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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Student Teaching

I'm two weeks into student teaching. I'm absolutely loving it. I teach two periods of junior high health alone and team teach another with another student teaching. At times I feel like I don't want to collaborate at all and I'd much rather just do the whole thing myself. But then I realize how blessed I am to have so much prep time and I think about what a different experience this is from other student teachers'.
First of all, my mentor teacher is great. She's been teaching for 12 years and never had a student teacher. For 11 years she taught science and has only taught health for 1 year, so she's just beginning to be a health teacher and is still open to new ideas. Lots of student teachers are stuck with mentor teachers who are totally stuck on doing things the same way they've been doing them for the past 25 years. My mentor teacher is awesome. She lets us come up with our own unit outlines and is fine with everything as long as we follow the state standards. It's really a liberating experience as opposed to what I've heard some of my friends going through. And even though we are her first student teachers, she's been a mentor teacher for quite some time, now, and is always willing to give advice and observe and help us become better teachers.
Second of all, It's SO NICE having so much time to prepare lessons, grade papers, evaluate how certain lessons went, and make the appropriate changes so I can do better next time (when I'm on my own). What this really feels like is a 'test run' sort of semester, where I have an idea of what I want to do as a teacher and I get to test it out in the classroom every day to see if it works. I feel like this should all be part of some grand thesis or disertation and that I should be collecting data and running regressions and getting a grad degree. To tell the truth, it's actually part of the only assignment that I have to turn in for the course, called the Teacher Work Sample. Basically I have to prove that I can do what I'm doing by putting it all on paper. I just happen to be in a position where I have the time and resources to put a lot of time into improving what I've done while bringing minimal work home. Quite the blessing, really.
Third, I'm not nearly as tired as I would be if I was standing up teaching 6 lessons a day. Wow, what a piece of work I'd be coming home from that. Instead, I'm teaching just half of that at the most, and I still have energy when I come home. That's really nice.
Lastly, my fellow student teacher has had different experiences and has different ideas than I do about how to teach. At some times, I feel like this is exactly why I don't want to team teach, but in all reality I should be greatful for the different ideas that she brings to the table. I'm only one man, and I'm willing to see good ideas of how I can help kids learn the material.
Other than those things, I really can't think of another reason I wouldn't want to do it myself. But if for nothing else, those four reasons are enough to make me grateful for the experience of team teaching. Overall I can't complain. I really enjoy all the free time, especially since I'll be needing it to study for my next two Praxis exams--Biology and Social Studies.

The Stole of Gratitude

I didn't even know this existed, and once I did know I didn't know what it was. When Courtney graduated she showed me this as she was buying her cap and gown:

"A stole is not a symbol of academic honor. It is an optional accessory that is worn during the commencement ceremony. After the ceremony, the new graduate presents the Stole of Gratitude to someone who provided extraordinary help or support, i.e. parents, relatives, or mentors who have helped with wisdom, words of support or financial assistance. Immediately after graduation, the graduate may take the stole from around his/her neck and place it around the neck of the recipient. More than one stole may be worn during commencement, symbolizing that there are multiple persons destined to receive a Stole of Gratitude."

She gave the stole to her father in a very emotional scene following the immensely boring graduation ceremony. Her father had a great deal to do with her academic pursuits and eventual graduation, and it was clear that before we knew what a Stole of Gratitude was, that he was destined to receive the Stole of Gratitude.

As I prepare to walk across the stage and receive my empty diploma cover from an aged professor dressed in the robes of the false priesthood it is not as clear to me to whom I would bestow a Stole of Gratitude. There have been a number of people to whom I feel indebted for the contribution they have made to my education, and no clear recipient of the Stole. Since I cannot clearly determine who should receive a Stole and I have no intention of spending $19 each a stole for each person I think of, I thought of recognizing those who have given their wisdom and words of support. These include professors, family, and maybe a friend or two.

Ray Desagun--High school economics and government teacher. At this age I was naive enough to think Libertarianism was pretty cool and that I wanted to be a speechwriter. What I gained from that class was more than just TINSTAFL, supply and demand and that Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein were both Jews, but I learned that I would enjoy teaching government.

Prof. Ray Christensen--Three years ago I was writing a personal statement in his PoliSci 200 class and he and I were discussing what subject I was passionate about in political science to figure out some topics I should write about, or what I would do after I graduated or something like that. I told him that I wasn't passionate about politics or the law, but about education. He then asked me why I was majoring in PS, and I said I was interested in politics and I liked learning about it, but that I didn't like writing about it (something I got over--but not easily). That discussion stuck with me as I continued to ponder on what I would ever do with my degree. I credit my decision to teach to this one conversation, to his questioning of my plans for the future.

Prof. Legrand Richards--I took the class "Foundations of Education" at the advice of my advisor when I told her I wanted to go into education. By luck of the draw, I picked this class. We read some excellent literature and related it to education, and more importantly, teaching. The elementary education majors in this class with me were less than interested in the material, but for me it made a great impact. After going through the weekly readings I absolutely fell in love with the idea of being an educator.

Cougar Hall--He's the advisor for school health education majors, and taught the first health class I took: Sexual Education in the Curriculum. It was in the practicum class, though, that I took from him I got really excited to teach. I will be forever grateful for being introduced to The Education of Little Bear, and for the example he showed of the excitement he had for teaching. Not long ago he was a high school health teacher, and I was recently told by one of the individuals responsible for hiring him at BYU that he was the best teacher the principal at Timp High had ever seen in his 30+ years of experience. That really isn't that hard to believe. I hope I can do somewhere near as good a job as he has done in my years ahead.

Coach--My first inspiration to teach came from my dad, who has taught math for just over 20 years now. His worthiness of the Stole can be traced to his simple instruction to me as a child, "Be smart, don't fart." Such wisdom cannot be found in the lines of textbooks or even scripture. He always showed interest in my college education when I was studying political science, but since my switch to education, I've really had some good discussions about the wants and needs of the system. He has brought up many things that I want to look at and evaluate on a policy level and he has helped me grow even more interested in my ventures into education.

Courtney--When I didn't get an internship with the Utah State Legislature I looked long and hard at what I was going to do with my life and degree. I wanted to go into education policy, but after I had taken The Sociology of Education, I decided that I couldn't do so without teaching. Courtney, who had changed her graduation plans to meet mine so we would be done at the same time, was very supportive and even found the shortest teaching major for me to complete. She has been hard at work for the past year, allowing me to go to school without necessarily needing to work, and take 51 credits over the last year. I am so grateful for Courtney's help in coming to where I am today.

I guess this really turned into a 'who influenced me to be a teacher,' but that has been the motive of my education for the last two years. The work I have done in school is directly related to me wanting to teach and improve education, so anyone who influenced me in my desire to go into education is hereby a recipient of this blogStole.

The Real Blindside of Blindside

I recently saw the movie The Blindside and thought it was great. Loved the story, the football (the coaches, more specifically), loved it. Today in my professor's end of semester lecture she used a report on the real story of The Blindside to teach the importance of being resilient and dreaming big. When I saw this again, I really stopped to think about what really happened. A wealthy family saw a poor kid in their private school who had no parents or home and showed him the most Christlike love possible. This kid had a GPA of 0.4 when he was enrolled into the private school and could not participate in sports of any kind, much less feel competent enough to be at such a school.
What is the lesson that is being shown us in this movie? When we look past Sandra Bullock's blonde hair and the cute kid who portrays SJ we can see a bold reality in America's school system. Despite what the message of the movie seems to be, wealthy people want nothing to do with poor kids being in their schools. Lets face it, the really rich will put their kids in a private school protected from the children of parents of lesser socioeconomic status. Those who can't afford that make sure to buy a house in an affluent neighborhood where property taxes are good enough to make a school up to their standards. Those who can't afford such real estate settle for whatever they get.
There are other students like Michael. Maybe not all of them without a change of clothes, maybe not all of them homeless, maybe not all of them lacking parents or guardians, but they're still in rough shape and they're still in equally deserving need of love and kindness. They have just as much right to the opportunities a good education provides.
A more cynical account (my first reaction to this realization, actually) would remark that maybe if we put more poor/disadvantaged kids in private schools they could actually receive help from others, but until they are seen they do not exist. There is no more Christlike example of love than that which the Tuohy family exemplified in their kind gesture. What this movie tells me, however, is that no one will help if those needing help are not forced into their environment. And even then those who help will likely be ostracized/criticized/judged by others, just as Leigh Ann was in her lunch group. That's the cynical account.
I have calmed down since then, though, and found the root of the problem, and it's not in where we live. The wealthy can live in gated communities and send their kids to private schools, that's fine. The middle class can move into whatever subdivision/community they care for, that's fine. We can't go around blaming each other for the inequality and injustice that exists in the world/nation/education system--nobody feels good when they're being blamed for something and they're most likely to refuse to cooperate. The answer lies in how this movie made us feel and how the Tuohy's feel. Because this feeling about helping others is what lies beneath education policies and the people behind them.
Now don't get me wrong, there's not a policy in the world that will do what the Tuohy's did for Michael Oher--under these circumstances only the most charitable acts of kindness and love can resolve their unfortunate situation. In Michael's case, as in many others, what is needed most is a loving parent who cares for the child and motivates the child to excel in school and in life. Where parents are present but this attitude isn't, students are just as likely to fall through the cracks.
As you have probably correctly thought to yourself, What can we do to change a parent's attitude? Well, I'm sure programs are out there, and some of them may even work, but on the whole they probably aren't that effective. While I don't think we can make everyone's situation better overnight through education funding reform I do think that there are measures that can be taken to give children a less damning sentence when they walk into their first grade classroom. Say what you will, but funding for schools based on local property taxes has brought about 'Savage Inequalities" that are the "Shame of the Nation" to use the words of Jonathan Kozol. Starting kids off in low-quality schools represents a bleak future, no different than their situation at home, that will follow them for their entire life.
So yes, I'm calling for equal funding for schools on a state level. I know that the recipie for capitalism calls for some to win, some to lose, but must some be born to sing the blues? Blaming the parents gives us a scapegoat, but while goats make us feel more self-assured about ourselves the children remain disadvantaged. And a goat does nothing for a disadvantaged child.
I mentioned earlier that the answer lies in the way people felt as they watched the film. What people felt as they saw the kindness of the Tuohy's change Michael's life is not conducive to the founding priniciples of this country despite our open practice of capitalism and less-open history of corruption.
Giving children an equal shot at education certainly qualifies as an effort to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. 'We the people'-although written by the educated elite of a young America-does not strictly refer to them only. It refers to all of us and each other's posterity. It is unconcerned with the education level, socioeconomic status and first language of the parent. It is the root of the American Dream as first defined by James Truslow Adams as one's ability to succeed in "attaining the fullest stature of which (he) is innately capable, and be recognized for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous cirumstances of birth or position." This is the culture of America, and it is the driving force behind the idea of providing free, appropriate public education to every child in the nation. And if the government is going to provide a service to its people, it should do so if not with the intent of providing an equally good service to each individual, at least an equally funded one.
So there's the real Blindside. I enjoyed the beginning of the movie when Sandra Bullock walks you through LT ending Joe Theismann's career. Sooner or later the huge disparity in education is going to sack us, but who knows whent that will be. Until then we can look past it blaming the parents, teachers and curriculum.

The State of our Union aka Obama's Plans for the Country

It took him 7,390 words interrupted by 91 applauses and a dozen or so laughter breaks. That’s applause ever 739 words or so. Try watching your favourite TV show like that. Anyways, here is a long list of things he said and some ideas I had when I read them. No, I did not waste my time watching it. I read it and computed the information.
"The toughest (letters) to read are those written by children, asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work."
Simple answer: Not my fault; it’s the invisible hand of the economy leading us through the consequences of poor business practices
"For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough"
I can’t stand the entitlement generation
"They don't understand why... Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems."
That’s not how we roll in this Country. If the free market makes a mistake, the free market should fix it.
"It's time the American people get a government that matches their decency, that embodies their strength."
(APPLAUSE)
Applaud that? Do we really want/need a government that acts on every whim and fancy of the spoiled American people of the entitlement generation who know nothing about economics or fiscal or monetary policy? I submit a heck no.
"Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses."
(APPLAUSE) (7th)
When those working families finally will see the effects of those tax cuts, they won’t notice them or remember that Obama told them that he did it. Talking about tax cuts is stupid—for 20 years things have been pretty much the same (yes, ever since Reaganomics)
"The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act."
(APPLAUSE) (13th)
"That's right, the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill."
(APPLAUSE) (14th)
I’m glad he mentioned this, actually. At a time when the government looks absolutely stagnant, he reminds us that once upon a time they actually passed a bill and the measures of the bill were carried out, proving that when the government actually does pass a bill, those parts of the bill actually do come to pass.
"jobs must be our No. 1 focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight."
(APPLAUSE) (15th)
‘Oh yeah, I think a bill about jobs would be good, yeah, that’s a good idea. Whaddaya say, congress? You think that’s a good idea?’
"So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat."
(APPLAUSE) (18th)
‘Yeah, that money I talked about earlier that we recovered to pay for the bailout—let’s spend it. We’re already in a hole of debt that reaches to China (no joke), so no one even thinks we have a chance at recovering the budget deficit. If it gets too bad, we can fake a manned landing to Mars and borrow money from the Martian colony we discover’
"Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps."
(APPLAUSE) (25th)
But didn’t you just say you wanted one?
"People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay."
(APPLAUSE) (27th)
But you just said...
"But -- but the truth is, these steps won't make up for the 7 million jobs that we've lost over the last two years."
THEN WHY DO YOU WANT THEM IN THE JOBS BILL?
"You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China's not waiting to revamp its economy; Germany's not waiting; India's not waiting."
China’s also not doing anything about human rights and India’s not doing anything about ethnic violence and a class system that makes the people hurt worst in our recession look like the beneficiaries of a bull market. But you know, it’s all about priorities.
"These nations, they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.
Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America."
(APPLAUSE) (29th)
I honestly don’t think we’ve been playing for ‘second place,’ and you failed to mention which of these nations were in first, what they were in first of, and how being in first would raise our quality of life. But then again, if you said all of these things it would make for a very boring, yet extremely informative and relevant speech.
"Even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future, because the nation that leads the clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy, and America must be that nation."
(APPLAUSE) (36th)
This is true. Actually, come to think about it, it’s not the first time the government has scared people in one way or another in order to create a new market in the economy to spur growth and job creation. It’s actually a good idea. If I were counting good ideas, I’d be at what, 2, now? And people have clapped 36 times already?
"we need to export more of our goods.
(APPLAUSE) (37th)
"Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So...
(APPLAUSE) (38th)
"So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support 2 million jobs in America."
(APPLAUSE) (39th)
A bold goal, and trust me, this is something we’ll hang over his head this time next year when it’s not done. Why won’t it get done? STUPID SUBSIDIES FOR CORN AND SUGAR THAT WON’T GET REPEALED IN THE EFFORT TO INCREASE EXPORTS
"And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, and Panama, and Colombia."
(APPLAUSE) (42nd)
No one has a clue what he’s talking about. Any American who watches the Olympics or the World Cup hates the South Korea, and 25% of America think it’s the same as North Korea. 70% of Americans probably are wondering if he just legalized cocaine, too.
"In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education."
(APPLAUSE) (43rd)
The global average of years of educational instruction is 6.2 years. In the States we top the list at 12. In the latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science study, the United States ranks 9th in a study of 48 countries, although only five countries have a statistically higher score than us: Chinese Taipei, Rep. of Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan. Does the theory about education preventing poverty hold?
Per capita GDP (CIA factbook)
#17 US 46,900
#24 Singapore 39,500
#25 Japan 38,700
#29 Hong Kong 30,700
#40 South Korea 19,600
#43 Republic of China (Taiwan) 17,100
Granted there are other factors to this, we just got fed a crock.
"And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential."
But it doesn’t, it depends on how much the property around where you live is worth.
"To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants."
(APPLAUSE) (44th)
Students know it’s better to go to college. While a lot don’t go because they can’t afford it, I think most who think they can’t afford it don’t know that they can get help already. And let’s face it, kids hate school and think 12 years is enough and they need a ‘break’, but don’t know that the odds of going to college after taking a break is low.
"no one should go broke because they chose to go to college."
(APPLAUSE) (45th)
Well, no one should major in anthropology, English or organ performance.
"And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform."
(APPLAUSE) (47th)
Middle class families could probably afford health care if they A) lived within their needs B) didn’t smoke C) didn’t drink and D) got regular exercise. I recognize that it’s a problem for a lot of people who do these four things, too, but today’s middle class is quite stratified, maybe I refer to the upper middle class.
"But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.
(APPLAUSE) (52nd)
"Let me know. Let me know."
(APPLAUSE) (53rd)
Maybe the status quo is the best approach for a people who cringe at tax hikes and don’t like more equality-based (howbeit more bureaucratic) approaches such as those in Canada, Britain and France.
"Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit,"
BS. And everybody knows it, that’s why no one applauded.
"Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will."
(APPLAUSE) (58th)
BS. Show me a Congressperson who ever lived in a cash-strapped family that lived within a budget and I’ll show you a thousand Americans cash-strapped families that are that way because they don’t live within a budget.
"But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it."
(APPLAUSE) (60th)
So they won’t have any money to hire you.
"So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."
(APPLAUSE) (62nd)
An executive order to make a great leap forward? Who is this, Chairman Mao?
"That's why, for the first time in history, my administration posts our White House visitors online."
Well, whadday know, Michaele and Tareq Salahi...
"The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away."
Do they really?
"We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment, to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more."
(APPLAUSE) (91st)
There was a lot of rhetoric at the end. He should have said “Carpe diem!” and pointed his finger to the sky, then tapped two fingers over heart twice, touched his lips and given the peace sign. You know what this country needs? A home run chase! I know it’s tainted by steroids, but whatever, it was so exciting, and everybody got into it, and life was great. Steroids saved baseball, and they can save our country, too.

The Moral Dimensions of Teaching

I feel like I write too much about education, but on the other hand, I'd rather write about education than my other areas of interest. All the world needs is one more sports blogger. I'm not about to post up pages and pages of statistics and shock jock opinions about what happened in the Toronto-New Jersey basketball game last night. Every once and a while I will see the need to roast somebody, but that time is not right now. Similarly worthless is a political blog. Aren't there enough Hannitys and Coulters and Frankens and Limbaughs to make the world vomit already? Nobody should have to read that stuff when it's already filling the airwaves TV listings. But just like sports, every once and a while I'll see something that I feel inclined to write about. Another subject I could write about is my own life. I'm sure everyone who reads my blog would love to see pictures of me at ESPN's gameday when they came to Provo, Courtney and I going camping and our cat Spock donning the Cone of Shame following her declawing and spaying. As much as I'm sure about that, I'm not that sure of that, so I don't post it. (Not here, at least. I post albums on facebook, and I don't like doing it twice unless it's something really entertaining or important).
To be honest, what I write directly correlates with what I read (although correlation does not infer causation; I read a whole lot more than I write about, and you ought to be glad, what with all the comparative politics studies and adolescent development crap I've read this semester). Two weeks ago I picked up a great book from the Jerome library book sale for $1. It is titled 'The Moral Dimensions of Teaching," and caught my interest because the teacher education program at BYU teaches the importance of the moral dimensions of teaching. A few years ago this agency was going to deny accreditation to BYU''s teacher education program because they did not teach the moral dimensions of teaching as addressed by John Goodlad (the editor of this book). In a couple of months they scrounged together a plan that incorporated Goodlad's ideas and started educating future teachers in its ways. The result is S.A.N.E., BYU's version of Goodlad's teachings. S.A.N.E. stands for Stewardship, Access to knowledge, Nurturing Pedagogy, and Enculturating democracy. I was first taught this in my teaching class earlier this semester, but it came up on the first day of my second block teaching course (adolescent development). From then I could tell that it's pretty important, which is why I bought the book.
The book is a collection of chapters written by Goodlad and some of his buddies. I finished the first one earlier this week, written by Goodlad, titled 'The Occupation of Teaching in Schools.' The focus of this chapter is to describe teacher education and to identify the disconnect between teaching in the classroom, policymaking in the boardroom, and administrating in the Principal's office. At the end, he introduces the moral dimensions of teaching as necessary to describe the mission of teaching, and thus create a uniform basis of training teachers across the country.
The problem all began when a famous historian was hired by Harvard for an exorbitant salary, and he was allowed to not teach his first year at the university. From that point on universities became houses of research first, and education second. "By the 1980s," Goodlad wrote, "professors in these schools, if involved with future teachers at all, were more likely to be studying them than preparing them to teach." The conditions were rocky in the teacher-administrator relationship at this point, too. Before my great-grandpa Vern died in 1990, my father visited him on his deathbed. Coach recalls this about their conversation: "Grandpa Vern asked how teaching was going and I said fine. He responded with, 'Be sure to keep those damned administrators out of your classroom.'" The preparation for administrators in schools focused more on management techniques and less on education. However little the principal actually knew about education, it was generally assumed from the outside that they have authority in regard to the evaluation of teachers, when in fact, they knew very little about what goes on (or is supposed to go on) in a classroom. These administrators are the ones that go on to write the policy that outlines what should happen in the classroom. Luckily this is in most cases, not the situation of today. Most schools offering a masters of educational administration require at least three years of teaching, making for more prepared administrators founded in principles of teaching and education.
Goodlad mentions the appeal of teaching as a calling. He brings up examples of future teachers he interviewed who recalled disappointed parents, teachers trying to talk them out of it, and friends who think they're crazy. Many, however, described teaching as "exceedingly important and potentially satisfying--as a calling." According to Goodlad those who take upon themselves this calling--where good judgment and exceptional skill is involved in order to be effecient--must abide by a set of normative principles he calls the moral dimensions of teaching.
Enculturation: Educators must provide their students with "critical perspectives on the nature of democratic societies." As a poli sci nut, I couldn't agree more. This is necessary for the "induction of the young into our culture."
Access to Knowledge: Every young person deserves an equal shot at being educated. As much as many Americans believe this is actually carried out by our great nation, it is not, and to them I refer Jonothan Kozol's Shame of a Nation or Savage Inequalities. "Opportunities to gain access to the most generally useful knowledge are maldistributed in most schools, with poor and minority children and youths on the short end of the distribution." How could this be the case? "Casual, misguided, decisions with regard to grouping and tracking students, apportioning the domains of knowledge and knowing in the curriculum, allocating daily and weekly instructional time, scheduling, and other practices often distribute access to knowledge unfairly and inequitably." Teachers carry the responsibility of recognizing programs that do this within the school and standing up for the fair and equitable distribution of access to knowledge.
The Teacher and the Taught: Teachers must realize that their students are in a compulsory setting and that they did not choose to be there. Anything we can do as teachers to bring the subjects we teach into the students' realm of importance will give them more motivation to succeed. Students are only motivated in the core subjects (English, mathematics, social studies and sciences) when they aspire to more schooling. Teachers must be focused on making the subject matter important for the individual.
Renewing School Settings: There is an overwhelming trend in the nation calling for reform in schools and requiring results. When positive results of one reform aren't seen immediately, another reform is enacted to "fix the problem." Goodlad says, "If schools are to become the responsive, renewing institutions that they must, the teachers in them must be purposefully engaged in the renewal process...'School renewal' becomes a nonevent, one more in the cycle of nonevents that characterize the school improvement enterprise.
More teacher involvement in the reform/renewal process requires more time. "Teachers employed for 180 days and required to teach 180 days simply will not renew their schools. It is ludicrous and self-deceiving to believe that they will. Further, such an expectation borders on the immoral. The answer...is 180 days of teaching and 20 or more additional days of institutional renewal. We can begin to look seriously at teaching as a profession when it no longer is a part-time job. Teaching will become a full-time occupation when the public sees the need for it." Nationwide reforms will not provide all the answers for every single school because the contextual factors for every school are different. It is up to the teachers to provide insight into how the school should adjust to best meet the needs of the school's unique conglomeration of students--not some suit in DC. Any teacher could tell you this is true, yet, like Goodlad said, to ask teachers to effectively do this in the amount of time their given every year is more than slightly ridiculous.
The opening chapter provided an excellent hook for me, and I hope the rest of the book is as good as this.

Watching for Credits

I'm taking some fairly interesting classes this semester, including Human Biology and Theories of Comparative Politics, but the first half of this semester (now coming to a close) I've spent an exceptional amount of time for one class in particular--Exploration of Teaching. For two weeks we met in class every day and talked about what we like about the idea of teaching as a career and things we would have to do as health teachers. We read from a really good textbook written by our professor and her husband and watched Cipher in the Snow (sooooooo depressing, yet somewhat necessary for people who are going to work with children). Then everyone in the class was assigned two schools in Utah valley to go to and observe the health teachers. For the past month I've been to American Fork High School and Springville Junior High School watching a couple of teachers from different sides of the spectrum teach health and love doing it. It may seem silly to have a class where all you do is watch someone teach, but I learned more about teaching in these five weeks than I did in my Sociology of Education and Foundations of Education classes combined...okay, I don't know if that's exactly true, because I absolutely LOVED going to those two classes and doing my work for them, but I have learned more about teaching in the classroom watching someone teach than reading about the sociology of education or discussing the foundations of education.
American Fork High School is a very impressive high school. They have lots of technological resources and lots of money and a new looking school. The health teacher, Anne Johnson, has been there for 42 years. The students like her class and respect her. She showed me a file cabinet filled with folders of stuff she's used over the past 40 years to teach health, all organized in folders for every lesson of the year. And the first pages in every folder are prints of power point presentations she has made and presents for each lesson. As much as I got tired of the blonde jokes she told at the start of every class, she does a good job with those kids, and I hope that I can still love to teach just for the interaction with the students like she does when I'm her age.
Springville Junior High is an old building with an old intercom system and probably some asbestos. Teachers still had access to technology, though, and all classes are electronically connected so teachers can actually help students study what they need to during their advocacy period. Ryan Chambers played outfield and pitcher for BYU and did some time in the minors pitching in the Cubs' organization in 2005 before coming back to Utah to teach health. He's in the process of getting a masters in sports conditioning and performance online from SUU. It's his first year in junior high after three at Payson High School, and he loves how much more excited the kids are to learn at this age. He has the kids work on activities making brochures and pamphelets to internalize the information. His favorite part as well is the interaction with the students.
Both Ryan and Anne are excited to be teaching. Anne after 42 years and Ryan after spending a summer with Single-A Boise, and being lights out in rookie league. I hope that I will have no regrets when I start teaching; that I can be as excited as Ryan and Anne about what I'm doing. I wish that I could watch all of the health teachers in the Utah valley and see what I like and dislike about each of them so I can shape my teaching style even better. A year from now I'll be in the classroom, by myself, everyday, teaching health to young people; I feel too far away from being adequate to teach to be this close to needing to be ready, but I guess I don't have any say in when the time comes, only in my level of preparedness.

Good Idea, Bad Idea

What is the purpose of education in America? What are we trying to do? I tried to find a clear cut goal for our educating young minds on the U.S. Department of Education web page and had some difficulty. From what I gathered, we promote educational excellence for all Americans. Finally I found the strategic plan for 2007 through 2012 which declares as their mission statement, “to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” That’s a big mission. To accomplish this monumental task, they developed three goals:
==>Improve student achievement, with a focus on bringing all students to grade level in reading and mathematics by 2014.
==>Increase the academic achievement of all high school students.
==>Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning.

The goals are followed by four or five objective, and each objective is followed with four or five strategies, following the strategic planning matrix used in the field of public relations. These are some good goals, good objectives, and they include many well-planned strategies, too. I’m not sure enough people know that this is the plan the country has for educating our children. Maybe they should work out a marketing strategy, too. The main character in our reading this week covered it all. The mission statement: “His whole education and training must be ordered as to give him the conviction that he is absolutely superior to others.” This man did not solely desire a competent, well-trained and educated country, he wanted the best, and he wanted his people to realize that they were the best. In this sense, he supports a magnanimous people, a people who have gained all the best virtues, and by so doing have gained Aristotle’s ‘crowning virtue’--magnanimity. Now, what are some of the goals he had to complete his mission?

1)“The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated.” Here we see the adherence to the all important advice to clean the inner vessel first. If the children we educate are greater than those of any country, we must purge our system of any outside influence perverting the minds of our children. There is no doubt the United States is working on this right now, but to the erroneous extent of depriving its children knowledge of the outside world from which the United States is isolated and to which is superior (specifically Europe and anywhere else outside the country where newsworthy events occur).

2) “Obedience is praised as a virtue.” Is there anything as true as this? The number one rule to life is really blind obedience to the talking heads that, in return, will grant you all that you could ever ask for. Degrees, certification, licensure, promotion, money, glory, laud and honor. All this can be anybody’s--it’s an equal opportunity system, only different than the U.S., because instead of just being a mandatory path, it’s the only path, and the what’s available at the end of the rainbow is actually good enough to motivate students to perform.

3) “This folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work primarily to the inculcation of mere knowledge, but to the breeding of absolute healthy bodies. The training of mental abilities is only secondary.” Absolute healthy bodies? This isn’t a plan to produce a bunch of obese computer techs and realtors, it’s a plan to edify the entire body, mind and spirit. The healthier a people, the more work they can accomplish, the less need for state health care, the greater ability to produce, and most importantly, the greater GDP. The United States may want to jump on the bandwagon with this mentality before as a people we’re too overweight to hop.

4) “It (the state) must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people.” He further claims that only the healthy (body, mind, and soul, remember), those troubled by sickness and deficiencies should bring children into the world, and that the highest honor is to renounce bringing impure children into this world. Each child is the absolute most important thing brought into the country each day. Babies have the greatest potential to learn and grow of all of the living things on earth. Every newcomer to earth deserves to have the best given to them; they deserve tender love and care to become truly magnanimous, not handicapping circumstances that prevents the state from reaching its great potential. Children shouldn’t be disadvantaged before they take their first breath by coming to parents and a state education system that is ill-prepared to serve the needs of the child’s body, mind and spirit. What if we treated every child this way. What if the living circumstance into which they were born didn’t define them? What if we could actually put faith into our educational system to produce model human beings? It’s a long shot, but I’m not sure we’re exactly on that path right now, and we might want to think about it.

These types of ideas certainly have potential for the greater good of society and an amazing education system that’s sure to produce similar results to those we want to see here in the states. The creator of such a plan?

No other than Adolf Hitler, who will always be remembered as ‘the incarnation of absolute evil.’ The man Elie Wiesel of Boston University said ‘thought to reign by selling the soul of his people to the thousand demons of hate and of death.’ His plans were to create a clearly superior people through the elimination of anyone and everything different, through the objectives I mentioned. It was a great plan for the education of his drone population, but they went on to carry out the evils of his cold, black heart. His system inspired masses of people to commit heinous crimes of humanity against another people solely on the basis of their differences.

Good Idea: Educate our children to be the best in the world

Bad Idea: Educate our children to believe others in the world are weaker because they are different

Good Idea: Eliminate feelings of incompetence instill feelings of self-worth and confidence

Bad Idea: Eliminate an entire race because they are different

A system that produces mindless, heartless drones of evil should not be the recipient of any praise whatsoever…but someone’s got to consider the amazing effectiveness of their training. An education can be great, but it must be accompanied by the right reasons. A Jewish survivor said, “"My eyes saw what no person should witness. Gas chambers built by learned engineers. Children poisoned by educated physicians. Infants killed by trained nurses. Women and babies shot and killed by high school and college graduates. So I’m suspicious of education.” If we use our wisdom for evil purposes, if we become magnanimous only to trample underfoot others who we deem as lesser individuals and peoples just for being different, something has gone horribly wrong. “Reading and writing,” continued the survivor, “and spelling and history and arithmetic are important only if they serve to make our students human.”

Who Gets the Credit, and Why Do We Care?

That’s the big question that all of Goethe’s writings led me to ask. I’ll start with some words from the ungrateful Prometheus as he cried to the heavens. “Was I not forged into a man, by all-powerful time/And eternal fate, my masters and yours?” He argues the same to Zeus that many atheists of our day argue to believers. God didn’t make me who I am today, he didn’t help me at all. I got here because of me. I am a product of my experience over time. The fate of the year molded this great edifice of a mortal. Things teachers teach will be forgotten. At one point or another we will believe we have taught ourselves things that were shown to us in classrooms by underpaid teachers in underfinanced schools. No one wants to remember those days, and so the teachers and the skills they taught become part of their own developing mind that evolved into its end product with no help from any outside source.
Goethe’s Faust also leads us into some interesting questions concerning the value of teaching. Here’s a man who is widely acclaimed as a learned professor, and yet he turns to the devil for some help. He’s done so much, but doesn’t seem like he’s done too much. Possibly because he hasn’t gone anywhere. My family lived in Linden, California for sixteen years. My father taught in the same portable classroom at Waterloo Middle School from 1991 to 2005, when he went to the high school. Having seen the before and after, the classroom looked exactly the same. The same posters of Michael Jordon, Mike Gallego and Mike Bordick and Dennis Eckersley that he posted when he got there were on the walls when he left. Some teachers don’t see more than one city, school, or classroom their entire careers. Yet young people come in and go out their doors every year, and all teachers can hope for is that they made a difference. On occasion they see an end product, but often they don’t. Without ever knowing what you’ve done to help, depression can verily easily creep up on you. The devil can drop in, and as Faust said, “The worst company will let you find that you’re a man among mankind.” In other words, the Faust had a pity party with the devil, and the phrase “I’m just a teacher and I don’t make a difference” throbbed in Faust’s head enough for him to throw in the towel.
When teachers feel like stepping down from their pulpit in self-pity and depression students don’t remember an effective, motivating, invigorating teacher who helped them become a better person, they remember a talking head who held up hoops through which students jumped and found loopholes to get around. Some of these students are not ruined by a sub-par education, however. They become professionals in law, business, health and the bureaucracy, and live very successful lifestyles. When they get there, they don’t remember an accomplished, wise teacher, they remember someone who’s still in the same portable classroom that they taught in fifteen years ago. To me, this is the saddest thing, and one that has affected me in my own life. People around me are going into careers in law, engineering, landscaping, business and forest rangering, and I’m going to be a teacher. I have always had a desire to teach, even though I danced around it forever before finally settling down right where I always wanted to be. These friends of mine will have grander “success”, perhaps, in the world, and live in nicer houses and drive more expensive cars and go on extravagant vacations, and I’ll love being a teacher, living somewhere around the poverty line and babysitting the teenagers of the entitlement generation and dealing with their whacked parents in a crackpot education system. That could get depressing at some point, so why do I want to do it?
People in other professions look for jobs where coworkers are competent and hardworking, the working environment is comfortable, and the company is profitable and well organized. Teaching won’t always be like that, and that’s something you realize when you decide that teaching is what you want to do. For a while I would tell people that I planned on going to grad school and studying education policy, but the more I thought about it, the more I didn’t want those jobs. I love statistical research and analysis, but I don’t really want to be that distanced from the front lines. I want to teach and at some point go into administration, really find ways that work and put them to use. I guess the paycheck never worked as my motivation, but a worthwhile challenge that I believe in is worth working on--even if the payout isn’t that great.
In conclusion I refer back to the words of Prometheus. “Here I sit, shaping man, after my image…To rejoice and be glad, and like myself/To have no regard for you!” Goethe hit it right on the spot. Faust and Prometheus worked for the wrong reasons. Maybe Faust should have gone into a more lucrative profession if he was going to dismiss God as the fount of all knowledge and give himself all the credit. If we don’t give credit where it’s due, we’ll be very surprised that day when we think we deserve it and we don’t get any either.