This morning, while driving to work, I listened to the Glen Beck show. He had a guest host who was crowing about the Winsconsin scenario. The host had nothing but contempt for unions; there was no good aspect to them. He made the oft heard argument that, if one is going to bargain for one's wages and working conditions, you need to to do this solo. It is unfair to an employer to have any kind of group bargaining.
Of course, this would be of extreme benefit for an employer. The host used his own situation as an example. When he argues his worth, he points to the amount of money he brings into to the company. In his situation however, there is a one for one corolation. In job positions that hire en masse, it is a different story. I, for example, cannot point to how much money I bring in to the company.
The host felt that collective bargaining puts the employer "over a barrel". While I don't think anyone should be put in a postion of powerlessness, it is clear in history that prior to Unions workers were regularly "put over a barrel."
To me, it is always about balance. Employers have a natural position of power that would allow them to abuse individual workers when the work force is hired en masse. Without a union, individual workers are often helpless.
This is just the natural tendency of those in power (whomever is holding the reigns). There is a story in the Old Testament that often gets missed. King David commits adultrey and the prophet Nathan comes to tell him a story to convict him. Because of the sex involved, we tend to get distracted from the economic tale. Basically Nathan tells of a rich man who owns countless flocks of sheep and a poor man who has only one. The rich man has a guest and, rather than killing a lamb from his own flock for dinner, he uses his power to take from the man who has only one lamb.
As the cartoon from Pat Bagley shows, it is often the case that if there is going to be someone dealing with less, it will be the person with little, not the person with plenty. The vast amount of our nation's wealth sits in comparitively few hands. The hundreds of millions who are left to divide the remaining amount are the ones who are being asked to function with less. Our lamb will be taken so the rich man does not need to touch his myriad of flocks.
Unfortunately, through the use of religion and politics, the rich in America have managed to get the middle class chaffing at each other. The middle class is fighting over singular sheep, and during our squabbles, the rich take from ours to expand their oceans of flocks. Do you think that is an unfair analogy? Do a google search under cooperate profits, CEO wages and bonuses over the past 25 years.... then compare that to increases in worker wages and benefits. While their's goes up, workers go down. But don't mention this or talk about it - Rush and Sean will accuse you of class warfare - and that sends all the middle class dittoheads scurrying for cover.
The truth is, there is class warfare. Like I said, I want balance. I don't want anyone over a barrel; but the middle class better start protecting themselves. As billionare Warren Buffet said:
"'There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
I was listening to the radio last week and the commentator was talking about the "bad teachers" in inner-city schools. He had recently seen "Waiting for Superman" (which I haven't seen). He went on and on about teacher's unions protecting all the clock-punching bad teachers infesting our poorest performing schools.
I teach at an inner-city school. I am sure it is nothing quite as rough as a Chicago, DC, or Detroit; but we have our issues. From my experience, let me offer a picture.
I am in my seventh year here (after teaching 13 years in wealthier areas) and there are now only two teachers in my building who have been here longer than I have. In my previous building, after 11 years, I was only about mid-way up the seniority ladder. Around here, I am one of the old-timers! Since starting here, I have had 6 different teaching partners.
When I ask my students how many of them have been here since kindergarten, less than a third raise their hands. For those students who have been here from the beginning, few of their former teachers are still teaching here. During the six years that the students have moved up the ranks, the staff has almost completely turned over - twice.
It seems to me that getting rid of bad teachers is not our core problem. The tricky part is getting ANY teacher to stay!
The Whipping Boy is the story of a boy who is selected to be punished for the misbehaviors of a spoiled Prince. Since it is forbidden for anyone to lay a hand on the Prince, it is assumed that punishing another child for the Prince's misbehaviors will somehow translate to better behavior on the part of the Prince.
________________
I teach 6th grade at a Title One inner-city school. As I sat listening to my students' end of the year orchestra performance, I was struck by the contrast with a similar performance I had heard the previous week. My daughter is also a 6th grade student and, although she is homeschooled, she attends orchestra classes at the the local public school each week.
What struck me was the sharp difference between the proficiency of my students when compared with my daughter's class. For the most part, the skill level of my students was significantly less. In fact, a number of my students sat there randomly fingering their instruments, trying to blend in with the scenery.
As I sat there pondering the differences in the two recitals, my mind was drawn back to a conversation I had earlier in the week with one of our district ESL (English as a Second Language) coordinators. She was asking me what I believed teachers could do to close the gap between our East and West side schools. Our East side schools are primarily affluent and educated, while our West side schools are mostly poor with minimal education.
I have been in these meetings many times since coming to work for a Title One school. The common theme is that they are looking for some teaching method, some curriculum, some approach the school can take to make this gap disappear. The questioners get frustrated with me because I am always the downer in the conversation.
I tell them the truth.
What they are wanting is a gimmick, some quick fix that we can offer that will make the gap fade away. However, I always compare it to weight loss. There are two ways, and only two ways, to truly lose weight - you have to burn off more calories or eat less of them. Any solution that does not use one of those approaches will end in failure.
As I sat there watching my students play, it was apparent to me where the difference resided and what accounted for the gap in skill level. Simply stated, it is practice. I know my daughter practices her violin almost every day. I know many of my daughter's friends, and they also regularly practice their instruments. However, the vast majority of my students never pick up their instruments, except during music class. The instruments remain stashed in lockers or in the back of classrooms. Theoretically, it should be apparent to anyone reading this why one group of students is proficient and the other is not.
Still, this obvious reason eludes many people in the public, legislatures, and school district personnel. They remain convinced that if the music teacher taught differently, or more, or better; that the skill level gap would just fade away. In my meeting earlier in the week, every time I started to articulate what the students and parents would need to do for the student to be successful, the coordinator would cut me off. I finally said, "What you are looking for is a teaching approach that will work - without requiring that the student actually DO anything!"
That is what it ultimately comes down to. All of the solutions talked about in the public right now require nothing of the student and family and therefore, like diet gimmicks, will produce no real change. Let's take a look at them:
Getting rid of teacher's unions
Firing bad teachers
Lengthening the school day/year
Changing the curriculum/teaching approach
I submit that the largest reason for the gap between the skill level of my daughter's class and mine is student/family commitment. Which one of the reasons above would affect that? Would strangling the Union get the kids to practice more? Would more lesson time, or a different approach, or a different teacher change that lack of practice outside of class?
Solutions that do not require anything from the student/family WILL end in failure.
Now I am aware that my daughter has a million and one advantages that my students do not tend to have. However, that does not change the core reason for the difference in performance. President Obama, our state legislators, or the public in general applying more and more pressure on teachers is not solving anything. I have only been at my Title One school for 6 years and nearly the entire staff has turned over in that time. I don't believe teachers shy away from a challenge or high expectations; but being held accountable for things outside your power is draining. It isn't long before our Title One teachers move to safer schools or out of the profession altogether.... and I KNOW that is not benefiting my students.
I think there are a lot of challenges that need to be addressed in the American public school system. However, making teachers the national whipping boy is keeping us from looking for honest solutions.
Newsweek recently parroted a thought that politicians love to hear: The reason America's schools do poorly is because we have bad teachers. This makes politicians happy because it means they can continue to do nothing about education; all they have to do is say a lot of negative things about teacher's unions. Once accomplished, their work on the issue is done.
Newsweek makes a bold statement in saying that the number one factor in the educational success of a child is the teacher. There are myriads of studies that refute that, but to be honest, we can find a study to back up almost any proposition we like. So let me bring this down to a personal level.
I have been teaching for over 19 years. My first two teaching jobs were at highly advantaged schools. My previous 6 years have been at an inner-city, Title One (poverty) school.
Let's assume the Newsweek proposition is correct: I am the single largest factor in the success or failure of my students. If I am a good teacher, wherever I go my students should be successful. If I am a poor teacher, wherever I go my students should do poorly.
When I taught at advantaged schools, my students regularly scored amongst some of the highest in the nation. Year after year they performed excellently on state standardized tests.
Now that I teach at a disadvantaged school, my students usually score below the minimum requirement on state testing.
Now remember, I am the lynch pin factor. If I am a good teacher, regardless of environment, my kids should do well. If I am a poor teacher, regardless of environment, my students will do poorly.
But am I the causal factor?
If I were conducting this scenario as a science experiment with my students, the first thing I would ask them is: Did we control the variables? Are there other variables that could be affecting the outcome?
Since I have taught in both environments, I can speak to those variables. In advantaged schools, most parents are highly educated; in disadvantaged they are not. Advantaged schools have scores of volunteers; disadvantaged schools do not. The students of advantaged schools start kindergarten 10 times richer in vocabulary than their disadvantaged counterparts – that gap widens exponentially with every year that passes. The children of advantaged families have more opportunities for learning outside the home due to larger disposable funds and higher parent interest. In advantaged homes there is money for tutors and specialists. In advantaged homes, parents are more equipped to help with homework. In advantaged homes there is better nutrition and they are more likely to have set bedtimes and routines. The list can go on and on.
Let me give one example from the article where Newsweek did not control for their variables. In the article they state:
"Generally operating outside of school bureaucracies as charter schools, programs like KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) have produced inner-city schools with high graduation rates (85 percent). KIPP schools don't cherry-pick—they take anyone who will sign a contract to play by the rules, which require some parental involvement. And they are not one-shot wonders. There are now 82 KIPP schools in 19 states and the District of Columbia, and, routinely, they far outperform the local public schools. KIPP schools are mercifully free of red tape and bureaucratic rules (their motto is "Work hard. Be nice," which about sums up the classroom requirements). KIPP schools require longer school days and a longer school year, but their greatest advantage is better teaching."
But their greatest advantage is better teaching?!
Did anyone spot a rather large variable in the middle of the paragraph? Though Newsweek states that KIPP schools do not cherry-pick amongst applicants, students and parents must sign contracts stating that student will follow the rules and that parents must be involved. Those simple requirements completely change the dynamic of who will attend that school. It only takes a handful of students who do not want to be educated to anchor a classroom. Also, Newsweek makes no mention of what happens to those students and parents who fail to follow through on their commitments. KIPP seems to have options that the public schools do not have - students may be shown the door.
I would say that Newsweek did a poor job on their Science Report. Stay after school and redo it.
Last year I wrote an article about why I believe inner-city schools score more poorly than their suburban counterparts. In the article, I referenced President Bush who said he wanted to "liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools".
Now, a year later, I find President Obama is continuing to spread the ill-conceived notion that inner city schools are to blame for the educational outcomes of the kids they serve. In his state of the union address, President Obama declared that he wanted to turn "around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans!"
Stealing the future of young Americans?!! Gee, I didn't realize that was what I was doing!
As one who has taught both the wealthy and the poor, I can testify that the inner-city teachers of America's schools are not stealing anything from anybody. They pour their lives daily into children who have every disadvantage. They work hard against incredible odds, trying to beat a system that is designed to work against them. Many of the kids they serve are dealing with constant chaos at home, where their studies are not even considered. These teachers often work in communities that do not know how to support them, with legislators who are hostile to them, and with a president who insults them.
Yet when the kids walk in the classroom door, some who have been wearing the same clothes all week, they set all those realities aside and smile. Today, the teacher will again teach all that he or she can.
Last month, I wrote a commentary about President Obama's thoughts that we, as a nation, should consider lengthening our school day and year. I spoke from a parent's perspective, since I have two elementary age children.
Now I want to look at it from a teacher's point of view. I have been teaching elementary school for 18 years and have taught to the very wealthy and the very poor. I am against adding time to our day and year. I truly feel there would be nothing to be gained by increasing our children's time in school. TIME is not really our issue. Most time in school is not being used efficiently; so to add more inefficiently used time will not provide any real growth.
In order for a student to progress at a good pace, I believe they need three things:
A teacher who is competent in the subject matter
Pre-requisite skills for the learning that is taking place
A commitment by the student and/or parent(s) to learn the material
Most school reform movements will address my first item, but you will NEVER hear anything about the other two. Worse yet, most school reform believes that changing the structure of the day, or the curriculum, or how we house children, or how we assess or deliver instruction will be the key. I have watched for 19 years as legislators, districts, and school boards have tweaked these items... it never delivers.
The reality is, most teachers are competent to teach their class. As much as the anti-unionists would have us believe there are scores of clock-punching lazy teachers being protected by unions, it simply isn't the case... and teachers are certainly not what is driving the condition of our schools.
I believe our largest failing pertains to pre-requisite skills. The truth is that up to two-thirds of the students in a given classroom do not belong there. The subject matter is simply too advanced or too easy for the student.
In an inner-city environment, such as I teach in now, the subject matter is too advanced. But in American schools we have a "ready-or-not, here-you-go" view of class advancement. Whether or not a student has the skills in place to move on... we move them on. Students are placed by age, rather than what skill they are ready to acquire. I have used this example before, but it would be like if I wanted to switch careers and decided to go to medical school. The registrar at the University looks at me and says, "Well, normally we would put you on a pre-med schedule to get in your sciences.... but if we did that, you would be in class with a bunch of twenty year-olds. You look like you are about 40, so why don't we put you in 2nd year medical school ... that way you would be in with classmates closer to your own age." To be on a class track that I am completely unprepared for could not be more demoralizing.
Consider also what it would be like for the professor, trying to teach surgical skills to folks who failed Biology 101 or couldn't stand the sight of blood... along with students who were ready to move on to their next year of medical school. Does that sound chaotic and wrong? In my class I have an even spread of Harry Potter readers, down to See Spot Run. My students are expected to be taught, and later tested on, the division/conversion/and reduction of mixed numbers - yet many struggle to add 13 and 7 in their head.
Anti public education folks will often point to studies that show that our students do worse the longer they are in the system. I believe this is because of our determination to advance kids by their age rather than their readiness.
I believe this also has a negative effect on my third category - student commitment. The longer a student, who is not ready, gets pushed to higher and higher levels... the more their commitment wanes. This of course brings out the misbehavior that is more and more prevalent in our classrooms. How frustrating it is to be pushed on to the next level, when you felt completely helpless in the previous one.
There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way we approach education in our schools. Simply lengthening the time in a bad system will only increase everyone's level of frustration.
The first Labor Day was celebrated in 1882. Labor unions are as much needed today as ever. They were created to protect workers from corporate abuses. If anyone feels that times are different now and that unions are no longer needed, one need only look at the sweatshops that have been created by American companies that have moved off shore. Out from under American laws that were crafted due to unions, American companies often revert back to horrid and oppresive working conditions for workers.
There is this great scene in A Bug's Life, when the ants realize for the first time that they are not powerless against the grasshoppers when they stand together. The grasshoppers don't like having to face the group... they would rather deal with one ant at a time. When I hear managers and buisnesses complain about Unions, I realize they are a grasshopper who would rather only have to deal with one ant at a time.
Not that Unions always play fair when they have the upper hand. Abuses can occur on both sides. Balance must be maintained as best as possible.
So on this Labor Day, I am thankful for unions. History shows why they are needed, and history is forever repeating itself.
I chose to read this book because I wanted to read something about curbing consumerism from a Christian perspective. Saying "Enough!" is something most of the Church has been silent on- or has proclaimed the exact opposite. Many of the church circles I traveled in growing up were very encouraging of the accumulation of stuff... it was a sign of God's favor.
I highly believe that, because Christianism has been largely silent on consumerism, God has had to seek out agnostics like Rev. Billy to get a message of contentment out to the world. So, I am glad to see that the Claibornes, Wallises,Sojourners,... and the Will Samsons, are getting a voice in the Christian subculture. Christianity needs to have a counter culture, not a parallel one.
Samson proceeds early on from a personal foundational statement:
I had two Volvos, three kids, and a five-thousand square foot house. Everything was coming up sevens. But, like a consistent majority of Americans, I did not feel content with the dream.
I related to this because 5 years ago, I made twice the money and had twice the house that I do now. However, now I am content, and then I was not. Contentment does not come with possessions. I had to downsize to learn that.
He observes that:
Most, I would guess, had more material wealth than their grandparents could have imagined possible. Yet for the majority it was not enough. It seemed they would never be satisfied.
He goes on to say:
Something deep within us, from time immemorial, causes us to want what we do not have.
He makes the case throughout the book that it is our consumerism and bottomless desire for commodities that undercuts our ability to develop community. Neighborhoods never truly form when people are working endlessly to acquire more so they can move to a bigger house somewhere else. And while we grasp to get more and find our selves increasingly empty, the church, for the most part, has offered no alternative.
Here are some other quotes from the book that caught my attention:
When we use energy without thought of consequence it seems that we are making one of two theological statements. Either we believe that the resources of creation are given to us without concern for their stewardship, or we believe that God is unconcerned with how we use the resources we have been given. Neither of those views seems consistent with what we can learn about God from Scripture or the tradition of the church.
I wonder if those who benefited financially from predicting the soon destruction of the world, and then used that money to build things in that world, might cause some to question their message.
Study after study shows that the average Christian in America is statistically indistinguishable from someone of another faith, or of no faith. The culture seem to have an attitude of "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die," and we join in the party. But is this the correct posture for a follower of Jesus?
Too many of us who were raised as "Bible-believing Christians" have often approached scripture to affirm the things we wish to be against and to provide permission for the things we wish to do...Christians are just as likely to carry higher loads of debt, buy bigger homes than they need, and load those homes up with all manner of useless stuff.
Samson weaves the Eucharist and its metaphor throughout the book. If the book has one Achilles Heel, this is it. Not that I do not consider it important, but if your tradition did not teach this well or you do not connect here, you miss a fair amount of his emphasis.
For myself, I grew up in a church where 200 people drank out of a common communion cup. It took me years after leaving to overcome a subtle nausea every time I took communion. :)
No surprise, but I think Obama clearly outshone McCain. It seemed that with most questions, Obama told the American people what he was going to do, whereas McCain spent his time trying to make us afraid to vote for Obama. I guess the polls will tell us over the next few days how well McCain's approach worked.
I think McCain's worst misstep was to go back to the Ayers issue after Obama had detailed what their relationship was. I think it made McCain sound very small.
I think both candidates showed their lack of knowledge on what really troubles American education. Obama gave a tag at the end, while McCain said nothing, but neither addressed what is really holding us back. As long as we keep spinning around merit pay, vouchers, unions, curriculum, standards, accountability - blah, blah, blah - we will see no change. If you want to see this teacher's commentary on the educational system, click here.
My wife and I just got done watching Michelle give an outstanding speech at the DNC. What a great first lady she is going to be!
Here is the prepared text for her speech:
As you might imagine, for Barack, running for President is nothing compared to that first game of basketball with my brother Craig.
I can't tell you how much it means to have Craig and my mom here tonight. Like Craig, I can feel my dad looking down on us, just as I've felt his presence in every grace-filled moment of my life.
At six-foot-six, I've often felt like Craig was looking down on me too...literally. But the truth is, both when we were kids and today, he wasn't looking down on me - he was watching over me.
And he's been there for me every step of the way since that clear February day 19 months ago, when - with little more than our faith in each other and a hunger for change - we joined my husband, Barack Obama, on the improbable journey that's brought us to this moment.
But each of us also comes here tonight by way of our own improbable journey.
I come here tonight as a sister, blessed with a brother who is my mentor, my protector and my lifelong friend.
I come here as a wife who loves my husband and believes he will be an extraordinary president.
I come here as a Mom whose girls are the heart of my heart and the center of my world - they're the first thing I think about when I wake up in the morning, and the last thing I think about when I go to bed at night. Their future - and all our children's future - is my stake in this election.
And I come here as a daughter - raised on the South Side of Chicago by a father who was a blue collar city worker, and a mother who stayed at home with my brother and me. My mother's love has always been a sustaining force for our family, and one of my greatest joys is seeing her integrity, her compassion, and her intelligence reflected in my own daughters.
My Dad was our rock. Although he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in his early thirties, he was our provider, our champion, our hero. As he got sicker, it got harder for him to walk, it took him longer to get dressed in the morning. But if he was in pain, he never let on. He never stopped smiling and laughing - even while struggling to button his shirt, even while using two canes to get himself across the room to give my Mom a kiss. He just woke up a little earlier, and worked a little harder.
He and my mom poured everything they had into me and Craig. It was the greatest gift a child can receive: never doubting for a single minute that you're loved, and cherished, and have a place in this world. And thanks to their faith and hard work, we both were able to go on to college. So I know firsthand from their lives - and mine - that the American Dream endures.
And you know, what struck me when I first met Barack was that even though he had this funny name, even though he'd grown up all the way across the continent in Hawaii, his family was so much like mine. He was raised by grandparents who were working class folks just like my parents, and by a single mother who struggled to pay the bills just like we did. Like my family, they scrimped and saved so that he could have opportunities they never had themselves. And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't agree with them.
And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children - and all children in this nation - to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.
And as our friendship grew, and I learned more about Barack, he introduced me to the work he'd done when he first moved to Chicago after college. Instead of heading to Wall Street, Barack had gone to work in neighborhoods devastated when steel plants shut down, and jobs dried up. And he'd been invited back to speak to people from those neighborhoods about how to rebuild their community.
The people gathered together that day were ordinary folks doing the best they could to build a good life. They were parents living paycheck to paycheck; grandparents trying to get by on a fixed income; men frustrated that they couldn't support their families after their jobs disappeared. Those folks weren't asking for a handout or a shortcut. They were ready to work - they wanted to contribute. They believed - like you and I believe - that America should be a place where you can make it if you try.
Barack stood up that day, and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about "The world as it is" and "The world as it should be." And he said that all too often, we accept the distance between the two, and settle for the world as it is - even when it doesn't reflect our values and aspirations. But he reminded us that we know what our world should look like. We know what fairness and justice and opportunity look like. And he urged us to believe in ourselves - to find the strength within ourselves to strive for the world as it should be. And isn't that the great American story?
It's the story of men and women gathered in churches and union halls, in town squares and high school gyms - people who stood up and marched and risked everything they had - refusing to settle, determined to mold our future into the shape of our ideals.
It is because of their will and determination that this week, we celebrate two anniversaries: the 88th anniversary of women winning the right to vote, and the 45th anniversary of that hot summer day when Dr. King lifted our sights and our hearts with his dream for our nation.
I stand here today at the crosscurrents of that history - knowing that my piece of the American Dream is a blessing hard won by those who came before me. All of them driven by the same conviction that drove my dad to get up an hour early each day to painstakingly dress himself for work. The same conviction that drives the men and women I've met all across this country:
People who work the day shift, kiss their kids goodnight, and head out for the night shift - without disappointment, without regret - that goodnight kiss a reminder of everything they're working for.
The military families who say grace each night with an empty seat at the table. The servicemen and women who love this country so much, they leave those they love most to defend it.
The young people across America serving our communities - teaching children, cleaning up neighborhoods, caring for the least among us each and every day.
People like Hillary Clinton, who put those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, so that our daughters - and sons - can dream a little bigger and aim a little higher.
People like Joe Biden, who's never forgotten where he came from, and never stopped fighting for folks who work long hours and face long odds and need someone on their side again.
All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do - that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.
That is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope.
That is why I love this country.
And in my own life, in my own small way, I've tried to give back to this country that has given me so much. That's why I left a job at a law firm for a career in public service, working to empower young people to volunteer in their communities. Because I believe that each of us - no matter what our age or background or walk of life - each of us has something to contribute to the life of this nation.
It's a belief Barack shares - a belief at the heart of his life's work.
It's what he did all those years ago, on the streets of Chicago, setting up job training to get people back to work and afterschool programs to keep kids safe - working block by block to help people lift up their families.
It's what he did in the Illinois Senate, moving people from welfare to jobs, passing tax cuts for hard working families, and making sure women get equal pay for equal work.
It's what he's done in the United States Senate, fighting to ensure the men and women who serve this country are welcomed home not just with medals and parades, but with good jobs and benefits and health care - including mental health care.
That's why he's running - to end the war in Iraq responsibly, to build an economy that lifts every family, to make health care available for every American, and to make sure every child in this nation gets a world class education all the way from preschool to college. That's what Barack Obama will do as President of the United States of America.
He'll achieve these goals the same way he always has - by bringing us together and reminding us how much we share and how alike we really are. You see, Barack doesn't care where you're from, or what your background is, or what party - if any - you belong to. That's not how he sees the world. He knows that thread that connects us - our belief in America's promise, our commitment to our children's future - is strong enough to hold us together as one nation even when we disagree.
It was strong enough to bring hope to those neighborhoods in Chicago.
It was strong enough to bring hope to the mother he met worried about her child in Iraq; hope to the man who's unemployed, but can't afford gas to find a job; hope to the student working nights to pay for her sister's health care, sleeping just a few hours a day.
And it was strong enough to bring hope to people who came out on a cold Iowa night and became the first voices in this chorus for change that's been echoed by millions of Americans from every corner of this nation.
Millions of Americans who know that Barack understands their dreams; that Barack will fight for people like them; and that Barack will finally bring the change we need.
And in the end, after all that's happened these past 19 months, the Barack Obama I know today is the same man I fell in love with 19 years ago. He's the same man who drove me and our new baby daughter home from the hospital ten years ago this summer, inching along at a snail's pace, peering anxiously at us in the rearview mirror, feeling the whole weight of her future in his hands, determined to give her everything he'd struggled so hard for himself, determined to give her what he never had: the affirming embrace of a father's love.
And as I tuck that little girl and her little sister into bed at night, I think about how one day, they'll have families of their own. And one day, they - and your sons and daughters - will tell their own children about what we did together in this election. They'll tell them how this time, we listened to our hopes, instead of our fears. How this time, we decided to stop doubting and to start dreaming. How this time, in this great country - where a girl from the South Side of Chicago can go to college and law school, and the son of a single mother from Hawaii can go all the way to the White House - we committed ourselves to building the world as it should be.
So tonight, in honor of my father's memory and my daughters' future - out of gratitude to those whose triumphs we mark this week, and those whose everyday sacrifices have brought us to this moment - let us devote ourselves to finishing their work; let us work together to fulfill their hopes; and let us stand together to elect Barack Obama President of the United States of America.
Our Utah Legislature is heating up again. Many are headed back with an enhanced hate-on for the public schools. Last year the legislature passed a private school voucher initiative. The people of Utah had it put up for vote, and it was soundly defeated.
Rather than listening to their constituents, the legislature will attempt to dictate to local school districts how they will run. Never mind that we have a state school board who already has that job.
Central to all misnomers that many anti-school people hold is that the teacher and the school are responsible for the education of a child. This is simply not the case. It is like pushing a rope. The school can provide it, what you do with it is up to you.
Still, most fixes for the public schools tend to focus on the teacher and the school. No Child Left Behind puts the success or failure of a student completely with the school. It is almost as if the child doesn't exist.
I wrote the following in the comments section in a Salt Lake Tribune story that dealt with schools. _________________________
“Jim, Henry, Craig, Sam, and Cam all began violin lessons at the same time.
Jim loved violin and he took to it eagerly. His parents never needed to monitor his practicing.
Henry didn’t care much for violin, but he liked to be successful in all that he put his hand to do. He focused in class and practiced nightly.
Craig was not much for practice or paying attention, but he knew he had to achieve good marks or there would be no football this season.
Sam didn’t care much for violin and would always “forget” to practice. His attention in class was up and down. His parents, however, were diligent in making sure that he practiced nightly.
Cam didn’t care much for the violin and his parents didn’t care much either. He never picked up his instrument outside of class. His presence in class was a hindrance to the other four due to his endless misbehavior.
Over the first two years Jim and Henry made great strides. Craig and Sam were average, while Cam made little progress at all.
Things changed over the following two years. Jim and Henry were markedly ahead of everyone else. Sam’s parents had gotten lax as he got older and were no longer following up with him. He began to hang out with Cam’s crowd and rarely picked up his instrument outside class. Craig, kept his ability just high enough to stay on the football team, but could not be called proficient.
The end result of four years of instruction were two excellent students, one very average, and two who were little better than when they started.”
We could take away teacher’s unions, implement vouchers, give merit pay, etc… We could spend all of our time attacking this issue at the teacher level and I believe, in the end, it would have little effect. The teacher is there to provide a service. The level to which a student avails his or herself to that service rests with the student and the parents.
I have seen, in seventeen years of teaching, more and more “Sam and Cams” coming to school. Many classrooms have seen the “Sam and Cam” number swing from 1-3 to nearly half the class or more in the past 20 years. This factor WILL bring scores down. It hurts the education of the rest.
Until we deal with this issue... everything else is just empty rhetoric. __________________________________________________
I have always stated that schools do not drive culture, they reflect it. The school that sits in the local neighborhood is, for the most part, a reflection of that neighborhood. That is not to say that there are not those who are unhappy with the school. However, I believe they are not the majority. If they were, the school would change.
C.S. Lewis said, "All get what they want... they do not always like it."
We have a society of consumers, yet we want our children to be producers. We want to do what we want when we want, yet we expect our children to have discipline and self control. They reflect what they see.
If you listen to conservative talk radio hosts, you will get a regular dose of union bashing and the bemoanings of government interfering in industry. Well it seems we have a great example here on planet earth of a place where unions and government do not pester big business. It seems Rush Limbaugh is right. With no union and government interference, everyone is prospering.
Um, not exactly. It seems the Right is wrong and, as many have indicated, - Big Business, left to its own devices, exploits workers.
Check out this article on the work conditions in China.
