Protests, Free Speech, and America

Without Freedom Of Thought, There Can Be No Such Thing As Wisdom- And No Such Thing As Public Liberty Without Freedom Of Speech.~ Benjamin Franklin

Over the past several days, I've given a lot of thought to the recent words of President Trump, the protests currently gripping the NFL, and the subsequent wave of opinions from American citizens. Seemingly everyone has a take on this controversy. Indeed, the other day in my classroom we strayed into this topic during a class discussion on the Spanish-American War and American Imperialism at the turn of the century (trust me, it fit and it worked in the grand scheme of things). I was impressed and a little shocked at their knowledge of the subject and their reasons for their opinions. Like the rest of the nation, students were passionate about their views and felt compelled to express them. However, unlike Facebook Land, the students were able to express their opinions respectfully and calmly. Interesting observation, not sure what that means or says, just an interesting sidenote. I, like most of my students, have my own thoughts on the protest and what President Trump said. I also believe this whole controversy is a prelude to a larger issue that is slowly swelling within American society.

I Disprove Of What You Say, But I Will Defend To The Death Your Right To Say It.~ Voltaire

Sunday all across the NFL more than half of the players either took a knee during the national anthem or simply did not come out of the locker room during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner. In Tennessee, the young lady who sang the national anthem took a knee immediately after singing. Taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem is not really anything new, but the sheer numbers that took part were. Personally, it does bother me when someone does not stand up for the national anthem or the Pledge of Alliegence. I am proud to be an American, I know I am so fortunate to have been born here rather than somewhere else. I have the utmost respect for the brave men and women who have and are currently serving our nation to protect the freedoms that we so cherish. I am fully aware that freedom is not, nor has it ever been free. Our freedoms have been paid for by the sacrifices, the blood, and lives of our soldiers. That is what the Star Spangled Banner and the Pledge of Alliegence means to me. That is why I stand at rapt attention with my hand firmly over my heart when these exercises in patriotism take place. In fact, when the Pledge takes place at Pomona, it is usually during my planning period so it is just me alone in my classroom, and I never fail to stand up, with my hand over my heart as I recite the Pledge along with the intercom.

I also understand that others have the right to freedom of speech and if others feel that kneeling for the national anthem is their right under the auspices of free speech then so be it. This is why 291, 557 Americans gave their lives during WWII, so that we would not be compelled by rule of law to stand with our arms extended straight out as we shout "Sieg Heil!" to an image of the Fuhrer. I do not like the protest, I wish they could find a different way to express their views because it is bothersome. However, their act has ignited a conversation and shone a light on their cause. They are not acting violently- creating a violent situation is one of the limits of free speech- they are quietly taking a knee, bowing their heads and are otherwise remaining respectful of others during the playing of our National Anthem. I don't like the act, but I respect their right to do so.

This solemn act of protest is in direct contrast to those who carried tiki torches chanting "Jews Will Not Erase Us!" and a German Nazi chant "Blood and Soil!" in Charlottesville, Virginia this past July. If the actions of the so-called Alt-Right was acceptable as an exercise of free speech, despite the provocative nature of their protest, and the fact that they were attempting to defend, or at the very least, support not one but two nations that the United States decisively beat in an 80-year time span, then surely the simple act of kneeling and bowing one's head during a three-minute protest is just as acceptable.

On some social media sites, I have seen the following indignant argument against the NFL protest: "Tim Tebow was ridiculed and driven from the NFL because he took a knee. Let That Sink In."  Allow me to respond. I truly don't remember Tebow being widely ridiculed because of his taking a knee in prayer. In fact, I do remember "Tebowing" being a fairly popular fad. President Obama famously did it on top of his desk in the Oval Office. School children held mass Tebowing demonstrations as the Broncos improbably played their way into the playoffs that year. Tebowing was done not out of condemnation, but just the opposite, a way of honoring Tim Tebow. Furthermore, he is no longer in NFL because he was a terrible NFL QB. His religious beliefs were not the obstacle, the obstacle was his inability to accurately deliver a downfield throw with any alacrity. Now think about this; The protest in Vicksburg, that many saw as an exercise of legitimate free speech, was to protect the "heritage" of the South and held by a group who had many wearing Swastikas and chanting Nazi slogans. Over 360,000 American soldiers were killed to defeat the South and 291,557 soldiers were killed to defeat Nazi Germany. 650,000+ American soldiers were killed to defeat the two nations that were being defended by those who claim were simply exercising their free speech rights in Charlottesville. 650,000+ Amercian soldiers killed in 80 years to beat these ideologies. Now, let that sink in.

Free Speech Carries With It Some Freedom To Listen.~ Supreme Court Justice Warren Earl Burger

Hopefully, you didn't believe that I was only going to hammer Right Conservatives, a group I am finding myself in agreement with less and less, and not condemn a group with whom I've rarely found myself in agreement with; Left Liberals.

On college campuses across the country, there have been protests and outcry from far-left liberals over conservative speakers being brought onto campus to present their ideas. At Cal-Berkley a scheduled speech by conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was cancelled twice because of threatened violent protests by liberal student groups. Berkley was planning on setting up "Mental Health Assitance" tents on campus to help students who were feeling anxiety or otherwise having trouble dealing with the presence of conservative speakers such as Yiannopoulos. Seriously... I am not making that up. A few days ago, Yiannopoulos did show up on the Berkley campus in an attempt to deliver his message despite his invite being rescinded. The backlash was immediate and severe. Various liberal student groups showed up to shout down Yiannopoulos and his group. Predictably, the other side became just as vociferous. The real irony here? Yiannopoulos and his group were to be a part of "Free Speech Week" at Cal-Berkely. Free Speech Week at Berkley was cancelled...twice. That's right, Cal-Berkley had to cancel Free Speech Week.

Similar scenes and protests have played out at college campuses across the country. This is very troubling because colleges are precisely the arena where young people should be exposed to various ideas, philosophies, and thoughts. It is in institutions of higher learning that students should engage in open debate about the tenents of these ideas. However, increasingly this doesn't seem to be the case. More and more there seems to be a backlash, often violent, against ideas that seem to go against the "American liberal ideals". This is inexcusable. If you feel attacked or intimidated by the mere presence of opposing ideas, what does that say about the strength of your ideology? If the strength of your ideas cannot even entertain opposing ideas, then your ideas are inherently weak.

I am secure in my ideas about how society and government should work, secure enough that I am willing and able to calmly engage with ideas that are opposite of mine, even those ideas that I find abhorrent.  In fact, my views have been altered or outright changed from engaging with other ideologies. I still adhere to my core beliefs of keeping the government off my back and out of my pockets, but because of my interactions over the years with other people and ideas, I am not as steadfast as I once was. And that's okay. That's what should be the outcome by listening to and engaging with various ideas, views and theories. I certainly never felt so intimidated or frightened that I needed a so-called Safe Zone. That is simply preposterous. If you feel that scared by thoughts opposite of yours, then your ideas are inherently weak and you know it but are unwilling to admit it. Now, let that sink in.

Freedom Of Speech Is Often Inconvient. But That Is Beside The Point. Inconvenience Does Not Absolve The Government Of Its Obligation To Tolerate Speech.~ Justice Anthony Kennedy

To say that I am disheartened by the lack of tolerance for free speech by both sides of the political debate would be an understatement. We live in a time that it seems to be more important to prove that you are absolutely right in all debates. And if you are unable to do that, then you must prove that the other side is absolutely wrong. There can be no in between. I'm not sure, how or why we came to that point. Is it because of the advent of social media and our inability to interact with it in a mature manner because of its relative newness? Or is it because of the lack of decorum in our political leaders and their increasing unwillingness to compromise? I'm not sure.

What I am sure of is this; if we spend less time being offended by everything that we don't agree with and spent more time engaging with other people and ideas we would all be better off. No one side is absolutely correct and no one side is absolutely wrong. Republicans do not have all the right answers and Democrats do not just come up with wrong ideas. Conservatives are not the sole keeper of patriotism and Liberals do not have a monopoly on intellect. Thomas Jefferson in an attempt to quell partisanship upon assuming the presidency said: "We are all Federalists and we are all Republicans." FDR once stated that he was "that kind of conservative and that kind of liberal." If we all lived up to these words, our society would have a lot less discord.

We are all Americans, we should begin to act like it.

If I Were President

When my boys were younger, one of their favorite stories for me to read was "If I Ran The Zoo" by Dr. Seuss. It is a whimsical story about a boy who regales a zoo worker with how the zoo would look if he were in charge, the changes he would make and all the new, fanciful animals he would include. This story came to mind the other day when I was somewhat bemused by the continuing turmoil and turnover that sadly has become commonplace within the White House. It got me to thinking; what would the White House be like if I were in charge? Those who have known me from 6th grade up through college know that at one time my dream was to be the President of the United States, and this was not some braggadocios claim made in order to attract attention. No, I was dead serious. I wanted to be the President of the United States. Now however- not so much. I've found my passion and I know what I'm good at and that is being in the classroom teaching history. Besides, I am neither narcissistic nor arrogant enough to pursue the presidency. Nor am I wealthy enough...I'm a teacher after all. However, the goings-on in the White House have nonetheless got me to thinking how would I have done things differently?

For starters, not all of my cabinet would be conservative or even moderate Republicans. Chances are most of the cabinet would be Republicans of one ideology or another, but certainly not all of them. I firmly believe that there are some issues in government that Democrats are naturally (if you can be naturally predisposed in such a way) better at than are Republicans. For instance, I tend to believe that Democrats tend to have a better grasp at internal, domestic issues than do Republicans. Therefore, many of the cabinet positions would be filled by competent Democrats. I believe that Republicans tend to be naturally more adept at foreign policy, thus most of the cabinet positions which involve foreign policy would be filled by competent Republicans.  Economically, I would surround myself by conservative fiscal thinkers, however, they would not design policy that would only benefit the wealthy nor shift tax burden from those able to pay to those less able to pay. To many, this may sound incompatible with conservative theory, however, I assure you it is not. It just seems that way because of current crop of "leaders" who have usurped power in the Republican Party. I could go into more detail, however that is, I believe, a different blog post. I would not, however, surround myself with a bunch of "YES" people who would fawn over me and assure me that all I was doing was good and correct. I want people to disagree with me, I want conflict (peaceable and thoughtful- not vulgar and angry). Having different ideas and some conflict creates better outcomes. I wholly subscribe to the axiom that if everyone is thinking the same thing, then no one is thinking at all. Yes, this is one way things would be different if I were the president.

I would put people in charge who know and understand the role and function of their department and who actually support that departments mission. If I were President I would not put someone in charge of Housing whose only qualification was that, when they were a child, they were poor once as well. Hello Ben Carson.  Gosh, I've flown on airplanes several times, so obviously I'm qualified to head the FAA. If I were president I would not put someone in charge of a department that they want to shut down. Hello  Rick Perry, although to be fair, Rick couldn't remember the name of this department when he said he wanted to shut it down. Heck, I really dislike Wal-Mart and it would not break my heart to see them go under, therefore I should be the CEO of Wal-Mart. If I were president I would appoint people to positions in which they have some qualifications and experience to justify their position. Hello Betsy DeVos. Did you know that if the ONLY time you've ever stepped into a public school is for a craft fair on a muggy Saturday afternoon in 1997, you already have more public school experience than good ol' Betsy? (That is a fact by the way.) I have absolutely no experience in building cars, but I hear there is a lot of waste in the automobile industry so I am an obvious choice to head up General Motors. If I were president I would nominate people who not going to work against the very agency they would lead. Hello Scott Pruitt. I am against any baseball game that lasts longer than 2 1/2- 3 hours, so I'm a shoe-in for baseball commissioner. No, if I were president I would nominate people who I knew understood and would champion the cause of their agency. Even if- no- ESPECIALLY if I knew they and I would butt heads at times. That's what I would do, I were the President.

If I were the president, I would seek some common ground with our adversaries around the world and work towards agreement with them on those grounds  All the while being very wary of them in all other arenas. Detente` ala Richard Nixon. Yes, I'm speaking, of course, about the Russians. I know communism is dead and gone in Russia, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous or any more trustworthy. Vladimir Putin is an old school Cold War Warrior and would love to see a renewed Cold War, this time with Russia holding all the cards. I certainly would not be willing to get cozy with them or create any backdoor friendships with them. I definitely would not be meeting with them for any reason during a campaign. I mean, why would I anyways? If I'm running for office, I hold no official title or capacity, at that moment, I'm just a candidate who wants to be president. Furthermore, I would not encourage our historical adversary to hack into my opponents computers. Wasn't openly encouraging a foreign power to attack a fellow citizen at one time considered treason? I don't know, jus' askin'. Remember the good old days when even the slightest hint of contact or friendliness with Russia considered political suicide? Yes, If I were President, I would know who my allies were and more importantly know who my enemies were. That's what I would do, if I were President.

Now, don't get me wrong. There ARE some things that this current president has done that I do agree with. There are some things that I would have done if I were the President, it's true. Nikki Haley is a fine choice for U.S. Representative in the U.N. From all accounts she has done outstanding and is truly working on behalf of the country and its interests. If I were President, I'd like to think Nikki Haley would have been my choice as well. I do like the idea of repealing as many regulations as possible. I think sometimes we get seduced by the thought that government can cure all the ills that take place in the world. So, whenever an issue raises its ugly little head, no matter how small or insignificant it may well be, our inclination is to pass a rule or a law about it. There, we say to ourselves with righteous indignation, that'll solve that pesky little problem. But in reality, all that we've accomplished is strangling businesses and hamstringing the economy. Now, understand me, and hear me clearly; I am NOT  in favor of repealing regulations that actually protect things and people who are unable to protect themselves in the name of profit and the welfare of business. No, if the regulations actually protect and maintain the safety and well being of people and the community, then it is a well placed regulation. However, if it is a regulation that is pretty much senseless and only aids in and growing bureaucracy or the tender inclinations of the perpetually offended, then that, that my friend, is an unneeded regulation indeed. I applaud the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. He is conservative to be sure, but his conservationism seems to be rooted in Constitutional principles, not crazy, whimsical conservatism whose only justification for their opinions are "because I know how the Founding Fathers would have thought about this issue." However, my next Supreme Court nominee would be a more liberal justice. For, as in life, politics- and yes the Supreme Court- works better when there is a balance in all things. Ideally, my Supreme Court would consist of three liberal justices, three moderate justices and three conservative justices. That's what I would do if were the run the White House. Yes, these are some of the things that I would do the same, if I were President.

Alas, however, I am not President, nor will I ever be so. But it's nice to dream and it's good to think, what would I do if I were the one to do. But take heart, if you disagree with this President, know he won't be forever and we have been through worse. And if you agree with the President, be kind to those who are of a different mind, for remember you were on the short end at one time and will be again. Treat all as you would want to be treated yourself. Even if that is not what this President would do. Because, that's what I would do, if I were President.

Knowing Your Place- The Secrets Educators Keep

Knowing your place is key to a peaceful and fulfilling existence.

I recently read an article that studied Gen Xers (my generation) and younger workers about their attitudes towards working. The researcher concluded that mid career and younger workers no longer see themselves as 30+ year employees at a job. In fact, many young and middle age workers no longer see themselves in a "career", at least not in the traditional sense, they see themselves as having several "jobs" throughout their working lives, but not really any one "career". The article gave several reasons for this; 1) There is a sense among young and mid career workers that the grass is greener in a different field, 2) Workers get bored with their job so they look for new challenges, 3) The pursuit of better pay or benefits, 4) Some young workers want job satisfaction or self-worth to come from their jobs and if it is not readily apparent at one job they will leave in pursuit of it somewhere else. And finally the researcher claimed, sometimes people just have wanderlust and float from job to job because they either consciously or subconsciously enjoy the challenge and change that comes with acquiring a new job and new skills.

While I found the article to be enlightening and interesting, I also found it somewhat perplexing because, although one of the focus groups in the article was my generation, I couldn't really identify with the people in the study because I am wholly content and happy with my place in the world. I have found myself. I have found my mission in life, my calling if you will. My place is in the classroom, in front of teenagers sharing my passion and knowledge of our history. This is where I belong and this is where I intend to stay. Now finding my place, that has been a journey. My journey is not all that special either, because truth be told; my story parallels that of many, many teachers who have had similar stories.

As many people around me know, when I entered college I had two career paths I was interested in; being a high school history teacher, or being a lawyer. Both were very intriguing to me and I had had people in both fields tell me I would be good at both choices. As I explored both options I soon discovered how many years of college I would need to become a lawyer so a teacher it was! And I can honestly say I really don't regret my choice. I thoroughly enjoy being able to go to sleep at night and feel good about what I do as well as being able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning knowing that what I do truly is beneficial for all. The only time I kind of regret my career choice is at the end of the month when I get paid, then I think ' Ohhhhh, should have been a lawyer.'

I've also had opportunities in the last 19 years to leave the classroom and pursue other options. Some of them involving education, some of them involving history and some of them in completely different fields. The one option that was the most appealing was going into school administration. That held a lot of appeal. I would still be in a school setting, I would still be be dealing with students but I would be making more money. This option looked and sounded really nice. However, the more I thought about it, the less appealing it became. Although I would still be dealing with students, it would be in a different capacity because instead of dealing with them in a pleasant, fun and enjoyable manner, I would, for the most part, be dealing with them in an unpleasant manner. 90% of the time when a student is in an administrators office, it's because something went really bad. I did not want most of my interaction with students to be negative. It would also require me leaving the classroom, and that was too great a sacrifice for me. In addition to that, when I was really very serious and interested in this move things happened in the district and the conditions in the district were not favorable for me to make that kind of move. But, now there has been a lot of changes in leadership in the district and most of those who could have and would have blocked my transition are now gone. However, the pull of the classroom is still very powerful and attractive to leave.

There are still options available to me if I wanted to pursue something outside of the classroom. I could again renew my foray into administration. I could pursue pursue a path in strengthening and growing my profession either in education in general or in Social Studies/History education specifically. But, nah. Those aren't for me. Now I do have in mind a really great show idea for the History Channel or the Discovery Channel that would involve me traveling around to various historical sites and exploring the history of these sites (in particular the weird and unusual history- what I call "Jerry Springer History" in class) and do this with a healthy dose of deadpan as well as off-the wall goofy humor. That would draw me out of the classroom, but sadly I don't see that happening. Both networks are too interested in so-called "reality shows" and the History Channel seemingly is becoming less and less interested in History. So, in the classroom I'll remain. Which is fine because it makes me happy.

I often tell my students that one of the keys to life and happiness is to do something that you truly love and enjoy to do. If you can do that then you never have to go to work. I haven't worked in 19 years. If my families well being as well as mine didn't depend on it, I would teach for free and still enjoy it. That's the key to life. Enjoy what your doing and then continue to work to be better at it. I couldn't imagine waking up everyday and dreading going into work. I couldn't imagine working with my main goal being the weekend. To me that would be skull-drudgery. Now don't get me wrong, I love June, July and August but that is definitely not the reason I teach. I teach because I love it and every year I am striving to be better than I was the year before.

But here's the kicker, I'm not alone in my thoughts and ideas. Most of the teachers I know are the same way. They LOVE what they do and are constantly striving to be better. They usually can't think of anything they would rather do other than teach. Most would be willing to teach for free if they could survive in some other way. Teaching is a passion, not a job that you can do for a while until you get bored or something else comes along. Most teachers live for September to May and see June, July and August as a nice break so they can prepare for the next school year. When you have that kind of passion and drive, that's when you've found your calling. This is the drive most teachers have. My passion is not unique either, in every school and every classroom that has effective, memorable teachers they have the same passion. These teachers have found their place in the world and they want to help their students find theirs.

Reforming Health Care Reform

At this moment the GOP has delayed a vote in the Senate on their newest form of health care reform. Presumably because they don't have enough votes within the Republican Party to pass the bill. This is not unlike when the Republicans in the House delayed a vote on their version of health care reform. I find this troubling. Not because I like either health care reform bill, because I don't. Nor do I find it troubling because I like the American Health care Act- i.e. Obamacare- because I don't. What I find troubling is that health care has become so politicized that common ground seems non-existent. Furthermore, it seems as though the hardest part about health care reform is that there are too many powerful entities involved that aren't the people who would benefit the most from quality health care; the average American and the patients themselves.

According to an article in Forbes Magazine (hardly a bastion of Liberal thought) Americans spend over $3 trillion a year on health care!!!! This is astounding. This certainly is not beneficial for the average Working Joe American and it definitely is not beneficial to the average patient. However, for insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and most hospitals, this is fantastic! They are in the business to make money. The bottom line is the top line for these industries. Now, far-be-it for me to question making money, nor begrudge profits. I am a Capitalist. I believe in the Free-Market system and Capitalism. However, I also believe that there are instances when other concerns come before profit. Education for me is obviously one of these instances. As is public and national protection. And so is health care. I firmly believe that people come before profits. So, now you are thinking, "Ah-Ha! You want socialized medicine! You want health care on demand! I knew you were a Bernie-Lover all along! You Commie! You should go hang out with your Bolshevik friends!" (although it seems as though, somehow it's okay to be real cozy with the Russians now. But that's a different story) Actually.......I don't want nor do I believe in government run health care, but I do believe I have a way to reform health care for the benefit of Americans.

First let me explain why I don't want government run health care, or socialized medicine. Simply put I have very little faith in the government (ours or any other) to operate ANYTHING efficiently. Quick, name me something that the government is in charge of that is well run.......Thank you. See, you couldn't name one thing. Truly the only the government runs with any degree of efficiency is the military and if you talk with any soldier that efficiency is nominal at best. Now don't get me wrong, as little faith as I have in the government, I do believe there are some areas that the government should run simply because these services are too essential to our society as a whole to be operated by For-Profit enterprises. These services are, again, education, police, fire, and military. Furthermore, I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas Jefferson "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything you have." I also do not want to pay crippling taxes. I'm not a fan of taxes (who is?), but I'm not a crazy No-Taxes at all person either. I'm fine paying taxes for needed services such as roads, police, fire, education, and other essential civic needs. I do not, however, want to pay 50%+ in taxes which is what would happen if we had socialized health care.

So, what is my solution? Make health care non-profit. Take the profit motive out of health care. You would still be paying for health care so the government would not  but that would be all that you are paying for- just the health care, not the profit margin. Medical insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals need to begin placing the care of patients and their health care above the interests of profits and their investors. Profit making is a huge component in the high cost of health care. If profit margins begin to decrease, companies will find ways to begin to prop up that profit margin, this is Economics 101. Usually this prop up will somehow, someway involve less customer service and care. In almost all instances I'm fine with this concept. Because I can take my business elsewhere. I can go somewhere else where the customer service is better, where the prices are cheaper, where the care is more caring. However, this is not the case with health care. If you are experiencing a health crisis, you really are not concerned with which hospital is cheaper or has better patient care. You just want help and want it now! Finding better or cheaper insurance, especially via an employer is nothing short of a herculean feat. Unless you live near the Mexican or the Canadian boarder, getting reasonably priced prescriptions is near impossible unless you have a good relationship with the guy who hangs out in the '86 T-Top Camero in the Dollar Store parking lot, I'm pretty sure that guy has more pharmaceuticals for sale than Walgreens.  It is absolutely wrong that companies and hospitals see the pain and misery of others as a way to enrich themselves and their investors. I was raised not to take joy in or advantage of those who were in need. I firmly believe that removing the profit motive from health care would solve many of our issues with health care.

This is not some form of socialized medicine in a disguise either. People would still have to pay for their health care, just at a reduced, sane rate. There would not be any government money being funneled to the health care industries to subsidize their bottom line. All money being spent, aside from Medicaid and Medicare (which is a whole different issue in this current mess), would come from the individual consumer. I understand the economic realities and problems with "health care on demand" or socialized medicine. "Free" can only take place when there is an abundant or endless source of something. Dirt is free (usually), regular everyday rocks are free, air is free, thought and opinions are free. These things these things are abundant. There are more of these things than we know what to do with. Although, I'm sure if the government could figure out a way, they'd tax all those things as well. However, there are simply not enough doctors, or hospitals or enough medicine for everyone. One of the roles that prices play in an economy is to help ensure that there is enough of a good for those who really want or need that good when that product is really wanted or needed. If goods were free or artificially cheap, then there would not be enough goods for people who would really want or need that product. Either because there just simply is not enough of that product or because there would be those who would take advantage of the situation and consume more than they really need. So, making health care non-profit as opposed to "free" would 1) recognize that health care is not abundant enough for it to be available upon demand, keeping it readily available for those who truly want or need it when they want or need it and 2) lower the cost of the services to a level that would allow the vast majority of citizens to afford health care without destroying them economically.

Is this making health care non-profit a crazy idea? Maybe. But then again, what we have going on in Washington D.C. right now around health care is not exactly sane or inspiring. Has this ever been done before? I don't think so but then again, if we only limited ourselves to doing things that had been done before we would still be living in caves and only getting fire when lightening struck. It's certainly not foolproof, but no plan or idea is ever going to be perfect. But
I think this is worth a shot. Any true reform will have to involve our elected officials- on BOTH sides of the isle- to tell the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies that they are no longer beholden to them and their bottom lines but that are beholden to the people who hired them and who can fire them- the voters. And that is the way to truly return the government to the people and to "Make America Great...Still".

The Glass Award and the Chrystal Ball

I am currently sitting alone in my hotel room in Breckenridge reflecting back on the past several months for the Jefferson County School District as well as the upcoming months for our district. Just as the near past was filled with frustration, trepidation, an fear as well as hope, happiness and elation; the coming months promise much of the same.

November 9, 2016
On the morning of November 9, 2016 we all entered our schools very bewildered and disappointed in the outcome of the previous night. Our community voted against the same district they had helped save one year prior. We were scared, worried, defeated, angry and confused all at once.
     How could this have happened?
     What if I had just walked one more day? Would that have made a difference?
     Where do we go from here?
     What will happen to the crumbling infrastructure?
     How can we continue to serve and provide the best and highest quality education that our students            deserve?
     Are we doomed to becoming a "Farm District" for the rest of the Denver area because we can't be
            competitive in teacher compensation?

All of these questions, thoughts and concerns, among others, were rolling around in our minds that morning. I remember it well. The depression was palatable and the concern hung on us like a wet blanket.

A Win
Our thoughts quickly turned to negotiations. We were told, no promised, that if the Mill and Bond failed not to expect a raise of any type. Steps and Levels were the best we could hope for, and even that was tenuous. The district offered a measly, insulting one time stipend of a couple hundred dollars stating that was the best they could do if they were going to honor steps and levels. The negotiations team persisted until the district found enough money to give everyone a 2% raise. A victory to be sure. Perhaps this would turn out alright after all.

The Glass Award
Our attention then turned to Dan McMinimee. Would his contract be renewed? He certainly had not done a bad job as our superintendent, but it hadn't been all that great either. And the process surrounding his hire seemed a little grimy and unseemly. The BOE decided that it would not renew his contract and the search for another Superintendent began anew. We waited with baited breath to see who the new Superintendent would be. We were assured that this would be a much more transparent process than the last time we traveled this path. Suddenly, one name emerged: Dr. Jason Glass, Superintendent of Eagle County School District. Many of us, myself included, were ecstatic! Can this be true? Was this really happening? The answer to both was yes. I had often read his articles in the Vail newspaper and thought 'Why can't we get a leader like that?' Well, now we had one. The very same one whose opinions I had long valued and been inspired by.

The detractors were quick to point out that there was a lot of consternation surrounding the hire of Dan McMinimee and the hiring of Dr. Glass was very similar. On the surface, yes, both were similar. Both were not known until the very end and in both instances, there was only one lone candidate as opposed to several from which to choose. However, this is where the similarities ended. Dr. Glass was the director of Education for the ENTIRE state of Iowa. He had been the head of the Human Resources department in Eagle County. He had been a successful Superintendent. He had been appointed by the President of the United States (Barrack Obama) to serve on a national education board. Dr. Glass had earned his Doctorate. Now I am not one impressed by degrees, nor do I believe that degrees automatically make you more capable than someone without a degree. However, Dr. Glass had the degree AND the success to earn him the right to be called "Dr. Glass". Dan McMinimee served as a principal and was the Assistant Superintendent in Douglas County and his greatest claim to fame was breaking the teachers union as well as being part of the team that began the great demise of the once mighty Douglas County School District. Mr. McMinimee's credentials pale in comparison.

However, I do want to pump the breaks on the excitement over the hiring of Dr. Glass. Teachers should not believe that he will be our best friend. That we will get everything we want because we now have someone like Dr. Glass in the Superintendent's office. He was not hired to be the teacher's best friend, he was not chosen to be uber-teacher friendly. He is not our lap dog and we should not expect him to be so. That expectation would be unfair to Dr. Glass and unfair to our district. He was hired to do what's right and what he believes is in the best interest for the 86,000 students in our district. He was hired to be our students best friend. Granted, often times what is in the students best interest is often in our best interest as well, but not always. We have to understand that there will be times that we, as teachers, will be disappointed in Dr. Glass. There will be times that we will be frustrated by his decisions. Indeed, Dr. Cindy Stevenson and teachers were often at odds on a number of issues. But at the end of the day, we understood, as did Dr. Stevenson, that we both wanted the best for this district and its students. I believe it is a fair statement to say that the same cannot be said for the decisions coming out of the Administration Building the past several years. Dr. Glass, I wholeheartedly believe, will remedy that problem. We may not always like the decisions, but we will believe that he has the students best interests at heart. I cannot wait to see what he can do for our district.

November 7, 2017
This is why I am sitting by my self in a hotel room in Breckenridge tonight. I am here training for the upcoming elections this November. This November is a monumental election for the future of the Jefferson County School District. Remember that Recall we won in 2015? Well, those same seats are up for election this November. All three of them. To say that AFP, the Koch brothers and the Independence Institute were upset with that loss would be a monstrous understatement. It was devastating for them. And what's more is that they have been planning, scheming, and plotting for the past two years to reclaim those seats. I am here to learn all I can about keeping that from happening. In fact there are several teachers in JCEA who have been working since February to keep that horror from taking place. In American politics if you want until August/September to work on elections, you've already lost before one ballot has been cast. Interestingly enough, in England campaigns may ONLY take place in the 42 days BEFORE the election. Perhaps we would be wise to learn a few things from the Brits???? We will be working throughout this summer planning how to win this November.

This is my ask to you. If, you are as excited as am I to see what Dr. Glass can do for this district, then we must first do something for Dr. Glass. We must ensure that a pro-public education board majority is returned to the school board. Thankfully, Ron Mitchell, Brad Rupert and Susan Harmon are running for re-election. But in order to get them re-elected you must help. Sure yard signs are satisfying and make you feel like you've done your part, but sadly, if that's all you do you have not done anything. We need you walk, knock and talk to the community about why it's important to the future of JeffCo schools and the community it serves for Mitchell, Rupert and Harmon to be returned to the board room. If we lose the board majority, than any work the Dr. Glass could have done for this district and its students will be severely hamstrung. Dr. Glass needs us to help him so he can help us.

The "Other Side" is ready and rarin' to go. They want to win and have the district lose. I'm ready to go and win, are you? Dr. Glass needs you. Your colleagues need you. Your students need you. Don't let them down.

"Best Practices" Are Exactly What You Think They Are

Best Practices.

If you are in education, then you have heard the phrase before. At least once. In every single staff meeting. And every single in-service. And every single evaluation meeting. If you are in education, you are bombarded by the phrase. You hear it almost as much as the other dreaded, teeth-clinching eduspeak word- "DATA". Ugh! So, the question becomes, just what are "Best Practices"? The phrase is bandied about by Educrats so much you would think they are paid by the number of times they use the phrase. I, unfortunately, have found that very often those who claim to know what are  "Best Practices" are usually people who have either never taught in a K-12 public classroom or have not been in the classroom for years. I  have found through my almost two decades in the classroom two inescapable truths about "Best Practices"; 1) Whatever it is believed to be "Best Practices" changes every couple of years and what ever is new becomes old and whatever is old becomes new again, 2) classroom teachers are much better at knowing what are "Best Practices" than educrats and "experts" who haven't been in the classroom since VCR's and overhead projectors were the technological God sends.

Past Best Practices

Open Classrooms
I remember very well as a student in elementary school during the 1970's and experts in education came to the realization that Open Classrooms were the classrooms of the future. Instead of teachers having their own individual classrooms with walls separating the classes, it would be so much better to have one large communal area in which several different classes would learn sometimes from individual teachers in a smaller class setting, or learn collectively as a large class. Teachers were assured this was a "Best Practice" and students learning would be enhanced through this dynamic new style of learning. Teachers who protested were told they were still stuck in the 1950's, that style of learning had come and gone, it was relic of the past. Today's students, they were told, needed this type of learning to stimulate their minds and enhance their productivity in the workplace.

As JeffCo Public Schools are seemingly programmed to do, they immediately seized upon this latest and greatest "Best Practice". After all, this theory was coming from experts in education, people whose lives are spent figuring out how best to educate students without having to actually step into a classroom and put these ideas into practice. Emboldened by this new teaching theory and reacting to the learning styles and needs of the student of the 1970's, my elementary school was gutted. Walls were taken down, large open classrooms were created. Indeed, the entire 4th, 5th, 6th grade area of the school was one very large open room. I'm sure there were educrats saying 'YES! Finally we will unlock the minds of these students and their IOWA (remember those standardized tests????) test scores will rocket to new heights. THIS. WAS. SOOOOOOOOO. EXCITING!!!!!!!!!

What happened? Well, students loved it! They really did! Because now if your best friend was not in your class, you could still see him! He was just across the room with another teacher! This made so much easier to wave at them, make funny faces at them, pass notes to them, or if you had a really important conversation that had to be discussed immediately with them, like if you wanted to make any trades with each other during lunch so you could get rid of the stuff your mom had put in your lunch that you hated, you could just get up and walk across the large room into their class so the high stakes negotiations could commence. If you were the class clown, you now got to put on a show for 7-9 different classes all at once instead of having your performance limited to just one measly class. The educrats were right! This open classroom concept was amazing for students! Learning? Oh well, any 5th grader worth their salt will tell you that's way down the list when it comes to school.

The teachers? Well they were right (again!), this was a disaster. It was very loud, it was very distracting, learning was compromised, and they took it upon themselves to remedy the problem. They created artificial barriers using the cubbyholes, large plants, movable chalkboards and bulletin boards to begin creating separate spaces for each class. Noise was still a problem but the distractions had been dramatically been reduced. Open classrooms were a bust, just as many teachers had predicted, but then again those were the teachers who were admonished as being too old fashioned and wanting to teach like the 1950's during the 1970's.

STAR Reading Program
When I first became a teacher, education was trying desperately to figure out how best to address reading deficiencies in students. My feeling was there had always been students who really never had any interest in reading and therefore struggled in reading. I also thought that probably no matter what we do, there will always be students who have very little interest in reading and/or struggle with reading. Now as a teacher, I certainly understood the importance of reading and truly believed that we should address the reading problem, but I felt for those readers, the focus should be more on technical reading rather than fictional. After all, I've never known of a job where your boss hands you an Ernest Hemingway novel and asks you discuss the plot development and symbolism in the book. But, I was a new teacher so what did I know? It was decided that we would implement the STAR Reading program. The concept was fairly simple. Each student would be assigned to a "reading/access class" and in order to get out of the class the student would have to read a book, pass a comprehension test on the book and in doing so amass a certain number of points. Once a student met the number of points needed, they were able to get out of the class. Books were assigned a point value, hard, complex books were worth a lot of points whereas simple, easy books were worth very few points. The tests were computer based and when a student had read a book they were to take a test. Depending on how well they did on the test, the student was awarded points. We were sure this would improve student reading and comprehension. A lot of money was spent to buy the program, lots of new books were bought, teachers were trained in the STAR Reading program, this was going to be awesome. I remember, many teachers were very skeptical of the program, but they were told that they were wrong, this was going to work magic.

Students hated it. Especially the low level readers. They wanted to know why they were being forced to read books that held very little value to them. Students began to question what would happen if they didn't read at all? Would they fail? What would that do to their GPA? Would they still be able to graduate? Students are much smarter and perceptive that we sometimes give them credit for. The answer to all of the questions was nothing would really happen if they didn't read, they would just have an extra class to which they were required to come. So many began to just show up an do nothing, this caused a whole new issue for teachers- classroom control. During the second year of the program something very curious began to happen. Stephen King's book "The Stand" began a VERY popular book. Students were taking the test in record numbers and passing the test with flying colors!!!!! This was truly great news! Suddenly students were interested in reading and they were really understanding the book! Even low level readers suddenly had their reading levels jump many grade levels and they were passing the book! This was working! It was a miracle! Then the miracle was found out. A very good, competent student, who had read the book and taken the test had begun to sell the answers to other students. If you had a few bucks, you could pay your way out of the STAR program. Soon after that the STAR program was discontinued. The only benefit to the whole program was that it demonstrated that entrepreneurship was alive and well.

Current Best Practices

If you are in education, you are very well aware that there is a seemingly endless stream of "Best Practices". Cooperative education, Student directed learning, E-Learning, Project Based Learning the list is non-ending and exhausting. Furthermore, it seems that every 7-9 years what was once considered out of date becomes the next latest and greatest in education, it is a revolving door in educational ideas (except for the Open Classrooms Concept, hopefully that one is forever dead and buried). I've tried, from time to time, these "Best Practices" sometimes they work, other times they don't. When they don't I just go back to what I know how to do and what I'm good at. For me, that is the key to teaching: Do What You Do Best. I've had several student teachers during my career and I tell them the best piece of advice I can ever hope to give them is this; "Figure out what you are good at. Try several different methods, see what works for you and more importantly, find out what doesn't work for you. When you figure out what you are best at, what your teaching style is make that you main method of teaching."

I truly believe that if you as a teacher try to teach in manner that you are not very good at or just doesn't suit your skill set then you are doing the students a real disservice. They just won't learn much from you.  I know I am not very good at group work, or in eduspeak "Cooperative Learning". I've tried to get better at doing group work, but it just never works out very well. It's just not in my skill set. Plus I've had students tell me that they really don't get anything out of it except frustration. I do know what I am good at: Telling stories. I'm really good at that. So, that becomes my main method of teaching. I lecture, at least a few times a week. Students take notes. GASP! What????? This is wrong, the educrats will say. Students just sit there, they are passive. Learning is minimal. However, in my classroom, lectures are not passive. I ask students to make predictions about which way the story will go, think about why some event is taking place, I ask them to recall previous topics and connect them to our current learning. They are hardly passive students. Furthermore, I am not teaching dates and dead guys, I'm telling a story. With a beginning, a middle and an end. There are characters, there is conflict, sometimes there is a resolution, sometimes there is not a resolution.

I came to this method early in my teaching career. I tried teaching using the current "Best Practices" in education, often with limited success. I did notice that students could tell me, almost scene by scene and line by line, about a movie they had recently seen but struggled to tell me what we had done yesterday in class. The light went off in my head- These students remember these scenes and lines because it is a story and everyone loves stories. So, I began look for ways to teach using the stories of history instead of just imparting facts. Student retention began to increase as did student interest in the class. I believe the true test of student learning is not a test score or classwork but the 'kitchen table test'. If what we did in class that day makes home to the kitchen table discussion that night then I was successful in class. History lends itself well to this method, history is a bunch of stories. Literature does as well. Math, not so much. Science, maybe, sometimes.

If I tried to teach using "Best Practices" my ability as a teacher would be greatly diminished. My effectiveness would suffer. However, by employing story telling or lecture as my main method of teaching I am far more effective and students enjoy my class and that is 3/4 of the battle in learning- if the students enjoy the class they will learn. So, does that mean that other styles of teaching/learning are wrong. That other "Best Practices" are not "best"? I don't think so. I believe teaching is a very specialized process, so teachers need to find out what works for them as teaching methods and what does not work. Whatever you are good at, that becomes your main method of teaching. What you are not very good at, that should be a method that you use sparingly if at all.

If we are serious about improving student learning and comprehension as well as improving teacher satisfaction then we need to allow teachers to determine what are the "Best Practices" for themselves rather than allowing others to determine that. Classroom teachers know what is best for their classroom and their students. To put it succinctly; Best Practices are whatever you do well as a teacher. Classroom teachers are the arbitrators of best practices, not researchers and theorists who have never been in your classroom, or A classroom.

So go forth teacher friends and do that voodoo that you do so well!

When Crazy To One Is Sane To Me

4:30.

4:30 am.

4:30 am. That is the time I arrive at Pomona High School every single day. I have been a Social Studies teacher in JeffCo for the past 19 years and, aside from the few years when I had to drop my boys off at daycare, I have arrived at school no later than 4:30 in the morning every single day. Contractually am not required to be at school until 7:00 am, but I could never do that. I could never be a “7-3” teacher. I could never get done all of the things expected of me to the standards that I demand of myself if I were a “7-3” teacher. I simply believe that my students deserve to have the very best of me and my abilities every single day. So, in order to deliver the level of instruction to my students that I think they deserve, it requires that I be at work by 4:30 in the morning.

I have some selfish reasons for going in so early; my family. When I go home I just want to spend it with my family and do as little school work as possible. Sometimes, that plan doesn’t always work. Sometimes I do have to bring work home and do that instead of spending it with my family. Such is the life of a teacher. I also get up early (3:30 am) because the way I look at it, I’m not losing any family time since everyone is still sleeping. But, beyond my family concerns, the demands and requirements of teaching require that I work more than 7-3 for nine months.

Being at school that early enables me to get grading done- I’ve never been one to let papers sit around and pile up. That would drive me crazy. Being at school that early also allows me to answer emails, enter grades, make copies, and do some lesson planning. Plus, best of all, I am the only one in the building so I have absolutely no interruptions for about 2 to 2 ½ hours. It really is quite peaceful and serene that early. All total, I spend, on average 11.5-12 hours every day at school. When I was sponsoring Student Council, there were times that I easily did a 17-hour day. But it has never really bothered me because I truly believe that what I am doing is worth it. My students, the ones in my classroom and the ones in the school, deserve the very best that I can give them. I truly and honestly love teaching and interacting with students.

How could this be mitigated? How might I be able to not put in 60+ hour weeks? I’ve thought about that from time to time. Even though it doesn’t really bother me, I do know it probably shouldn’t be this way. I would love more time during the day to do the things that I am expected and required to do; grading, returning emails, attending IEP meetings, conferencing with students, collaborating with colleagues, making copies all of which are done in addition to my real passion- teaching. So, how can I get to the point where I can do all of these things and not have to work 60+ hour weeks? That’s a good question, and one for which I don’t really have any good answers. Less demands outside of the classroom would be a great place to start I guess. Education loves to add more and more and more to teacher’s plates without ever taking anything off. I would compare it to having Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, and 4^th of July feasts piled all together on a desert plate. Most of it is wonderful stuff but together on such a small plate makes it all very unappetizing, unappealing and very overwhelming.

Most people are absolutely flabbergasted when they find out that I arrive to school every day by 4:30 in the morning. But I’ve never complained, not once. Not even the times when I’ve been at school getting ready for the day when school gets cancelled due to weather. I thoroughly enjoy what I do and I really believe that every year I’m a little better at what I do than I was the year before. When I went into college I had pretty much decided that I was either going to be a lawyer or a high school history teacher. When I realized how long I would have to go to school to be a lawyer, I decided pretty quickly that I would become a teacher. Now, every month when I see my paycheck I think to myself ‘Gosh, I should have been a lawyer.’ But in reality, I’m glad I didn’t. Being a teacher allows me to feel good about what I do; I’m doing something that allows me to live with myself. I always tell my students that one of the secrets to life is to do something that you really love because then you never feel like you’re working. And despite getting to work at 4:30 every morning and working 60+ hours every week, I haven’t worked in 19 years.