk and negotiate with each other too (like in the old days, when that was seen as leadership).

Schools are bigger, but that doesn't make them better. Officials claim they have to have a certain size of school in order to qualify for the resources which are Federally mandated, or something like that. The way this filters down to the children and adolescents I see is that they are intimidated by the sheer numbers at school. The noise level alone would be enough to cause most of us to be unproductive if not extremely agitated.

The kids do not usually feel visible and known as human beings (unless they are "stars" of some kind or are in trouble a lot) . They therefore do not feel there is a secure base for them at school. It should feel like a community (again this is old school, no pun intended). Some of the best results I've heard recently were related to the openness and connectedness of the leadership. At one school, the principal would always be outside the main doorway, welcoming the students and noticing them and making encouraging comments to them.

I remember when my daughter entered "middle school" as a sixth grader, and I was recalling how immature I was as a sixth grader. Luckily in sixth grade I had another year before "junior high". In "middle school", the big group dynamics took over, the eighth graders looked like giants to the sixth graders, and the bullying was terrifying. In addition, the staff, despite their spoken philosophical commitment to this age group, set up a star system with an elaborate awards ceremony at the end of the year which I found excruciating to sit through. There was no validation of those who won no awards.

This is human capital we are talking about -- the strength of our neighborhoods, the strength of our nation. Principals have too often been cast as CEOs (protecting the reputation of the school no matter what, looking good which too often means hiding the truth, vying for top test scores no matter what) whose prime mission is increasing the available money and resources. In other cases, principals in besieged schools become defensive and the main goal is to back and protect their staff no matter what. The children and parents pick up on these agendas, and the real mission is lost.

We continue to have an unacceptable dropout rate. Children are labeled with ADD/AD/HD in greater numbers. We need to look at the model for the classroom, the school building, the way staff is evaluated and the way little Johnny is evaluated. We continue to have very rich and very poor local school districts. We have plummeted in math and science achievement compared with other nations. Our graduates are not seen as adequately prepared especially in the technology sector, and foreign workers are being imported to take the positions.

Eons ago when I was in high school, I felt the curriculum was centered around preparing me with a broad base of understanding so that I could put my future learning into a proper context. It was an education that was not so hard that it discouraged me. That is so important. Today children are being expected to master math concepts far earlier than I did. The bar is held high, and because math mastery requires constant repetition for most people, discouragement easily sets in and then the student is permanently behind. When the teacher is rushing through the lessons, there is no room for stumbling.

"Giftedness" education is another pet peeve of mine. These are not little college students. There should be enrichment provided for gifted children. The enrichment approach provides a broader exposure of children to experiences and resources which are connected to their core learnings. This broader exposure presents the children with appropriate challenges (which are usually not the same as college-level challenges.) We are, after all, needing to help high-achieving children find their passion and to inspire their future learning and contributions.

If classrooms were smaller and teachers were given more latitude, the creativity could return to education. What helps Johnny fit in the classroom is the available emotional energy of the teacher, the latitude to accommodate and acknowledge different learning styles, and the room to "roam" a little bit and be different. "Roaming" today is usually labeled disruptive behavior.

Kathy Kolbe's work with teachers, departments of education (most notably Kansas), and children has shown the power and importance of instincts in understanding the positive differences among children. School reform centered around instincts in the classroom can revitalize the education process for the teachers (who are very high on the list of important national resources) and for the students. Students who learn and contribute with an awareness of their inborn instincts (which are gifts we all have) have natural confidence in themselves and can lead an inspired nation into the future.

Call Dr. Pam now to find out more about Kolbe Coaching and your child or your grandchild. If you are a teacher or school administrator, Dr. Pam would be very happy to discuss Kolbe applications in the classroom with you. Dr. Pam gives free 15-minute phone consultations. Call 443-742-6038

NEWSFLASH--
Hear Kathy Kolbe speak at a free teleseminar on harnessing your inner instincts on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 8:00 PM Eastern. Go to www.unwrappingthegiftofadd.com to sign up. The teleseminar is also available for purchase on that site.

Thanks for reading Zigzag. Please forward this Ezine to any friends who may share your interest.

Dr Pam is a psychologist, therapist, and Kolbe™ coach. She can be reached at www.instinctivecoach.com

Her weekly Internet-based radio show “Do You Mind?” will be starting in January 2008 at: www.vivacitymedia.com

To submit questions and topics for the radio show, go to Dr. Pam's website. Those shows will also be made available for purchase as podcasts on her site.

Renewal

WHY JOHNNY DOESN'T FIT IN THE CLASSROOM...