The Best Baseball Movies

Last night I saw 'Million Dollar Arm' and I loved it more than any baseball movie I have seen in a long time. The baseball-Bollywood music mashup was a big hit with me, seeing that I am a closet Bollywood fan. The film inspired me to make a list of my favorite baseball flicks of all time. For the record, there are a lot of baseball movies I haven't seen, including what is regarded as the greatest of all time, Bull Durham, because it is rated R. Because of my values I try to steer clear of movies with course language and sex, which apparently are critical components of real-to-life baseball stories, so I miss some films here and there. This is by no means based on any cinematographic ratings system, just how much I enjoyed the movies.
10. Moneyball: This, apparently, was a masterpiece of the silver screen. I am a huge Oakland A's fan. You'd think I'd be more into this one, especially since I went to so many games that year. But in the end I didn't really need to see the movie, I was there.
9. Bad News Bears: I saw this when I was a kid and liked it, but it didn't really stick, it's just nostalgically funny.

6 (three-way tie). Rookie of the Year, Little Big League, Angels in the Outfield: I loved these movies. Here is the formula: 1. A kid makes an impact on a major league baseball team (RoY: pitcher, LBL: Owner, GM and coach, AitO: sees angels) 2. Cameos by real baseball players  (RoY: Barry Bonds, Bobby Bonilla, and Pedro Guerrero, LBL: Ken Griffey Jr, Ivan Rodriguez, Randy Johnson, and many others, AitO: Carney Landsford--again, I'm an A's fan, so I loved this) 3. Use trickery in the final play of the game  (RoY: hidden ball trick, LBL: hidden ball trick, AitO: lie to Tony Danza about seeing an angel) 4. Win the Pennant. And you're done. I will always love these movies from my childhood.
5. The Rookie: I thought this was the best movie when I first saw it. I always have to fight off tears when he tells his son that he got called up to the big leagues. Perhaps the best part, however, is when he enters the Devil Rays' locker room and sees the jerseys of Boggs, Canseco and McGriff, then looking online and finding out that on the roster only Boggs and Julio Franco were older than him, then realizing how awful that team must have been that they signed a 35 year old lefty and brought him all the way up to the bigs for five appearances in September.
4. Million Dollar Arm: I just saw it, so I'm still living in the moment, but I thought it was an exceptional movie. I've seen more Indian films than the average American, and I loved the India part of the movie and the A. R. Rahman influence. There's something about seeing someone get a chance to play in the big show that gets me all emotional, I'm such a wuss.
3. Field of Dreams: I love this because it pairs Kevin Costner and James Earl Jones as well as baseball with science fiction. Often called one of the all-time greats, usually behind only Bull Durham, it falls to 3rd on my list because I think so highly of the top two titles on this list.
2. A League of Their Own: First of all, I've always been a sucker for Tom Hanks. Second of all, this movie is hilarious, historical and heartwarming. And thirdly, "There's no crying in baseball!"

1. The Sandlot: I love this movie. So quotable from "You're killing me, Smalls!" to "You play ball like a GIRL!" to "For. Ev .Er." I remember watching it over and over again. Playing ball as a kid, I felt the truth in what James Earl Jones said at the end of the movie, "Baseball was life." If only I could still be a kid and baseball could still be all there was to life. Maybe after ten years of teaching I'll slip on an icy patch and be able to throw 90 mph, then get picked up to play for the Blue Jays...

The Common Core: Friend or Foe?

Complaints about the Common Core are usually made by whiny republicans who are holding on to the state's rights concerns, so they always sound more radical than they actually are. The biggest beef I usually have with these are that they are based on principles and not the actual standards In my two years in Roosevelt I saw poor district implementation and yearly teacher training that teachers said didn't help. 

Before I list my problems, Here is a list of why I like it (the whiny republicans never do this, which always makes them seem more crazy, because the unwillingness to cede anything, even the obvious, in an argument usually is a characteristic of someone blinded by personal interests and is being irrational. 

Why I Like it

1. My first thought was that it's about time. The highest performing countries all have state-run education systems (and by state I mean national) that are linked to the states forecast of economic needs. The difference is that these states (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan) are only as big as a US state. And the CCSS weren't developed in line with any outlook on the economy, which is different in each region. 

2. I like the idea that each state is actually on the same page. Going to an institution like BYU with a national base of students opened my eyes to the different educations you get from each state. It may not be the best reason to create a nationally implemented curriculum, but for a 'United' States that depends on each other it really troubles me to think how little people care that one state can fall so far behind another's educational standards. To be able to actually compare students from one state with students from another based on common assessment is not a horrible idea, either. You just have to make sure the assessment actually is worth it then implement it well. More on this later.

3. It focuses on good math solving skills, not just math skills. The rigorous nature of the math curriculum is great for assessing a students' true understanding of the subject. This is great, but it doesn't look great due to flawed implementation, which I'll touch on later, and makes assessment-writing difficult as well. 

4. English teaching that matters. As much as I love reading, and enjoy reading the classics, we really don't need any more English majors. Kids need to learn at a young age how to effectively read informational texts. Why? Because this way students will be able to understand the wording in math problems and science lab instructions, which are two of the greatest contributors to math anxiety and disinterest in the sciences. Aside from this advantage, people need to know how to read boring forms because life is full of them, and if nothing else, it might prevent people from getting in line at the DMV just to ask stupid questions.

Problems 

1. Poor implementation. districts like he one I formerly taught in throw it all all grades at once and hope for the best. This predictably leads to failing students in the higher grades because they did not grow up in the system, and therefore are unaccustomed to the types of high-level of expectations dictated by the curriculum. I witnessed a higher than usual amount of 9th graders who failed (or nearly failed) and went on to fail yet again in the the 10th grade, and definitely will in the 11th grade as well because they were the test run of the secondary math curriculum.This really only shows the incompetence of local leadership, but I think this is happening in a lot of other places, too. 

2. Poorly trained teachers. Teachers are being tossed into the fire of teaching for new types of outcomes without really knowing how to do so. They are asked to attend a week-long unpaid training every summer that teaches them about teaching the CCSS, but I have not heard a single favorable report back from those (I went to a special education one that was separate, paid, and really, really helpful, but that's special education for you). Now, teachers are generally cynical about changing anything they do, so many likely immediately shut down upon being asked to change and shown how to do so effectively. And when they are pulled away during the summer to be trained without pay, usually sacrificing time from a summer job that they have in order to make ends meet, it doesn't exactly help the attitude. The problem of poor teacher training will lead to all sorts of problems with the implementation of CCSS and, consequently, student learning.

3. Poor Assessments. The first two concerns alone will drive CCSS into the ground, and it will have nothing to do with the actual quality of the material. That being said, the material (specifically math) has led to difficulty in assessment. When proving the effectiveness of CCSS, all that will matter is the test results. Standardized tests have come a long way since I was a kid. I couldn't believe the amount of useless testing that was going on when I started teaching. The end of year standardized assessment used when I began teaching was the NWEA. It was administered three times during the year, and the results were treated by teachers like Angry Birds high scores. So this testing did not do anything for the teachers or students and yet the kids took four different tests (math, science, reading and langauge) three times a year, taking away instructional time, and developing in some students (and most teachers) test apathy. 

I asked my colleagues serious questions about it because the results were so abstract and time-consuming to interpret that I wondered if they took the time to analyze the results of their 180 students. None of my fellow teachers had any idea how to use NWEA scores to direct instruction. The only training they had received was how to administer the test. I was in attendance at the monthly principal's meeting when they had a training on it, but it was from a school administrator from another district who was trying to sell the state on adopting it state-wide and the information did not make it to other teachers in the schools and focused mainly on interpreting school-wide results. What it really showed me was how much we don't know from student test scores*, affirming my belief that the test was a waste of money.  

I mention all of this because I believe that standardized testing in any form is flawed, it's not new, and I actually don't hold much hope in that changing (at least not in the district I taught at). The year after I left the district picked up the new SAGE test compliant with the new CCSS, and it turned out that it was just more of the same. Do you know why? Teachers were not given adequate training, and students were also left in the dark about what to expect, so the test apathy developed from the NWEA was perpetuated. 

The Common Core? Well, if what I've seen is any indication, the poor results in the classroom and on standardized tests will likely cause people to really question its worth. Maybe questions about how it was implemented will be asked and answered, maybe not, but if nothing else it gives the opportunity for someone to come up with another program that will be touted to "increase educational outcomes in our schools". I am perfectly confident that the next one won't fix the previous, and also that the current isn't actually that bad, but there are some major problems with implementation, training and assessment.

Recap

This has been long, but I want to quickly revisit what I said in the first paragraph. I agree with the whiny republican who is in charge of www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com in that education is a responsibility not granted to the federal government and therefore should be reserved to the states, and that wheels are in motion signaling greater federal control of the education system. This is not okay, especially since it is the states that fund their schools and have the right control them. If they want to usurp some power from states there is a perfectly constitutional process to do that in the form of amendments. That being said, I can't think of the last time the country was able to do anything about executive overreach (or should I say, "I don't recall"), but if Republicans can put it on the agenda for 2016 and find a candidate who's not a time bomb of frequent racist/sexist/anti-leftist fear-mongering/plutocratic/crazy comments, something might change. 

What I really want to know is where these guys were during NLCB. They could have saved us from years of horror.

*I could talk about this, but I won't because 1)It's boring 2) They aren't doing that test any more in that district and 3) It'd be really long.

Response to the 9 things you should never say to teachers

I admit it, I scroll down the Huffington Post for my news. I feel slightly queasy doing it, but there are some things there I appreciate about it, specifically that they have an education page. Currently education news is a little slow, but I did find this, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/never-say-to-teachers_n_3990648.html which intrigued me as a teacher. For the record, I have only heard one of these statements before, but I have heard other comments that are more offensive than some of these. Here are my responses to a few of these:

1. "Teaching sounds like such a sweet gig. I mean, you get summers off."

"During the summer, many educators teach summer school classes, participate in teacher training, earn advanced degrees and plan for the next year."
All of this is true, but my district didn't offer traditional summer school, only offered two days of paid training, and one paid day of prep. You know what most teachers do during the summer? THEY WORK! As we all know, there is very little money involved in teaching, and most teachers need to work over the summer to support their family, that is why this is number one on this list.

5. "It's awesome that the point of teaching is to make a difference, but do you really think any of your students will remember you?

First of all, I could be wrong in thinking that everyone remembers a teacher they had at some point in time, even the idiot who asks the question thinking that it is correlated to teachers making a difference. Secondly, I think teachers and non-teachers would generally agree that teachers are teachers in order to make a difference, but I think the definition of what is a difference would be different between the two groups. While the community and politicians might think that the difference is graduating students into prestigious universities, raising test scores or teaching disadvantaged Latinos calculus (or more recently inner city kids how to enjoy writing), teachers would probably think of smaller victories. As I think of these small victories, most are achieved through kindness and mercy. Like helping students through bad days by giving of time and words of encouragement, spending time before or after school helping students master an important concept or giving students a shot at redemption to help them make the grade. I am actually not good at any of those things, but I know there are teachers out there who are, and that's great. My goal in special education was to inspire students to enjoy doing math and believe they could do more than they had done in the past. Nobody passed an AP test but I can at least say that there was a change in student attitudes while I was at Thompsen and Union. This goal translates into fewer truant students and dropouts, higher grades and test scores, and more graduates. Does it make students remember me? Who cares?

7. "If you get tenure, you pretty much can never get fired, right?"
"As noted in a National Education Association blog, 'Tenure is about due process -- not about guaranteeing jobs for life. And it’s not about protecting 'bad' teachers -- it’s about protecting good teachers.'"
This comes up in every discussion about teacher quality, but there's a shift against tenure in most conservative-run states. Everyone in the district I taught in has a one year contract and the district is under no obligation to renew it. I have seen teachers and administrators alike 'pushed out,' so to speak, so this doesn't really apply to me. But if I taught in California I'm not sure it would offend me.

8. "Can't you just sit back and let the textbook teach for you?"

Some teachers have done this. It is not incredibly effective, exciting or popular, but the answer to the question is yes. I have not seen it done in schools I have taught, but I had a class in high school that fit this definition, and I think that if I was the only one this question wouldn't have made HuffPo's list.

My overall synopsis of the questions is that I don't think people are really stupid enough to ask them. Most of them require the questioner to not value the traditional public education model either for political reasons or personal (like having the same world history teacher that I did). These are the same people who would ask questions #3, 6, 7 and 8 because they think teaching is a super easy job that offers a lot of autonomy and cushion because of the superpowerful teachers union (applicable to unions in California, Illinois, and New York in particular). These are generally the students who did not need extra help to pass their classes, or underachieved and didn't care. As parents they start charter schools to try and keep bad teachers out of their kids' classrooms, which is noble, I guess, but not entirely necessary in my opinion.

I'll end this post with a story of the most offended I've ever been as a teacher. To be honest, it may be the only time I was offended by a parent or anyone else when talking about my profession. It happened when I was a student teacher at parent teacher conferences. I was teaching health education at the time and a parent told me I should have gone into teaching math. I guess I was offended because I did-and still do-believe teaching health in school has great merit, and it actually is more applicable to students' lives and can make a bigger difference in the big picture for students as well. Looking back on it, his tone was more offensive than his words, because I would have gladly been a math teaching major if I wasn't already three years into a political science degree when I decided I wanted to teach. Health was the fastest way to become a teacher, but I got hired to teach special education instead because of my merits as a teacher, and now I teach math anyways. 

The Mockingjay Won’t Get Fooled Again

SPOILER ALERT!!!! This is dripping with details that you don’t want to deprive yourself of discovering when you read the book for the first time.

I just finished the Hunger Games. I haven’t talked to anyone who really enjoyed Mockingjay, especially when compared to the first installment of the series. I find it the most complex of the three, but probably because I overthink it, however it does include my favorite part of the entire series. Was it as ‘fun’ a read as The Hunger Games? No—this is the opinion everyone gives of this book, which I totally understand. This is because what people end up finding the most interesting is the account of Katniss as a participant of the Hunger Games (which is pretty funny, because people comment on how obscene the Hunger Games are, but they can’t swallow a book that doesn’t give you a play-by-play of people hunting each other). I admit, I was disappointed when the Quarter Quell got cut short in Catching Fire. I wanted to see Katniss save Peeta and what would happen at the end, but what happened instead was much more mind-boggling.

Let me begin with the sappy love story, because that’s what Courtney always asked me, “Who do you think Katniss will choose?” I was a Gale supporter from the beginning. Gale was the most static of all the characters. Through the whole story, I don’t see Gale change at all. He begins hunting with Katniss and badmouthing the Capitol, he ends hunting and badmouthing the Capitol. His feelings for Katniss don’t even change. Yet Katniss chose Peeta. I don’t like the idea that it’s because they were both screwed up by the end of the whole things (although I do subscribe to the idea that the weird ones find each other—especially at BYU).

The reason comes down to their purpose in life. Gale was dedicated to a revolution—he had been since the very beginning. He was willing to go to any length to seize control from the Capitol, but Katniss was not. The short answer to this is that Katniss believed that ever since the nightlock incident she claimed responsibility for every rebellion-related death and couldn’t support a violent revolution. The long answer is that she didn’t want a revolution. She offers no evidence of desire for an uprising of the districts. In fact, every time she is faced with the prospect of being part of such an uprising, she wants to just run away. In the end her life’s only motivation came from 1) A desire to save Peeta and 2) A desire to kill Snow.

Up to the announcement of the Quarter Quell, I believed Katniss could have—and would have—ended up with Gale (although information revealed in Mockingjay disrupted theory). Katniss felt indebted to Peeta for 1) saving her in the Hunger Games and 2) playing him like a fool for the entire Hunger Games. Here entire behavior from there until Peeta’s rescue had been predicated on her need to keep Peeta alive. Katniss simply couldn’t live indebted to someone who loved her so much. When Peeta had been hijacked, though, she needed something else to get her through. She found strength in the thought of killing President Snow. During this time it appeared that she and Gale shared something, but in reality that was not the case. Not only did she not have different views than Gale, but she also thought less of him for his views, which is not something that is particularly awesome for relationships. She had such arduous hatred towards him for personally ruining her life and Gale’s spun his web of hate for the system through which he brought pain and suffering to people throughout all of Panem. That’s not to say Katniss approved of the system – she most certainly did not – but she wanted Snow for personal reasons, she didn’t think any other form of government could be different, which is why she always wanted to take flight into the woods and live without government interference like some crazy in the Idaho panhandle.

Peeta always loved Katniss. He’s such a figure of moral fortitude through the entire story, too. His hijacking destroyed him, of course, and what I never did figure out is how he got over his hatred for Katniss and began to trust her again. It never made sense to me. In the end I see their relationship a matter of convenience. They both end up in District 12, which is essentially the Idaho panhandle at this point, far from the commotion of an emerging government, and Katniss, after over a year of caring for not much more in life than Peeta’s survival decides she loves him. Gale goes on to serve in the new order of Panem and, I’m sure, is heartbroken over Katniss’ unstable mental state, but will get over it because he’s a warrior. And that’s what warrior’s do.

(For the record, Katniss was warrior, but was manipulated emotionally in a way that screwed her up. Major PTSD stemming from both the Hunger Games and the weird relationship with Peeta)

Now for some interesting questions. Mockingjay prompted so many questions about character decisions and speculation for the future of Panem. Because this is incredibly long, I’ll stick to these four, unless I think of any more.

What type of government will Panem use?

As someone whose political science capstone emphasis was in state building, I asked this question the whole way through. I absolutely loved the commentary on the state building process, especially reading it while this is taking place in Syria, where Alleppo might as well be District 2 (although the Syrians are not blessed with such help as District 13 provided). Although Plutarch tells Katniss that the government will be a form of representative republic, I don’t see that being the case. To keep things short, we’re looking at Stalin’s Russia, here. Coin was ready to step into power and force equality over the entire country, no capitalism; no system that promotes one person or group of people to feel superior or be perceived as such. This would theoretically prevent the previous extreme, cirque et panem, that existed under Snow. Without Coin, a representative republic is certainly more possible, but I still see a protectionist, socialist state run by a council rather than a president (I know they still have a president, but I’m sure they added some form of checks and balances as to decentralize power in some way).

Why did Katniss shoot Coin?

If there was one thing Katniss was able to recognize still through all the mental health issues, it was the scent of Snow’s grasp of power, and Coin stunk of it. This was my favorite part of the book. Snow was going to die either way, but why not take out Coin while you have the chance? Both a genius plot twist, and something that was totally characteristic of Katniss’ character. This obviously brings up the more pressing issue presented by Snow in the rose garden (does anyone else love that the president has a rose garden, just like the president of the United State has a rose garden?).

Did Coin send the parachutes?

When I read it, I thought Snow was sending the kids help as a publicity stunt, but Katniss’ description of the situation sounds like an atrocity beyond understanding. Snow had motive to lie to Katniss about it in order to enrage her to the point of still distrusting the government in hopes that she might just bring down the woman who brought him to his knees (Coin). Coin had motive to do it in order to make Snow look completely inhuman. Snow had zero motive to kill those children. He knew he was done, and what would killing the youth of the Capitol do for him? What an excellent way to end the book.

Why did Katniss vote for the Capitol Hunger Games?????

Would Gale have voted yes to a Capitol Hunger Games?

It makes no sense to me. The Hunger Games were a symbol of the Capitol’s power over the districts, which Gale did not like. I’m sure he harbored resentment for everyone from the Capitol who did not immediately join the uprising, but I do not see him enjoying the Hunger Games when it represents submission of those people to the new order. Peeta, the unchanging moral compass of the book believed this. I feel Katniss should have felt the same way. I don’t buy her position that she voted as a reaction to Prim dying, because it was likely Coin’s fault that Prim died, and the following events suggest that she must have believed it at that point. Now more children will die because of Katniss, a thought she abhorred since claiming responsibility for all uprising-related deaths in Catching Fire. If not for the other points I thought excellent, this could have given me a nasty aftertaste of the series. It still lingers a little bit.

There are other matters worth discussing, but I really should be working on schoolwork, the same way I should have been from 8:30-12:00 every night since Friday when I started Catching Fire.

Abbreviated Notes from Pondering while Wondering

I felt inspired to post today. It may be that I'm just avoiding an assignment that I must do for a training tomorrow, but nevertheless a post is a post. There a many issues in the past month that have crossed my mind as I have been working my summer job. This summer I am working for mosquito abatement, which entails driving around looking for mosquito larvae and killing it during the day, and driving backroads at 10 mph with the fogger on at night to kill fliers. All that driving, searching, and swamping gives me plenty of time to let my mind wonder. The topics I've been thinking of include:

• A documentary about all the weird summer jobs teachers have
• The definition of marriage 
• A theory I came up with four years ago explaining how an influx in popularity of far-right groups   could cause the Republican party to lose elections that it should easily bag...in Idaho......and that theory's pertinence to the situation on the national stage today
• Said theory's ominous raincloud over the Romney campaign
• The need for campaign finance reform--ugh
• The need for a paradigm shift in education reform--We just aren't providing a sufficient free, appropriate, public education any more. How is it that a college degree is the new high school diploma when the cost of secondary education only rises and students graduate with a lifetime's worth of debt? How is that the American dream? Speaking of which:
• The American Dream: Does it really exist? Can it only exist with a mountain of debt?
• Next year I really need to find a college research job or something
• The European financial crisis--how different are we and what are we doing to avoid it?
• The Affordable Care Act--again, what are we doing to avoid a government bankruptcy?
• The Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act--if the quick, sly fox is Chief Justice Roberts, is the lazy dog Clarence Thomas? And how can we get past this chalk party line on the bench? I mean, I learned in high school that there are two ways to read the constitution (liberal and conservative); is there any way past this?
• Baseball-I think the Giants and Nats will make a good NLCS and Rangers and Angels will make an even better ALCS.
• Entertainment-I wish GI Joe would have opened on its expected date
• More education reform-When will I have time to work on preparing for next year's classes? Why are teachers expected to improve without being paid to work towards improvement when they don't have to worry about teaching classes? What's the idea here? Does anyone have a plan for professional development?
• Recreation: Will I ever regularly run again? When will I make enough money to go golfing? To go camping for a week with my family?
• Basketball-Did Lebron finally make 'the jump'?
• Money-How will I pay for a doctorate?
• Money-How will I pay for another vehicle to hold more family?
• Money-How will I pay for hospital bills when we expand the family?
• Money-How will I pay to visit the family we love that live so far away?
• Money-How will I pay for whatever it takes to make my lawn turn green again?
• Oh yeah, working mosquito abatement over the summer will help
• Man I hope I find a better job next year

I someday I'll address these topics, but for the most part I spend what time I'm not at work, with my family and what time I'm not with my family or at work working on my master degree. 

A lot can change in one year...

One year ago I was relentlessly applying for teaching jobs and receiving a constant flow of rejection emails. Yesterday I finished my first year of teaching. And while I wish I could actually be paid to work for another few weeks so I could work out some kinks in my instructional scheduling and prepare for the new curriculum I'll be teaching in the fall, paying teachers to do so is not as important to everybody, although it certainly should be. (Great idea note: most experienced teachers, while they will deny actually needing this, probably need to take time to reflect the past year and make necessary changes to their instruction just like young teachers. All teachers should be allotted contract time for this and should be held accountable for the process of refining their teaching skills, and there is really no better time to do so than right after the school year.)

What new curriculum? Well, I applied for a district job in the district and got transferred to the high school where I'll be teaching three periods math and three language arts. While I feel comfortable teaching the same math I have been this year, I need quite a bit of prep time for my new language arts course. Here are some reasons this is more difficult than it might seem at first:

1. The Common Core Curriculum: Our district began teaching the nationally accepted Common Core Curriculum this year. I am up to date on my math, aligned with the junior high courses being taught (the math department at RJHS helped me out a ton on this) but the high school English department is not exactly on the same page concerning how to teach this new curriculum (or whether or not they want to, I think). So it will be difficult closing the gap when I'm unsure of what mark I'm trying to catch up to. Speaking of which:

2. IEP Goals: Previously, I had written very specific IEP goals for the kids at Thompsen, but I was told this week that there are no specific academic goals for students at the high school, just that they pass all their classes and are preparing for graduation, and a behavior goal or two if they need it. This is wrong on so many levels (on a legal level, first of all, but also on educational, organizational, professional, and caring-about-the-kids-you-teach levels, to name a few). It's not like I'm incredibly anal about not being in compliance with special education law (well, I am, actually), but these goals are there not only for students to work towards something and the parents to hold the school accountable for trying to catch their children up to the mainstream curriculum, but also to guide instruction. So I can't really plan what I teach unless I know what they need to learn. Urgh. Frustrating.

3. Other Special Education LA teachers: There is another special ed teacher who teaches 5 periods of language arts. If I had the time to collaborate with him we could streamline the department's LA curriculum in order to curb the amount of students who will undoubtedly try to switch classes when they find out one of us is harder/easier than the other. (Disclaimer: The district does provide two paid days before the school year to prepare for things, but that usually includes at least half a day of in-service. Special education teachers also get a couple of extra paid days to review their new IEP files.) This likely will happen, but not to the extent that I would like it to happen.

4. Differentiating Instruction: This means providing challenging learning opportunities for every student despite what level they’re actually on. I’ve developed a program to do this in math, but I’m not so sure of how I’ll do it in English. It’s a vital part of special education instruction because in my classroom students will have goals on all sorts of different levels (well, not yet, maybe; see 2. IEP Goals), so to meet all of them I need to give them all specific instruction towards what they need. This hasn’t been happening in math, nor has it been happening in language arts, so I need to do that to, which is a problem because…

5. I don’t do language arts: Or at least I never have before. No one ever taught me how to teach someone to read or write. Mainly that’s because I’m still working on my masters in special education and my two undergrad degrees were political science and health education. So I don’t really know what I’m doing anyways, but I’m sure I can give it a pretty good shot.

So that’s what I’m doing. I feel fairly confident in half of the new job I’ll be doing, and a little wary on the other half, but I’m excited to be a part of some big changes.

Awesome meets Disappointing

I saw Styx for the first time in 2007 and was amazed by the band's energy, especially Tommie Shaw parading around the stage with his long blonde hair and skinny jeans looking like a teenage girl from my view on the grass. My wife surprised me with tickets to the Styx-REO Speedwagon concert this year while I was attending a conference in Salt Lake. I joined my good friends Atlee, Danielle and Brett, who came done from Logan. Once again the band was awesome, from Foolish Young Man to Grand Illusion to Crystal Ball to Come Sail Away to Renegade, it was well worth the next day's heavy eyelids through the morning's four-hours of seminars and the concluding keynote speaker.

I thoroughly enjoyed myself (even through Speedwagon's set of deep tracks before they finally played Ridin' the Storm Out), but I have to say I saw something that disappointed me. No, not the hundreds of boozed up fans of all ages screaming and slurring together verses of 'Man in the Wilderness' or the Tom Arnold look-alike getting stoned out of his mind sitting behind us, or the fact that the 50+ year old booty shaker fifteen yards in front of us wore out after Speedwagon and left the concert wheezing in her husband's arms during the intermission. No, what really got to me was the healthy young kids in front of us aged somewhere between 18-24 who were singing, dancing and having a great time, but also smoking.

I guess I really have been sheltered in Provo, and even out here in Roosevelt at teaching at the behavioral unit where most of the kids smoke or chew or both. Now those 'kids' at the concert weren't that much younger than me-the concert was a present for my 26th birthday, but I was still surprised and disappointed to see young people passing cigarettes around for a puff. Only about 20% of Americans smoke today, which makes sense seeing that people who smoke live 13 years less than those who do not smoke (all stats from the CDC). It ruins quality of life and life expectancy, so why start, right? Well people still do--every day about 3,450 youth under 18 smoke for the first time and 850 begin smoking on a daily basis.

As a health educator, I feel great disappointment when I see young people smoking. One statistic that shocks me is that nearly 30% of adults with high school degrees or less smoke compared to just 9% of college graduates. So there's something about education that keeps people from smoking. It's not surprising because, the more educated you are the more likely to know that your life expectancy is greater by not smoking and life insurance is cheaper, as well. But it's odd because college graduates are more likely to be able to have the discretionary income to afford such an expensive habit, and those who do not have degrees are more likely to be employed in jobs requiring physical labor, which is made more difficult by smoking. Quite the paradox, but the powers of addiction and the influence of peers and parents is greater than that of a health teacher or a schoolwide scare campaign or Red Ribbon Week or a couple of PSA's with statistics like the one's I've thrown out there. Without solid, loving efforts in the home to keep kids on track to reach high goals, youth will engage in risky behaviors.

The moral of the story-don't believe in the grand illusion of tobacco use or what fun is had in renegade behaviors--you're fooling yourself and you don't believe it, killing yourself and you won't believe it. Don't let life end too early, be smart, don't even start.

The Rising

Ten years ago the tragic events of today inspired Bruce Springsteen to write some incredible music dedicated to the victims and heroes involved in the cowardly attack against innocent people. I've been listening to that album--'The Rising'--all weekend. I highly recommend the whole album, especially the songs, "You're Missing", "My City of Ruins", "The Rising", and "Into the Fire". These four sum up the feelings of sorrow and resolution felt in every American's heart that day. The common theme is right in the album's title--to rise after being beat down. In "My City of Ruins" he sings, "Rise up!" and "With these hands I pray for the faith Lord, I pray for the strength" and in "The Rising" the chorus goes, "Come on up for the rising, come on up lay your hands in mine". And the chorus of "Into the Fire" (specifically about the firefighters) is a prayer that "My your strength give us strength, may your faith give us faith, may your hope give us hope may your love give us love." Again, I would highly recommend listening to these songs. If not to rekindle the feelings we felt after the events of 9/11, to cheer up the heavy hearts we are all feeling in our current day and age.

Yes, ten years following the disastrous terrorist attacks on our country we seem to be falling apart all over again. Faith in and approval of our political leaders is much lower than it was in 2001, and it seems that we are running out of hope. Have we fought terrorism. Yes we have. Are people afraid of terrorism? More than they were Sept. 10, 2001, but less than they were Sept. 12, 2001. Terror is not our number one priority anymore. We even caught Osama bin Laden this year, but even that wasn't enough to lighten everyone's spirits through this time of economic turmoil. What we need now is a rising. The media is painting a dismal picture of the future and the people are buying it. Honestly, it doesn't look good, but it didn't look too great ten years ago, either. So I think we need to follow the same recipe for success in raising the nation's spirits.

1) Go out and buy a flag and fly it-the first part of having faith in the future is to at least look like you do.

2) Listen to The Rising-Those lyrics have the same power for us now. Did we feel beaten the week following 9/11? No, we felt like we could take on the world (and we did, sort of). We felt like Toby Keith did when he sang "The Angry American," we felt like Bruce in The Rising.

Will these solve our economic crisis. No, but they should make us feel a little better about things. I listened to "Into the Fire" a lot when I was looking for a job, and it did make me feel better about the situation. Some nights I would listen to "My City of Ruins" and that would make me feel better about going to bed after a day filled with applications, rejections, and no new leads. It's hard to go to bed without hope. 'For if ye have not hope ye must needs be in despair' (Moro. 10:22). Sometimes I woke up feeling like the song "Empty Sky" but got out of that funk because I knew "The Rising" would come and "a dream of life comes to me like a catfish dancin' on the end of the line." This is the dream that we must learn to dream again. It is the American dream, but it can only be brought to pass by a rising.

The Miracle of Getting a Job

I don't normally blog about my life or the spiritual experiences that drive it, but this week I got a job that was clearly provided by the Lord. So as an answer to President Uchtdorf's challenge to "use your hands to blog or text message the gospel to all the world" I have decided do so now.

I applied for a biology teaching job in Roosevelt, UT and they called me for an interview, but we were camping so we had to schedule it on a different day than they wanted. Courtney and I were really excited and I worked extra hard preparing for the interview, but when I called the day before, I found out they gave the job away already. The asked me if I had any math background and I told him, "No" because, well, I didn't take a single math course in college, but later that night I found myself writing the principal an email, telling him how awesome I'd be at teaching math. So I interviewed for the job two days later and it went really well. I felt really good about it and--despite my lack of proof of my math proficiency--I thought I would get the job. Nearly a week passed, however, with no word from them, so I called the principal to see what was going on. He said that I beat out the other 20 Utah applicants hands down, but they were interested in seeing a few of the out of state applicants in person, which would be on Tuesday, and he told me that they would call me after the interviews so I could make my case for hiring me. I started the next day (Thursday) preparing to take a practice math teaching exam (called the Praxis) so I could show them I was proficient in math. Friday I got a call from Jerome High School asking me to interview for the biology teaching position over there and heavily hinting that they wanted to straight up hire me. Well, I took my practice test and passed the Utah passing score by 6%, and we drove to Jerome after church on Sunday. Monday morning I had the interview, and I hadn't been home an hour when they called to offer the job to me. I asked for a day to sleep on it, but really I just wanted to hear about the Roosevelt job. Tuesday came and the principal phoned me with the sad news that I did not get the job. BUT apparently the assistant superintendent who was in my interview was really impressed with me and wanted to contact me about another job in the district. He called about 20 minutes later and had me on speakerphone with the principal of their alternative school (the school where kids who behave poorly go). The job would be teaching math and science to kids at this school and perhaps even starting a basketball program. Just to let you know, earlier I substituted for an alternative high school and I absolutely loved it. After that day I wanted to teach at a place like that more than anywhere else. So they ended the call and five minutes later they called back and offered me the job. I took it, of course I did. So here are some of the little miracles:

1) We knew we were supposed to move to Roosevelt from the start. It was a strong spiritual impression that both Courtney and I felt, so I kept doing all I could do to get hired there--for as we learn from Nephi, "it is by grace that we are saved, after all that we can do." I knew that it was only through a constant, faithful effort that God would make up for what I lacked. (Which is also the reason I applied for every job I could this summer)

2) I didn't make it to the biology interview. If I had, I wouldn't have gotten that job and maybe wouldn't have even applied for the math position.

3) There was a math position open. It wasn't even posted online because it was their third round of interviews, they were still interviewing original applicants.

4) They needed a football coach. A big reason I was considered was because I could coach the football team. If not for that, I wouldn't have been given the time of day.

5) The assistant superintendent was impressed by my interview, so he pursued hiring me for the alternative school job. The interview went really well, but it was hard to judge who was skeptical of me and who wasn't.

6) I was offered the Jerome job. Without the Jerome offer I wouldn't have been able to push them to make their decision about me the same day. They wanted me to come in and interview and drag it out over another week, which would have been torture.

7) I actually think this job is the one I would prefer over the other 200 I applied for (and I didn't even apply for it)

So this is going to be awesome. This week has been yet another revelation to me about the power of fasting and prayer (which I had done the last two Sundays with the purpose of gaining the faith requisite to bring to pass the miracles necessary to get a job). I had told Courtney a number of times, "It's going to take a miracle for me to get a job," and as it turns out it took at least seven--I don't know what else happened that I'm not aware of.

This experience reaffirms what I already knew--God and Jesus Christ love us and that if we ask our Father for bread he will not give us a stone, but will give us even more than we asked for. I just read Elder Bednar's conference talk and I have a testimony that revelation and blessings come line upon line, but he who is patient and has faith will eventually receive God's blessing.

Education reform brought to you by The Hands

I was recently reading a friend's blag post found here: http://spyewtsrfat.blogspot.com/2011/07/edu.html. He gives some pretty good ideas of how to reform education. Being a friend of his who is not counted as one of the education majors who is "dumber than a box of hammers" I gave him props and submit my own few ideas (I wrote this as a comment on his blag first, but decided to post it here, too):

1) Pool all resources so as to eliminate disparities between all schools. They do this in Canada and it works out great. Of course the nature of people in Canada seems to be to agree to pool resources and make equal treatment available whether it be education or healthcare. The problem with doing this in the states is the whole 'local control' idea, which is a really big thing (especially in Utah) and I don't see it happening.

2) Cut administrative costs. Some of these school districts are enormous and have a huge bureaucracy (Thus New York public school's leading the nation spending $17,000 per pupil). This can be cut for sure, but I think the larger problem lies in the number of small school districts. Example: Wyoming has 48 school districts for their 87,000 students. There are 33 school districts in America with larger enrollments than the entire state. This is obviously a problem caused by the extremely small population density of Wyoming, but it exists because of people'e feelings for local control. People can't seem to get over their desire to control the education of their children, yet complain when they see the results stacked against the world. You know why the Asian Tigers lead in education? Because the state controls education and the parents push the kids. The difference is that A)our parents either forget that their kids may need to not participate in 14 extracurriculars in order to appropriate sufficient time to their studies or forget to do the whole parenting thing altogether and B)our bureaucracy is open to pretty much anyone these days, whereas in Asian countries it is a highly respected position that requires-you guessed it-a high score on a state mandated intelligence test. Which brings me to..

3) Teachers need to be required to perform some sort of professional development, and I'm not talking about showing up to a conference or a meeting and counting up hours. It should require advanced college classes and research and a portfolio. Right now re-credentialing is done online and costs, like, $100 depending on the state. More should be required. Also, in order to get an endorsement teachers are required to pass an ETS administered tests (although some states have their own because they think they're more special or should have more local control), but the scores required by states are all about 70%. That needs to be upped.

Plumbing Fail

I tried using a drain snake to unclog our bathroom sink. Little did I know the J-pipe had the structural integrity of a wet paper towel. As you can see, the snake did not make the turn, but went straight through, uncovering yet another problem for me to fix. I think it may have been the original fixture (circa 1950). As I tried to unscrew the IP later the pipe twisted in half, cutting my thumb in the process. But I installed the new pipe and flushed the clog out with drano and a hose, as per the instructions of my landlord (who is 80 and doesn't want to spend money on a plumber to come fix it), so now all is well.

State Reciprocity

The term "state reciprocity" is used by universities to describe a degree or license awarded that is recognized by other states as well. Most schools claim to award teaching licenses or certificates that are recognized by nearly every other state of the union. So with my certificate from BYU I've been applying for jobs all over the country, including 19 states and the District of Columbia, not to mention a job in Calgary, which was both my first application and my first rejection letter (no one promised reciprocity with other countries). I thought expanding my horizons would give me a better chance at getting a job, and at first that idea held true. My first real interview (not a screening interview) was with a school in Wellton, Arizona--a town known for its massive feed lot and more recently, for a psycho shooter that drove into Yuma. The interview went well and the principal explained the licensing process I'd go through upon getting the job. It was easy-take a few ESL courses and teach for a year, then apply and BAM, it would be mine. Well, I didn't get the job, and my count is at 132 jobs I've applied for, and among the rejection letters/emails, most have been from out of state schools. I didn't think anything of it, but then I had a screening interview with Phoenix Union High School District. The interviewer asked me if I had started my application for an Arizona teaching credential. I answered "Why pay over a hundred dollars for something I only need if I actually get a job?" He answered that every teacher in the district must hold and Arizona teacher's license at the beginning of the school year. So much for state reciprocity.

The idea of the state having control over its education system is based solely on the founding fathers failing to enumerate public education as a power of the federal government. It would take a constitutional amendment to create national control of public education, and that's not going to happen anytime soon. That's because even though everyone in the country believes that we should provide free public education to all children we must A) stick to the constitutional verbage written by the founding fathers (who did not believe in national education--except for Thomas Jefferson) and B) localize control of what our children are learning.

Local control is one of those phrases that gets a lot of use and a lot of respect in education policy circles. This makes a lot of sense to me because funding for schools is locally based, so the control is locally based. Funding does come from the federal government, but the bread and butter of every district is local. States try to standardize things and streamline their programs, which creates this whole mess regarding teacher training reciprocity, not to mention high school education reciprocity.

But this is the reason for public education. Any nation's public education is built for a single purpose, which is to indoctrinate the youth of a nation with the culture of the governing class. However, because our national government is handcuffed from controlling education, the indoctrination includes the fundamental beliefs of the predominate culture of the state and in some cases even the areas of school districts. In America we created public education to perpetuate the idea of the American Dream (one's ability to succeed in "attaining the fullest stature of which (he or she) is innately capable, and be recognized for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position). That is the only common stream in the education system--anyone can succeed (We might also compare this to the myth of the medals in Plato's Republic, but that's a story for another time). Our education system lacks a common thread because of the need for state and local control, breeding the indoctrination of state and local culture, not national culture. This organizational fault is part of the reason we see so much disparity between states and between urban-rural-suburban schools. Because the curriculum and teacher credentialing standards are different from state to state and district to district the education of students from one state or district to the next will be inherently unequal.

So ending this on a slightly different vein than I started, I would like to say a word about winning the future: it won't happen unless we centralize our educational system. It's the only way we can properly work together as a nation to meet the changing needs of the American workforce. But there are two reasons this will never come to pass: 1) Conservative interpretation of the Constitution and the difficulty of creating an amendment empowering the federal government to provide public education and 2) America is not a 'melting pot' as much as it is actually a grocery store. Yes, there are a variety of cultures here, but they are--for the most part--compartmentalized into different regions and even different areas of cities and towns. Therefore the predominant culture within the district will beg/cry/fight for its right to push its agenda (strong words, I know, but it is what it is) on the children in its jurisdiction, and it will do so under the assumption that it is what the parents want and what they believe is best for their children--regardless whether or not it is what is best for the country represented by the flag to which they pledge allegiance every morning in the classroom.

Curse of the Amish Friendship Bread

A couple of weeks ago Courtney's visiting teacher came during the day when she was asleep. I answered the door and took from her a wrapped up piece of bread, a bag filled with gooey stuff and page of directions. When Courtney shared the bread with me I decided that it would be worth it to squish the dough every day and add the stuff to make the bread. As the days passed Courtney made fun of me for doing it, and I understood why. This is ridiculous. How could passing on such a taxing recipe possibly make someone think you want to be friends? It seemed like punishment to me. In fact, I decided not to pass it along as per the directions, but to just bake the whole eight loaves myself and give them away. Besides, there's no telling how long this had already been passed on, and how rotten that milk was. I thought I was doing our friends a favor by saving them the hassle of the ten day process and just baking them a loaf of bread.

Great idea, right? Well...

You know those chain emails that say "if you don't pass this to ten people then a baby seal will get clubbed by Dick Cheney" that you always delete? That's sort of how I felt about this bread, but a baby seal actually did get clubbed by Dick Cheney. I misread the directions and got this as a result:

Those stinkin' Amish cursed their stupid bread recipe. I was going to stop the chain and I was the baby seal that got clubbed. It tasted alright, but the texture was similar to bread pudding, which I cannot handle, so I threw both loaves and the other starter mixes out because my proportions were off.

(In the future, I'd be more than happy to try again Amish friendship bread, but I'll plan on perpetuating the stupid recipe instead of taking matters into my own hands)

The System is Broken

"The system is broken." That's what they've told us recently, at least. It seems to be code for, "We don't have any money to fund public works, so we're cutting budgets, restructuring and blaming it on 'problems' in the system that we were too lazy to fix before." We've heard it about immigration, the BCS, collective bargaining in Wisconsin, and the most popular target--education. Some of these claims are true--the immigration situation is ridiculous, as is college football's method of finding a national champion, as is the public paying for the equal benefits and retirement plans of uneducated careerist bureaucrats and members of the most underpaid and consistently educated profession in America--teachers. While I do not believe the education system is 'broken,' I do believe that parts of it are, and that few or none of these parts are being addressed by state legislatures. I started three posts in the last two months about various problems I have with some states' new education plans (particularly Idaho), but they were all filled with bitterness, Idaho election results and budget histories, and Glen Beck-esque conspiracy theories about Watson on Jeopardy! being the new computer overlord of Idaho--and I don't really want to subject anyone to any of that.

This post is about something in education that recently made me thing, "The system is broken." I read about it a year and a half ago in the first chapter of Goodlad, Soder and Sirotnik's 'The Moral Dimensions of Teaching.' The problem dates back further than I'd care to research, but in 1961 it was amplified when Yale hired C. Vann Woodward with the highest salary for a professor in the country and was not required to teach at all in his first year. To many of you who have been to a university lately, this may not surprise you--part of being a professor is doing research. In fact, they are required by the university to get published in order to stay on faculty. We've all had professors who were awful, horrible teachers, yet were kept on staff because of their amazing research. Even in schools of education the faculty is not filled with highly-experienced teachers who have been hired because they were rock star teachers. It's filled with Faustian academics who research high up in their ivory towers, then come down to classrooms where they lecture to future teachers, preparing them to do a job they've never done themselves.

I was lucky enough to have as the supervisor for my major someone with years of experience as a teacher, who was sought out by the university to get his PhD and teach for BYU. One of the faculty members on the hiring committee told me that a principal once told him that my professor was 'the best teacher he had ever seen in all his 30 years in the school system.' I believe it, too. He was a great influence for me to be a teacher and taught me more than any of those learned sages of research in the McKay School of Education. I thought that this professor of mine was so awesome that I wanted to do what he did--get pre-service teachers pumped and prepared for the careers n teaching ahead of them.

So it was to my great surprise and delight that on a visit to his office in January, he told me the university wants another supervisor for the major, and that he wanted me to get my degree and come back to do the job. I recently talked with him about choosing graduate schools and degrees. He told me to get a master's in statistics to go along with my doctorate to reinforce my research skills. I've applied for a lot of jobs teaching social studies because health teaching jobs are so hard to find, and he told me not to worry because I have an undergraduate degree in health and all they care about is research anyways, and they're just looking someone who can do that, has a PhD and is willing to do the job. I was shocked. Here I thinking that he was sought out and hired because he was one of the greatest health teachers in the Utah valley, and here he was conceding that his expertise wasn't even why he was hired for the job--it was because he was willing to go to school and get the training to be qualified to do it.

So I came home excited for graduate school, but also disappointed because the system was broken. Universities don't want the best teachers to prepare teachers, they want researchers who will get the name of the school printed underneath their own name in academic journals. I began to worry about whether I'll be a good enough teacher to feel that I warrant the job for which I'm preparing. Since my realization about the lack of professional teaching experience in teacher preparation programs I've wanted to research the problem, but now I feel like I'm already on the road to becoming one myself. It's very possible that I'll never get the chance to teach health. States such as Idaho are making it an online course in order to cut costs (yeah, I know, totally picked the wrong teaching major, but the fact that it was the shortest teaching major really should have been a clue). But even if I teach Utah history for five years I can get this job because I'll have my undergraduate degree, my student teaching experience and a few years of in-classroom teaching experience.

Well, anyways, no use worrying about this when I can't even find a job in the first place...first things first.

Jerry Sloan's Final and Greatest Influence

I've been waiting for Jerry Sloan to step down for years. I remember when I came back from my mission, seeing Jerry Sloan and thinking it was his frozen corpse hauled out into the coach's seat. Then I saw him explode on a referee in the third quarter and get T'd up, at which point I realized that he was not actually dead. He made a great run with the Jazz, and was an NBA legend (despite never winning a championship). In fact, if it weren't for Michael Jordan he might have been the greatest Chicago Bulls player of all time and have two rings with the Jazz (probably just one, though, I don't see them beating Bird's Pacers in 1998-that team was awesome). He was a great coach, in fact I highlight the season after Stockton and Malone left when he just about coached his team led by Andrei Kirilenko and Matt Harpring to the playoffs as his greatest accomplishment, and had a great run, but he ran out of gas and couldn't handle it anymore. He was there for 22 years and only had one losing season. The only other coach in the NBA with more than 10 years with his current team is Greg Popavich (in his 15th). Pop's been there since the second half of 1996, and in his first draft acquired Tim Duncan, who he's ridden to four championships and a career .678 win percentage. Pop's ability to adjust to changes is a subject for another post (his ability to coach the Spurs, with their stars in decline, to an amazing 44-8 start this season is incredible), right now let's just focus on this: long tenured coaches with a single team are not the norm. Not in the NBA, not in other professional sports. Sloane resigning , like Bobby Cox retiring after 20 years at the helm of the Atlanta Braves, marks the end of a great run filled with winning seasons, hall of fame players and lost championships. It is the end of an era.

Today I was driving back from a doctor's appointment and heard the cheers of

Egyptians ringing out on NPR celebrating the resignation of their

leader. Hosni Mubarak did not plan on being a dictator, but did an excellent job at it for 30 years. After weeks of

quiet, civil disobedience by the Egyptian people, yesterday Mubarak tried to convince his people that it was a good idea for him to stay in power, while delegating powers to the Vice President. This is what Joe Paterno has done for years, and it has served him well, as he has been the head coach at Penn State for 44 years, and lucid for 38 of them (Just kidding! Long live JoPa!). Well, unfortunately for Mubarak, the people didn't take to that idea well, so he went the way of Bobby Bowden, who was forced to retire from his position at Florida State after 35 years.

And so Mubarak is at a Red Sea resort contemplating the future, looking back on the fantastic run he made as the 'democratically elected' president of Egypt. I'm not sure where Jerry Sloan is, but he's probably going through the same contemplative practice. I wonder if he sees what I see. I wonder if he sees a president at his home in Cairo watching Sportscenter and seeing an aging man give a speech about his stunning career, announcing its end, and repeatedly stating how much he has been blessed. He thinks to himself, "I have been blessed. I have done much good for this country. We are better now than we were 30 years ago. Maybe it's time." And he calls the vice president and tells him to announce his resignation. That's what I see.

And there you have it, Jerry Sloan influences Hosni Mubarak to step down as president of Egypt. Just think about it, it's not that much of a stretch.