Discontented Ramblings...

Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though, in every direction I look, what I see upsets me.

The Republican Presidential debates? Talk about a misnomer. What part of these things is in the least bit "presidential?" And I'm pretty sure the dialogue is a lot more about accusations and self-promotion than any kind of debate I've ever seen.

I'm a life-long registered Republican, though in the interests of full disclosure, I did work for Jimmy Carter's campaign in 1976 (I wasn't old enough to vote yet), and I did vote for Barack Obama in the last election. For years and years, it just seemed to me that it was typically the Republican candidates who espoused positions closest to my own.

Now, I've hit the magic 5-0 in age, so maybe some things are changing inside of me. Or maybe the nature of Republican candidates is changing. I'm not sure which. But suddenly I find so very few of them who hold positions and opinions that I share.

If I were to try to define Republican ideology today, it would go something like this.

"We, the Republican party, will do everything in our power to facilitate the operation of businesses in our great nation. This includes any and all of the following: tax breaks, litigation limits, elimination of federal regulations, availability of natural resources, and governmental bailouts (should our businesses suffer loss). At the same time, we are committed to ensuring that no similar benefits be available to individual members of the citizenry of this great land, because we believe the Bible when it says 'the Lord helps those who help themselves.' Finally, we promise to do everything in our power to make all of our personal beliefs a part of the constitution of our country. As they should be. Amen"

I'm pretty sure by the way, that quote is NOT in the Bible, but I'm also sure that this would be a minor issue for most in the Republican party.

Now, to be fair, I'm sure many of my friends could write a similarly sarcastic mission statement for many in the Democratic party. But this misses the point of my diatribe.

What the Republican party seems to be fighting for today is no longer what I believe in.

Business is important, and I support the success of businesses everywhere. Without businesses, I don't have a job, and I cannot buy the things that my family desires (whether needs or wants). I have absolutely no problem with a business making a profit either. The United States SHOULD be a country where personal initiative, creativity, and inventiveness can be rewarded tangibly.

But when a company makes a profit of BILLIONS of dollars in a single calendar quarter, I have a bit of a problem with them (a) trying to convince me that the "economic climate" is not business friendly, (b) that they need MORE tax breaks and incentives, and (c) that they could in some miraculous way not only owe NO taxes, but receive a huge RETURN.

Something is wrong with our system when that happens.

And it DOES happen.

The reason there are so many federal and state regulations on certain business practices is that businesses proved historically that, without them, they are prone to value profit over what is right. Doesn't matter whether we are talking about child labor, the building and selling of faulty merchandise that maims the purchaser, or production processes that lead to pollution and contamination that harms the citizens in the surrounding areas. Look, if it had NEVER happened, there would be no laws to ensure it doesn't happen in the future!

In our state of North Carolina, we are being wooed by the "fracking" industry. I've read a bit about it, but not nearly enough to speak definitively about it being good or bad. But just listen to the general description and make a common sense impression about it:

"In a hydraulic fracturing job, "fracturing fluids" or "pumping fluids" consisting primarily of water and sand are injected under high pressure into the producing formation, creating fissures that allow resources to move freely from rock pores where it is trapped.

While 99.5 percent of the fluids used consist of water and sand, some chemicals are added to improve the flow. The composition of the chemical mixes varies from well to well."

This explanation is from a fracking industry website. Other, less friendly, websites strongly dispute the last claim of less than 1% chemical injections. Either way, high pressure mixture of sand, water, and unknown chemicals are blasted through the ground in order to free up natural gas for collection.

Now that sounds like something that needs a bunch of further examination. Yet when the issue came before our State legislature this year, the Republicans were ready to start printing permits for the fracking companies.

See...I'm NOT ok with that kind of thinking.

But again, I digress...

I personally feel as though the Republican party no longer represents me or speaks for me. And as I try to deepen my personal faith, I find it harder and harder to align myself with a party that appears to choose the rich young ruler over the woman at the well. Oh, the grand old party will jump at the chance to lash out on moral issues like marriage ammendments, abortion, gay rights, etc. But where is their indignation when children are starving while corporations are making profits in the millions and billions? Why is it that when I read the stories of Jesus in the Bible, he's lashing out at the "powers that be," and taking his message to the scorned members of society?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way advocating for some type of de-facto theocracy. I'm not particularly comfortable with my government playing the role of my church. It's too easy to wind up on the short end of that stick.

I really intended to talk about some other current issues that have me bothered, but I've gone on a bit too long perhaps about my discontent with the Republican party, so maybe it's time to draw this to a close.

I'm not declaring myself a member of the Democratic party. But I'm more than fed up with the current incarnation of the Republican party. And that's definitely one of the things I'm seeing that makes me upset.

Of Heaven and Hell

A recent exchange between some old friends on Facebook has me thinking about some deeper issues lately. Pastor Rob Bell recently published a book called "Love Wins" in which he apparently called into question the traditional christian beliefs of heaven and hell (and to be fair, I have not read the book yet).

I'm certainly no theologian, so I won't be using fancy seminary type language as I describe these things that I sometimes wonder about. Hopefully, should any seminary types read this posting, I will be forgiven for my ignorance.

I am a Christian. By that I mean that I believe in a creator of the universe that I call God the Father. I believe that God exists in three forms - the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that God, working through men as far back as the disciples, has guided and directed the formation of the Bible for the spiritual instruction and nourishment of those who choose to read it.

I believe that Jesus Christ came as mankind's first face to face with God. As a man he had to be born of the flesh and so God brought him in to this world through the virgin Mary. I believe that Christ came to call men back to God, that he lived a sinless life, and that he became the final sacrifice for mankind's sin through his death on the cross and then his resurrection.

Those who accept this sacrifice by confessing their sinfulness and surrendering their lives to God are redeemed from the "wages of sin" and can be certain that after death they will be united with God in heaven.

And that brings us to the current issue...

What of those who choose NOT to turn to God?

What of those who follow a different belief system for their life?

What of those who live good lives, but reject the notion of a God or afterlife?

There are certainly other difficult questions if you choose to live a life devoted to the christian God. In many ways, these questions can be even more difficult than the question of heaven and hell. Why is there so much suffering? Why would a loving God allow for the presence of so much evil in the world?

I don't know the answers to these questions either.

Universalism is a belief that all people will be taken to heaven at some point. I'm sure I've oversimplified it to the extreme, but I think that's the gist. Anyway, as I understand it, the idea here is that a loving God would never allow a single person to suffer forever, and that an all powerful God will eventually triumph over all evil and redeem every single soul to heaven.

Well...I don't buy that.

I've been reading and studying the Bible on and off again for nearly 30 years. And while I'm no expert, it seems clear to me from it's writings that there is ultimately a delineation between the people of the world. Eventually the faithful are separated from the unfaithful.

The God that I have tried to follow throughout my life is a God who seems to want US to decide. He wants US to choose to seek Him out. He wants US to make decisions in our life that are consistent with the knowledge He has given us. Choosing to me implies that there is in fact right and wrong choices to be made. In fact I think there are many different paths - one that is the best, some that are not the best will eventually get us there, and others that, for various reasons, may just be wrong.

If ultimately we all win, why the decisions along the way?

If the serial killer and the zealot both spend eternity in heaven, what's the point?

Here is about the point that I always find myself pausing to remember that ME trying to figure out the mind of God is a futile exercise. I long ago accepted that God is far too vast for me to even begin to understand the deep whys and hows of the universe. At the same time, surely God plans to remain consistent to what we know of Him through His word.

I do believe, have long believed in fact, that there are going to be some big surprises in store for me when I enter heaven. I fully expect to find people there who I never thought would be there. I'm not at all convinced that only those who took on the label of "Christian" will be spending eternity with God.

For example, much of the Bible is concerned with the Israelites and God's love for them. Who could possibly believe that those who walk in the footsteps of God's chosen people will be left behind because of a doctrinal difference?

For that matter, God is big and vast, certainly big and vast enough to use different approaches to reach out to people of different worlds/cultures. Is the idea of the christian faith being the only type of faith journey that God allowed for, consistent with an all knowing and all powerful creator God of the universe?

With all that being said, I must say that I DO believe in Hell. I do believe that this life we live MATTERS.

God has given us life, and He has given us choices to make. He has surrounded us, according to the Bible, with sufficient evidence of His existence "so that no man has an excuse." The ways to God may vary, and I believe they likely do, but ultimately the life we live reflects the choice we make.

Have we chosen to live in a way that honors God?

Or have we chosen to live a life that honors our self?

To me this is the crux.

If all get an eventual free pass to eternity in heaven, the whole point of the guidance found through scripture, through fellow believers, through prayer, is meaningless. In fact, it seems a bit like a nasty game for a God to be playing.

If charity doesn't matter, why not hoard and steal? If honesty doesn't matter, why not lie when it is profitable? If faithfulness is irrelevant, why not live a life of hedonism?

Oh well...

Again, I'm no theologian...

Impressions from "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants"

As a fifteen year high school math teacher, this past year of turmoil in public education has hit me hard. Conflicts across many states and severe budget problems in my home state of North Carolina have placed the spotlight firmly on public education, and the results have not been pretty.

It's not been just the attack on schools, teachers, and teacher's unions from newly elected politicians - those are almost expected. The troubling part for me has been reading, over and over again, negative and hostile comments from average Americans towards those in the field of education.

Teachers are categorized as unprofessional, incapable, selfish, greedy, and lazy. Read the comments from members of the public on any article about teaching or education and you will find that there are seemingly large numbers of people out there who believe that educators are almost solely responsible for everything from failing students to the federal deficit.

As a teacher, I struggle to respond.

I know how passionate I am about my work. I know the heart that I have for my students and how badly I want for them to succeed. I also know that the vast majority of my colleagues feel the same way.

At the same time, I know that something needs to change in the American public education system.

Recently Mark Tucker from the National Center for Education and the Economy (NCEE) released a paper/report that is the result of several decades work comparing the approach to public education in some of the top performing countries of the world, with the approach to public education in the United States. The paper is titled "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants," and I highly recommend that you take the time to read and digest what he has to say.

The basic premise of the paper is that the five top performing regions on the PISA exam (Japan, Finland, Canada, Shanghai, Singapore) are doing NONE of the educational reform steps that are currently en vogue in the U.S. Meanwhile the U.S. is doing NONE of the educational reform steps that each of these countries have put into practice.

Some of the things these parts of the world are NOT doing at all:

• Charter schools


• Lower class sizes


• High stakes standardized tests for every grade


• Teacher performance tied to these standardized tests


• Emphasis on financial equity


• Focus on rooting out "bad" teachers


• Efforts to remove teachers unions from influence

Some of the things they DO that we do NOT do:

• Rigorous teacher preparation


• Educational schools made as difficult as the best schools in country


• Training in content area commensurate with a major in that content area


• A full year of methodology/pedagogy training in content area (after the 4 years in content)


• Mandatory first year with a master teacher mentor (this mentor is excused from classes for that full year)


• Pay equivalent to first year pay in highest professions (engineer, architect, programmer, etc)


• Gateway exams from elementary to lower secondary, from lower secondary to upper secondary, and upper secondary to university


• Gateway exams that are NOT multiple choice, and that require complex problem solving and essay writing


• A comprehensive curriculum that is entrusted to teachers


• Focus and emphasis on teacher collaboration

There is much more in the paper and I encourage you to read it fully.

Some will say that the United States is fundamentally different from most if not all of these countries. And I will agree. I agree because it is fundamentally true in the United States that our actions have shown that we do NOT truly value education, that we do NOT truly consider educators to be among our most valuable commoditities, and that we absolutely have been more concerned with adults than kids.

I wish every single one of these characteristics outlined in Tucker's paper could come to pass here in the U.S. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that they can.

There are simply too many ADULTS who stand to lose too much in such a system.

Politicians would have to show that they truly do place the highest value in educating our young people. But they would also have to admit that they don't have the foggiest notion of how that would be done properly, and be willing to leave that work to those who do.

Colleges would have to start treating School's of Education like they treat School's of Law, Medecine, or Engineering, instead of allowing them to become the dumping grounds for those who fail in other places. They would have to establish a rigorous training program that would ensure FEWER educational students in the long run.

Teachers and their unions would have to release the reins on some of their holy grails, such as tenure, seniority, class sizes, etc. Just like the rest, teachers and their unions would have to stop believing in the party line just because it's been repeated over and over again through the years.

And perhaps most importantly, parents and communities would have to back up their support of education as a "most important thing" with actions instead of just words. Parents would have to provide an environment at home that emphasizes learning and knowledge instead of entertainment and indulgence. Parents would have to support the educators at their schools, instead of assuming that they were wrong and clueless.

Can we do this as a country?

I'm not sure, but I hope so.

This has been a season of confrontation and adversarial relationships. Some of the powers that be in our states and in the federal government have chosen to "divide and separate" we the people over this matter of public education. They have been disturbingly successful.

The time has come to decide just where we place the education of our students in the priority list of the United States. We don't need another movement. We don't need another politically labled approach.

We need change.

Four Thoughts on Public Education - Tenure

"Good company and good discourse are the very sinews of virtue."
Izaak Walton

Perhaps it is yet another sign of my age, but I firmly believe the debates raging currently across the nation regarding education, teacher's unions, and collective bargaining have long ago left the arena of good discourse.

As I've shared in an early post, I continue to point an accusing finger at people like Governor's Walker and Daniels for allowing a legitimate financial crisis to be pushed into a "We versus They" division in our country, the likes of which we have not seen in some time.

The whole truth however is that those of us on the other side of this issue are no less guilty of allowing the divisive controversy to continue. While some may have entered the debate from a position of reason and rationality, it didn't take long for us to slip altogether too comfortably into the flinging of verbal fists.

More importantly, the rigidity with which some in public education have approached this debate has only fueled the fires of dissatisfaction and anger.

As is so often the case, I believe the truth in this controversy lies somewhere in between the extreme rhetoric coming from both sides.

The political leaders (hopefully) know full well that it does not take the elimination of collective bargaining rights from teachers in order to achieve concessions that will help alleviate the financial crunch their states are experiencing.

But similarly, it is well past time that teachers and their union representatives agree to deal openly and honestly with issues of change. Especially when many of those issues hold the potential to accomplish the primary goals of both sides: fiscal relief for the state budget, and improved educational opportunities for students.

To that end, I offer my thoughts on four issues currently surrounding the public education issue in America. I profess no authority on these ideas, and I claim to speak for no one but myself. It is my hope that by continuing the discourse in a reasonable and rational way, we might encourage our leaders and our neighbors to do the same.

TENURE

One of the first claims from those who attempt to facilitate change in various pockets of public education is that the tenure system makes removal of bad educators virtually impossible. As such, it has become a hot-button issue in educational reform, and certainly a target in states where collective bargaining rights are being challenged.

My 15 year experience in education simply does not reflect the existence of a tenure system that makes removal of teachers impossible. I have seen teachers removed from their positions, albeit for gross violations of conduct. Having participated in contract negotiations with a school board and being somewhat familiar with the contract language used there, I can tell you that "tenure" is really the wrong word for the protection that this language brings. A more apt description would be "due process rights" in matters of termination.

In colleges, tenure is granted to some faculty members after a long and often difficult process. Professors who are hoping to gain tenure typically must justify their worth and credentials by proving their accomplishments and submitting themselves to the rigor of examination by their colleagues. Once granted though, tenure is for life, and that educator simply cannot be removed from their position except for the most grievous offense.

Tenure in public schools does not work that way.

A new teacher to a school system, whether a first year teacher or simply a teacher new to the school system, is typically hired in a probationary status. This probationary period lasts typically 2-3 years, during which the school system can choose at the end of any school year to decline the services of the teacher for the following year. No due process or reason must be granted during this probationary period.

Should the school choose to retain the teacher after this probationary period however, the teacher is granted "permanent" status. At this point, it is still possible to remove the teacher from the school system, but now the school must show just cause. This "cause" may be as simple as a reduction in force that makes the teacher's position no longer required. But when it concerns a teacher whose performance has been deemed unacceptable, the process requires justification.

The problem in many schools that find it difficult to remove unacceptable teachers is that they do not have a system in place that regularly and thoroughly evaluates their teachers. As such, it is practically impossible to establish a history of poor performance, making it difficult to show just cause.

Think of a new principal or superintendent who comes to a school system hoping to bring positive change. As they begin observing and evaluating staff, they find several teachers who are not doing their job as it should be done. But when they attempt to remove the teacher, they find no evidence in their file of poor performance. Lacking justification for removing the teacher, they are forced to continue employment until sufficient evidence exists to justify termination.

I understand that not all employees in all fields have such protection. I don't profess to know the laws regarding job rights. But it seems reasonable to me that an employer should have to have justification to terminate your position, particularly if they are asserting that you are ineffective or underperforming in some way. Note that teachers, permanent or probationary, are still subject to staff reductions, regardless of the protection afforded by due process.

The problem with the tenure issue on the teachers side of things is that it has become a holy grail in these types of debates. Many teachers, knowing that public school "tenure" is NOT college "tenure," bristle and take offense at people who suggest they do not deserve or need due process protection.

It's time for teachers and their representatives to offer something to the discussion about the tenure process, rather than digging in their heels and fighting to the bitter end.

Modification to the tenure process should begin with developing an evaluation system that is thorough and as non-subjective as possible. Such a process should be a collaborative effort between teachers and administrators, and should take place several times throughout the year. The ingredients of such a system I will leave to another day, but I will say even now that teachers must begin to allow some measure of student performance to become a part of their assessment.

Additionally, this process of achieving permanent status must become more rigorous. The general public is right to scoff at a system that awards such a status to an individual simply because they managed to keep their nose clean for a few years of employement. Lengthening the process and expecting teachers to have shown accomplishment during their probationary period are both positive changes that would legitimize awarding permanent status.

Public school teachers do not typically conduct research or write papers. But they are involved in out of the class activities at school - some professional and some student centered. Expecting new teachers to show their value to the school community, and to students in particular, is not unreasonable. At the same time, this cannot simply become the mechanism by which schools find coaches and sponsors for school activities. The focus should be on genuine interest and involvement in activities that better the teacher, the school, and the students.

Finally, it is time for teachers to send a message to their union representatives, many who have been out of the classroom long enough to care more about their jobs than the schools and students their teachers work in.

Stop protecting horrible teachers. Period.

I'm not talking about teachers who are struggling to find their way to being better educators. I'm talking about teachers who punch the clock, arrive as late as possible, leave as early as possible, and rarely work an hour out of the classroom. I'm talking about teachers who routinely walk back and forth over the line between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. And I'm talking about teachers who break the law.

Our unions, where they exist, need to begin exercising some common sense when approached by union member teachers who are under the gun. If a teacher has conducted him or herself in a way that brings discredit to the profession, find a way to get them out of the school.

I joined the union so that I could not be wronged, not so that I could be protected to wrong others.

This is but a small piece of the puzzle. Tenure (a process in desperate need of a new name) is not the beginning and end of the troubles that exist in education, but it is an area that deserves to be addressed.

If teachers would stop resisting honest dialogue about issues like this, we would at least be able to say that we were trying to establish a good discourse.

We are They

The absolute worst aspect of the ongoing union vs. non-union conflicts taking place around the country is the way people are being pitted against one another.

The vitriole is flying fast and furious from folks on both sides of the collective bargaining debate, enough so that you have to just wish some of the louder voices would take a time out somewhere (preferably in state of course).

I've taught for fifteen years. It can be an incredibly rewarding job, and you would like to think it's an important and valued job. Unfortunately all you need to do is scan through a few comments to one of the Wisconsin or Indiana stories to find out that there are many people out there who have little to nothing good to say or think about educators.

I would like to think that every workplace is populated mostly by people who care about their work and put forth a genuine effort each day to do their job the best they can. It's also true of course that most workplaces have a handful of people who are not like this. They "punch the clock" only to receive their paycheck, and care little about how well they do what they do.

Teaching is no different.

There are good teachers and there are bad teachers. My experience, in four different school systems across two different states, is that most teachers are incredibly dedicated and professional in their work. It's too bad that the bad ones cast dark shadows over those who labor so diligently on behalf of their students.

Most teachers I know are not so pompous or entitled to believe that they should not suffer economically when the rest of the country is suffering. The last five years I spent in Indiana, I think we might have seen, at best, a total overall raise of 1.5%, most of which was eaten up with increased insurance premiums. After 15 years in this profession, I still do not make over $40k, and I pay hundreds of dollars each month for health insurance. I contribute to my own retirement account and pay for life insurance as well.

I'm simply not getting the part of this story that makes me a contributor to the economic woes of my region, state, or country.

Despite these facts, leaders in states like Indiana and Wisconsin have managed to pit me against those in the public sector. I now represent what is wrong and bad with this country. I am now the reason that fellow Americans have lost their public sector jobs, had their pay reduced, or caused their homes to go into foreclosure.

People, are we even listening to the things that we are saying to each other?

For every example of excess out there in the public sector, how many examples are there of honest, hardworking men and women doing their best to serve in the capacity they have been trained for? Do the men and women on the non-union side really believe that cafeteria workers, custodians, maintenance staff, teachers aides, and secretaries are spending their days raking in big bucks while they sip on cappucino's in the staff lounge? Really?

I saw someone post in defense of collective bargaining for teachers by listing graduation rates by state compared to whether or not the state allowed collective bargaining. Seriously?! Are we expected to be so incapable of rational thought that we would immediately believe that there is some kind of causal link between collective bargaining and graduation rates? Such nonsense does nothing to ease the tensions or bring resolution to the issues.

At the same time, it is equally ludicrous to suggest that teachers, fat on their excessive paychecks, are sloughing on the job, leading to uneducated students.

These issues are complex, and seeking out simple causalities that do not really exist is taking the easy way out. And that is my major beef with people like Governor's Daniels and Walker.

First off, collective bargaining is not the root cause of the economic trials we currently face.

Secondly, most unionized workers are more than willing to contribute to solutions by sharing the financial burden during difficult times. They do not require the threat of losing their right to negotiate to do so.

Thirdly, any approach to leadership that comes by dividing the population and sending them off to attack one another is the worst kind of leadership. And Tea Party members, I am talking directly to you on this one. Confrontational politics, adversarial politics, both get the blood pumping and leave in their wake a devastated population eventually.

We are in this together. Those who have worked under the support of a labor union are not evil and do not seek to destroy the public for their own self-interest. They do not consider themselves better than their public world counterparts.

The fact is, we thought we were on the same team all along.

A Precedent that Eventually Reaches Ourself

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."
Thomas Paine


American physicist Gerard O'Neill cautioned in his futuristic novel 2081 that we should "be alert that dictators have always played on the natural human tendency to blame others and to oversimplify."

While I sincerely doubt that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker deserves to be labled a dictator, he, along with Indiana's Governor Mitch Daniels, seem to be walking a path similar to the one that O'Neill warned about.

There is no question that these are difficult, trying economic times. Ever since the days of $4.00 and above gasoline not so many years ago, most people that I know have been scraping to get by. Prices on goods continue to rise at the same time that wages have flatlined or, in sadder cases, disappeared altogether as jobs vanished.

Average, non-wealthy Americans have watched their government flood billions of dollars of tax payer money into a protracted war effort and corporate bailouts. We watch the news and see the illegal actions of large companies rewarded with government protection, while we try to stay a step ahead of foreclosure with little to no help from those we elected to office.

Now we see the leaders in our State and Federal governments choosing tactics that pit citizen against citizen, rather than show the intestinal fortitude necessary to make the difficult and fiscally responsible decisions that need to be made. Disappointment is not a strong enough word.

The history of collective bargaining is rich in our country. I do not come from a union family, nor was I raised with a union-type mentality. I have belonged to a teachers union, primarily for the legal protection it provided and because it only seemed fair, since the union negotiated on my behalf for wages and benefits. At the same time, I can appreciate the need for any human being to feel as though they will be treated well at the place they will spend nearly a third of the rest of their life, and where they will earn the wages that enable their family to survive.

Surely both our goverments and other governments around the world recognized the same by virtue of their historical support of a workers right to collective bargaining. The U.S. history of collective bargaining as a RIGHT exists as far back as the National Labor Relations Act from the 1930's.

In 1948, the United Nations issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declared in Article 23 that all human beings have the right to work, as well as the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests.

The International Labor Organization, an agency of the United Nations, in 1988 adopted the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, which identified the freedom of association and collective bargaining as fundamental principles for member states.

Despite the historical precedent of collective bargaining as a fundamental right to all employees, both Governor's Walker and Daniels seem intent on bringing it to an end. While you can appreciate the lure of being allowed to dictate terms and conditions of your employee's wages and benefits, it is hard to understand the groundswell of support from so many "common" non-union Americans.

Perhaps it's just me, but I am inclined to think that the benefit of collective bargaining typically transcends the employees who are being represented. As work conditions improve for represented populations, does that not in some way provided an upward push for other jobs in the same area? Are wages at non-union shops not in some way established by the norms built through the efforts of collective bargaining units throughout the country? I honestly cannot see how this could help but be so.

But here is where O'Neill and Paine's quotes come into play for each of us I believe.

By turning this into a contention between public vs. private sector, by making this a battle between union vs. non-union workers, the leaders who choose this "easier" path to fiscal responsibility take the focus off of the significance of their attack. They find support during these trying times because there are lots of hurting people out there. And, as O'Neill suggests, our natural human tendency is for misery to want company.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

As Paine also suggested, we cannot expect to protect liberties and benefits for ourselves, if we are not prepared to also insist upon and protect the same for our enemy.

By pitting two sides of Americans, one against the other, these two Governors hope to appeal to the base side of human nature. They expect us to choose sides rather than see the bigger issue, rather than see what exactly it is that they are asking some of us (and therefore all of us) to give away.

Shame on them.

Correlation or Causality?

I've completed my first semester at the Early College. This was my first semester teaching high school Math on a block schedule, and the first time I've taught classes in one semester rather than two.

After 14 years teaching in Indiana with 7 period days, year long classes, and final exams written and graded by me, I have now experienced teaching Algebra II with 80 minute class periods for 90 days, and a final exam written and graded by the State Department of Public Instruction.

Thankfully for my students, the semester went pretty well. All but one of my students successfully passed the End of Course test supplied by the state. But to be honest, the experience for me was harrowing in the month leading up to the exam.

The Early College programs in the State of North Carolina are breaking ground in an effort to do high school education in a different way. Nearly two-thirds of the early college programs in the country are located in this state, which makes being a new teacher in one of these programs both exhilarating and nerve wracking at the same time.

The early colleges in our state focus on a common instructional framework which all teachers in these schools strive to implement in their teaching. This framework is a collection of pedagogical approaches that have been shown, through research, to improve efficacy in both learning and motivation. To help teachers along with implementing these approaches, new early colleges are given instructional coaches who provide professional development and observation to help teachers learn how best to begin reshaping their classrooms.

This has been a difficult process for me, perhaps because I am not a new teacher. Throughout the past semester, my visits with our coach have frequently left me feeling thoroughly inadequate and unskilled as a teacher. The pressure I have felt each time the coach came to visit was nearly palpable, and affected me negatively all during the week of the visit.

So that I am not misunderstood, I should say that I believe strongly in the common instructional framework, and all the pedagogical approaches that are promoted by it. Cooperative group work, dynamic questioning, formative assessment, classroom talk...all of these techniques can be incredibly useful, even powerful, in the classroom - at the right moment.

My problem is that for the most part, I am the kind of teacher that I had when I was in school. I lead my class. I am typically in front. I lead the discussions. I drive the curriculum.

Which is not to say that my students are casual observers. I thrive on interaction with the kids in my class. I prefer to call my approach a dialogue, rather than a lecture. I like to ask provocative questions and try to engage my students in conversation that hopefully leads to revelation. It doesn't always happen so neatly and cleanly. But it almost always happens to some degree.

My kids do work in groups sometimes. But usually only when I want to give them a challenging task that requires more than one head. I do provide scaffolding to my students during instruction. But usually in a less explicit way than the "technique" might suggest. I think I even use a type of formative assessment in my classroom. But it's a formative assessment that comes from really LOOKING at my students, pausing when I've asked questions, prodding for thoughts, comments, or concerns that let me know that maybe we're not quite there just yet.

So as my second semester begins, and I look back on what took place during my first experience in the Early College, I become contemplative.

I believe in this program. I'm convinced it's an amazing opportunity for our students, I'm certain that the focus on research proven techniques is a necessary one. I even have a desire to incorporate more of what the common instructional framework asks for from me. But I have to wonder at the same time...

Is improved student success and performance in the early college programs due to the focus on pedagogy, or is it because of the quality of the staff members who lead those classrooms?

I am always quick to speak with my math students about the difference between correlation and causality. When analysis of a data set shows a correlation, we are always tempted to believe that we have found THE link between the quantities involved. But a positive correlation simply means that we can quantify a mathematical link between an increase in methodology and an increase in student performance. It doesn't necessarily mean that the increase in methodology is the CAUSE of the increase...right?

There are two very important people in any classroom.

The student and the teacher.

I have always believed that the relationship between these two people is the absolute most important variable in a student's success or failure. Even more so if that student is somehow an at-risk student.

Do my students have success because I teach better than other teachers? Or do my students have success because they know I care, they know I'm interested in them, they know I want the best and would do anything for them, and they know that I am an adult in their life who they can trust?

I'm inclined to believe that the latter is much more of a causality than the former.

In my 15 years of teaching, the most ineffective teachers I have known all had one characteristic in common. They all wanted very little to do with the students in their classrooms. They certainly didn't want to chat with them, they didn't feel a sense of commonality with them, and they had little desire to even want to KNOW them.

At the same time, I have had kids in my own classroom who came to me with long reputations. Negative reputations. Even kids that I had been warned about by other teachers. And I have seen those students succeed and prosper in my room. They didn't become honor roll students, but they showed that in the right environment, even they could be convinced to reach for something more than what they already had.

Pedagogical techniques and best practices are truly important for all of us who teach. Hopefully all of us still have the desire to become even better and more effective teachers each and every year, and trying new classroom approaches, especially ones proven to be effective, holds the potential for making that possible for us.

But let's not forget the most important thing we must bring to every classroom, to every student.

Caring. Interest. Trust. Safety. Humanity. Perspective.

These are the things that turn our students heads.