Folks inside the Beltway are in a tizzy after the recent resignation of D.C. Education Czar Michelle Rhee. Some folks were actually surprised. Really? Her guy lost his mayoral re-election bid--a result she publicly decried as "devastating" for the kids of the district. Oh, and she's also the star of the documentary Waiting for Superman, a film that is in lock-step with the all testing all the time/charter schools wing of the education reform movement.

I'm all for holding teachers and principals and even parents accountable when it comes to education. The thing is, the kids aren't stupid. They know more facts than ever. You think all that twiddling on the smart phones is just sexting and video games?

Well, I'm sure that's true for some. But lots of kids use the extraordinarily wide range of media available to learn stuff. One of my older son's friends is boning up on the history of the NHL, geeking out on as many stats as he can. I do live inside the Beltway (which, admittedly, may skew this anecdote), and plenty of kids around here are researching the issues and getting politically active.

Facts aren't the problem. More tests won't tell us anything except that some children are raised in houses with lots of books and indoctrinated with the belief that education is important. And some aren't. A number of studies have shown that the surest predictor of school success is the number of books in the household. Kids who grow up with books at hand are comfortable with books and their use. And those kids are much more likely to sustain a life-long love of learning.

As for charter schools, some are good and some are bad. That is the point, by the way. Charter schools are supposed to be laboratories. The regular public schools serve as controls. On average, charters do a little worse than "regular" schools--if you believe the testing data. And I've already gotten into that.

The big problem with our schools (public and private, charter and "regular") is that very few teach our kids the right way to think.

I'm not talking about politics or philosophy or anything like that. I'm talking about critical thinking. About living a skeptical life. About being able to recognize when your chosen course of action is not working and shifting gears.

This election is a prime teaching opportunity. The tea party folks are all the rage, and the movement has a few clearly-stated ideals. We should balance the budget immediately, lower taxes, cut back the size of government and repeal many of the laws that have been passed in the last couple of years.

So. Let's teach. Topic #1: How can we balance the budget? There are plenty of ways, but cutting taxes or cutting programs are the two simplest to analyze. A high school student of average intelligence and curiosity could put this together in a week. There's nothing inherently political about the assignment--the paper (or multi-media presentation or whatever) would be graded on the quality of the analysis, not on the ideas espoused. I know some folks would find this tricky ground, but a good teacher shouldn't have much difficulty explaining the assignment or grading it fairly.

Topic #2: How big is the government today, and is it too big or too small? This paper requires students to take a stance and defend it. Anyone who took part in debate club knows how this works. It doesn't matter what position you espouse. What matters is how you put together your argument.

See, most teachers (and school systems) would prefer that kids stick to the curriculum. They prefer kids who regurgitate facts to kids who challenge accepted ideas. The former are "good students," while the latter are "troublemakers." I know this is a generalization, but I was given both labels in high school by different teachers. I could regurgitate with the best of them, but I got into trouble occasionally when I challenged teachers on their interpretation of "facts." Of course, when you have a calculus teacher who never took a course past algebra II, there's no way to avoid confusion. Nonetheless, I have always preferred teachers who encourage individual thought. The classrooms are more lively and everyone learns more.

An election is a zero-sum game. But politics is not. The tea party folks have some ideas worth considering, just like everyone else running for office. Democracy is messy, and elections rarely bring out the best in candidates. What we can hope for is that the people who get into office are serious folks who are willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work of governing. In other words, folks who know how to think.

The next time something you read or hear or see pisses you off, make yourself consider that idea from as many sides as possible. I'm guessing by the time you're done, you've learned something about yourself and the person expressing the idea. And you've given your brain a much-needed workout.

Don't believe the hype. If something smells, keep sniffing around. Don't simply accept what you're told. Think about it instead. Our democracy depends on it.

Jon Worley would make sure to bring grenadine syrup if he were invited to a picnic on a Satanic altar.