Pissed off teacher

Nicholas D. Kristoff has an article in the NY Times today about Democrats and Education. He gave a few horror stories about how hard it is to fire bad teachers. Mostly from New York and Los Angeles. With over 40,000 teachers losing their jobs in the last year it doesn't seem all that hard to get rid of teachers anymore.

I've been teaching for nearly thirty years. I run across many a teacher who had no business in the classroom. Most of them become administrators. If they really mess up as a principle they get kicked upstairs to the main office (mediocrity always rises to the top). I won't go into what I think about the paper pushers on top of the food chain.

Teacher's unions are always cited as the main cause of not being able to get rid of bad apples. Always spoken by someone that is anti-union. When you've invested four years of college, a year of student teaching and committed your life to this low paying profession the rug should not be pulled out from under you at the drop of a hat or whim of a principle that just came in and wants to get rid of the teachers already there in order to bring in their own people (preferably new teachers with smaller salaries).

It was this quote that I want to address item by item:

There are no silver bullets, (no shit sherlock) but researchers (warning Will Robinson: be very wary of anyone who uses a general phrase like this. They're usually spitting something off the top of their head. If you're giving specific examples use direct quotes that can be fact checked)  are gaining a better sense of what works in education for disadvantaged children: all of this research all they have is a better sense? They don't know? Maybe they forgot to ask the people in the trenches -- teachers! intensive preschool, (agreed)  charter schools with long hours, (why does it have to be a charter school? Why can't regular schools go to longer hours. Except longer hours means salary increase. Aha - charter schools don't have unions and they can get this for free) fewer certification requirements that limit entry to the teaching profession, Isn't his argument that we need to get rid of bad teachers? And you do that by lowering standards? How do you get better teachers this way? We could always go back to the good old days, say 1900 when some states let a person teach any grade they passed. Wow I passed third grade, now I can be a third grade teacher!) higher compensation to attract and retain good teachers, The carrot reformers always dangle to get people on board, but they never deliver. objective measurement to see who is effective, this always sounds good, but people can't be digitized, we're analog. Students are not one size fits all. Classes are not one size fits all. The future of students can't be plotted like an Insurance actuarial table. How well students perform on standardized tests later in life is meaningless. Take the best teachers from an upper middle class school, put them in an inner city economically depressed, multi-cultural school and see what happens. Take the best teachers from an inner city economically depressed, multi-cultural school, put them in an upper middle class school and see what happens. My bet, not much. more flexibility in removing those who are ineffective. The thrust of his entire article is how to make it easier to fire teachers. How is this going to improve education?

Moving Over

I've been running three blogs. One for my novel Optimus. This one for ranting and my Family and Friends blog for more mundane postings. I'm keeping the one for the book, not that it's actually sold a book, but I don't put much effort into it.
I've decided to place this one on hold. So Russ, Woody, Cornfield, Adirondack and other blogger friends that stop by here feel welcome to check out the F and F blog I'm sure I'll do some ranting there from time to time as well.

Rant coming on

This says it all.






Bruce is helping puttng together a nice little get together in Norman Oklahoma next month that we're planning on attending. Former President Jimmy Carter will be there.
It's been thirty years since he gave a frank and honest speech to the American people. In the language of the day he "told it like it was." It's called the Malaise speech. Since then it's been known that "The People" don't want to be told the truth, just blow smoke up their ass and they'll vote for you and think you're a demi-god like Uncle Ronnie, George I and W. Tell them what they want to hear not what they need to hear. Lie your ass off and they'll faithfully march to their deaths half way across the world singing your praises. The only thing that ruined thier parade was when they dipped too heavily into the average American's pocket book and stole too many people houses out from under them.
The biggest concern financially under Carter was that mortgages were too high and the average worker couldn't afford to buy a house. Now they can't affort their mortgages and are losing them. Moral of the story: Don't fuck with people's houses.
Carter was a mediocre president beset with huge problems; most notably the hostage situation in Iran which single handedly killed his chance for re-election. His boycott of the Moscow olympics was perhaps one of the stupidest decisions ever made from the oval office.
He has become though one of the most influential ex-presidents we've ever had. (John Quincy Adams would be number one in this catagory).

The only thing missing from the Republican Senators questioning Sotomayor yesterday was frothing at the mouth. I'm on record as saying this lady is nothing to get all too exicited about as her appointment is just maintaining the status quo when we need to shift the pendulum back not keep it in check.

Article on Religions

Found this on Alternet. Click here for the whole article. It's an interview of Robert Wright on the evolution of relgion. This quote caught my eye.

Asking whether Islam -- or any other faith -- is a religion of peace or of war, is just a dumb question. I don't want to offend anybody, but all religions have their good moments and bad moments. In the scriptures of all of them you see belligerent passages and you see tolerant passages. I wanted to look at what circumstances gave rise to those two kinds of scriptures.

He calls the militant aspects of religion those who follow a zero-sum game, and those who are more tolerant accept a non-zero sum game. A rather obtuse way of saying that fundamentalists have a black/white or good vs evil mind set and moderates see things in shades of gray, or in economic terms mutual profit. What he kind of beat around the bush on is that the more fair trade between nations and regardless of culture and religion allies are made. When there is economic inequality enemies are made and religion is a handy tool to justify killing the other side.

Terrence McNally who is conducting the interview brought up an interesting point:

TM: I interviewed Reza Aslan recently regarding his book How to Win a Cosmic War. He's referring to a religious war that is ultimately unwinnable because it pits good versus evil. His final message: You cannot win a cosmic war, so don't engage in one. Instead, address the actual grievances that fuel conflict, and you can make progress.

We are still fighting two wars and our leaders (Bush and Obama) keep saying we're going to keep fighting until we win, when after 8 years it should be clear to just about any simpleton that there is nothing to win and only more to lose (lives and money) by our continued presence.
The one question they have never answered: Win what?

Clearly the best way to settle our differences in this part of the world is to have fair trade. The problem is that we've had free trade which is based on the win/lose principle instead of win/win.

Concerning the problems with Israel and Palestine:


TM: Let's look at Hamas and Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been allowed to actually govern in Lebanon, and it has moderated their politics. When Hamas won the Palestinian election, I thought that if they had to fix potholes and meet budgets, they were more likely to moderate. But the U.S., Israel and others wouldn't allow them to govern. That's an opportunity lost, do you agree?
RW: To show you how naive I am, when Hamas won the election, I assumed surely we can't say we were just kidding, you don't get to govern. But that's exactly what we did.
TM: Engagement is a non-zero-sum game.
RW: Economic engagement is. That's why blockading Gaza until the religious extremists moderate their views puts the cart before the horse. You moderate people's views by getting them in a non-zero-sum relationship. So much was backwards during the Bush years.
During the recent war on Hamas in Gaza, people asked why Hezbollah wasn't jumping in. Well for one thing, they were legitimate political actors in Lebanon, and they had an interest in behaving in a more responsible fashion.

The problem with engagement and settling differences by win/win negotiation means both sides want peace. The reason why peace is not possible between Israel and Palestine is that both sides want it all. This is the ultimate win/lose senario, and Israel is slowly and gradually with their settlements pushing the Palestinians out. In another twenty years they'll have affected a fait acompli and will control all of the west bank and the palestinians would be second class citizens; segregated like the Southern United States before civil rights (possibly Gaza could be a reservation similar to our Native American Reservations). Technology always wins out over the long haul.

Political Folly

Yesterday I read an article about physicians being frustrated with the health care debate. No one is asking them how to fix the system. Golly gee, that's the same frustration teachers have been feeling since 1986 when Uncle Ronnie decided to screw up education with his Nation At Risk garbage.
Politicians only know how to screw things up never fix them no matter which political party they are.

Newspapers

Many are writing the obituaries of most newspapers around the country. The Albuquerque Tribune and Rocky Mountain News around here are gone. I have been at times rather critical (with good reason) with Newspapers and other forms of what has become Mainstream Media (msm). Politically they have become the propaganda machine of the Republican party.
What is sometimes forgotten is the human interest sections and other non-political aspects of newspaper, tv and radio.
Last year as my sister was living out her last few months. The Dallas Morning News ran a 5 piece expose on Palliative care. At my family and friends blog I posted Penni's visit to our father's grave last summer which was documented by Sonya N. Hancock, their photographer. The series of articles ran last December and has now been published in its entirety as an insert. Penni was only one of many patients mentioned and the focus of the articles was the hard working, caring, extraordinary nurses and other workers that make those living out their last days as humane as possible. One of the tv stations in Dallas took the story and video footage and ran human interest pieces in support of this series.
This has brought home to me that there is more about the msm than politics or gossip. At their best they can educate and bring to life much of what makes our world worth living in. Should most major newspapers close more will be lost than jobs.

Thinking alike

Russ at Adirondak linked to Bruce's blog saying there's one Baptist in Oklahoma he agrees with. Thanks for helping get the word out for Mainstream Baptists.

Sanity in Marriage

Alternet has an article by Amy Marcotte wondering why marriage is idealized.

Old jokes: Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?
Bumper sticker showing a man with a fishing pole, When I gave up smoking, drinking and women I discovered I didn't have to work.

I'm not an expert in marriage, but since I've gone through a failed one and am coming up on 31 years with Grinnygranny I have a few thoughts concerning the subject.

If you look at all cultures the purpose of marriage is to make men work. By restricting sex to a legal and religious commitment rulers, religious leaders and women entered into a pact that makes men be responsible for providing security and shelter for women and children. Rulers get taxes off of their productivity, religioius leaders get power, and women get the security and shelter needed to survive. The only draw back under this pact was that women were the property of their fathers or husbands. The fight over women's rights with abortion, gay marriages, contraception, not to mention what's going on in the rest of the world is that when women stop being property the pact disintigrates.
This equation worked well in hunter-gatherer, pastoral and agricultural life-styles, but industrial and post-industrial lifestyles have changed the dynamic. Marriage is no longer about survival and society has made the focus about emotion. A very shaky foundation for anything.
Today men look at women as a trophy or bed mate or brood mare instead the only way to have sex and to help with their survival. The sanctity of marriage ends when sex becomes available without it. The main reason why prostitution is illegal or heavily regulated. Women and the government today think men are only a walking wallet. Fatherhood has become an exercise in writing out a child support payment.

So what is marriage today?

Marriage is:

1. A marathon not a sprint. Adrenaline may have sparked the passion which brings the couple to the altar, but it can't be sustained over the long haul. What makes marriage last is trust, respect, sharing, caring, acceptance, and comfort.
2. Bloody hard work. Compromise, negotiation, apologizing when you weren't wrong, puting up with the other persons quirks that irritate you to no end is not easy.
3. Economic survival. It takes two wages to live a comfortable life style today. Being able to afford an apartment or buy a house, have transportation, food and entertainment is beyond most single incomes.
4. Raising children. When you have children stay married, they are not ping-pong balls to be bounced between you. My generation lived in an age where couples stayed together for the sake of the children. Many grew up in loveless homes and vowed they'd never live like that so when the first problems arise in the marriage they got divorced, remarried, divorced, remarried ad nauseum. Almost all studies have concluded that children living with both parents even if they don't get along fare better than children of divorce.
5. Add some of your own thoughts here if you like.

Marriage is not:

1. Based only on love or passion. Emotions come and go, marriage needs to last for decades.
2. Based on sex. Sex may be the glue that holds two people together, but in every long term marriage there will be times when one or both partners are physically not able to have sex.
3. An ego trip or about property ownership or happiness all short term objectives. Marriage is about the long haul. People age, add weight, become ill, lose jobs, make mistakes; both sides need live with what life throws your way.
4. Again, add some of your thoughts here.

Bad reasons to get a divorce:

1. I'm not happy. Divorce will only make your life more miserable.
2. I don't love him/her anymore. Are your feelings that important that you'll ruin yourself economically, emotionally as well as the lives of your children?
3. All we do is argue or fight. This is usually a problem in the first years when the couple is working out differences. As long as it's not physical abuse learn to work your problems out, seek counciling. Eventually you'll work out the kinks and things will calm down.
4. Lack of sex, unfaithfulness. This can go either way. What's lacking here is trust. It's hard to live with someone you don't trust or someone who uses sex as a weapon. With time, hard work and counciling this can be worked out.
5. Add your thoughts here.

Get out of the marriage now:

1. Physical, emotional or substance abuse.
2. Serial cheating. One indiscretion can be mended and healed. Someone that is constantly playing around is treating their partner for a fool.
3. Desertion
4. Add your thoughts here.

The biggest problem in that many of those in abusive relationships that should get out don't and many marriages that end in divorce could be saved.

Marriage needs to be looked at realistically instead of idealized or romanticized.

Seeing is believing

Climate change is just a hoax, donja know.