Posted by LWolf in Education
Sat Oct 04th 2008, 02:34 PM
I teach in a tiny little rural town. The vast majority of my students don't live in town, but on outlying acreage. Many are ranchers. Many are hunters. I expect a huge drop in attendance at our school over the next few weeks as families take off on hunting trips.
Rural areas tend red, and mine is no exception. Even in this decidedly red area, though, GWB has more detractors than fans.
Don't get me wrong. He has plenty of hard-core fans, too. But the number of families who oppose him, and who are supporting the Democratic nominee, is surprising from an area like this.
I'd seen no bumperstickers, no signs, heard no talk until recently. The ranches I drive past on my way to work typically sport republican signs; a few always have a sign for every republican on the ticket. The republican signs are out in force, but I haven't seen a single McCain sign to go along with those for state and local candidates.
I have seen a couple of Obama stickers, and one McCain/Palin bumper sticker. Most of my reading comes from listening to my middle-school students talk politics. They invariably parrot whatever they get at home, so I think it's a pretty good indication.
We had to have a meeting with the principal yesterday, my teaching partners and I. Politics are heating up. We don't take sides of any kind, or express political opinions of any kind. We do, however, cover the election as a current event, as a part of the government we teach about, and many students are proposing the presidential election as a debate topic for debate class.
I have one student who has taken to wearing a "McCain/Palin" button. Most of her peers ignore it; a few mention it to agree or argue. Her mom, though, was chatting with office staff this week and said, "____________(her 3rd grade son) wants us to get him a gun for Christmas. He told us that, since the Democrats are taking over, we'd all better be prepared to defend ourselves."
Hence the conversation about politics at school.
Interesting to note that the most hard-core McCain supporters in this area have conceded the election.
Worse is the total ignorance on the part of those most likely to love Palin, to support McCain--ignorance brought on by decades of mass media propaganda and propaganda from the pulpit. In my opinion.
The button-wearing student is in debate class. We're doing our best to expose her to critical thinking skills. The class is taught to recognize fallacies, and to back up their positions with solid evidence. It's a long, hard hill to climb in some cases.
I've taught in suburbia. While thinking wasn't exactly popular, it was easier to teach thinking skills there. In this little rural area, there is an embedded antipathy to thinking. People prefer to repeat what they've been told, and consider themselves "smart."
It's only the first week of October, and I'm already tired.
This is a speech given at a large "back to school rally" held by the Dallas ISD. Many districts around the nation are using it as the school year opens.
The speech DOES help focus us on the reasons why we are teachers, and our purpose in the classroom. Which is directly at odds with much legislation, and with many federal, state, and often district mandates.
Inspirational speeches are great when the nuts and bolts of action are behind them. Hypocritical when they contradict established policy.
Dalton says he "wants to be the next Obama." I can see that; he's well on his way, lol.
He did not write this speech. It was written by the Dallas ISD. He has quite a bit of experience in public speaking. He's not just a random pick out of a classroom in the district, lol. Still, it's enjoyable to watch. It IS inspirational. Here's a link to a news article about him:
Those of you who've ever chatted, debated, or battled with me know that I've been quite clear since long before the '04 primary season:
I'm a leftist-libertarian, independent-minded voter who is registered as a Democrat for the sole purpose of opposing the Republican Party. I don't toe any party line. Ever. I'm not partisan, and I'm proud of that. As a matter of fact, I'm "anti-partisan" more than "non-partisan."
You also probably know that I am not now, and have never been, a fan of Barack Obama. Or Hillary Clinton. I've been as open and transparent about that as humanly possible.
Some of you know that I never "got behind Obama." I remained undecided. I said I would become "decided" about my support in the GE sometime between the convention and election day.
I'm decided. If you are curious, read on.
The Democratic Convention didn't decide me. As a matter of fact, it moved me further toward a 3rd party vote. I am more unhappy with the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party nominee now than I was before.
The Republican Convention didn't decide me. I remain adamantly opposed to everything republican.
So what turned it for me? Sarah Palin.
That's right. She's the straw that shoved me over. I don't have any confidence in McCain living out one or two terms in the WH, should election fraud again deliver the race to republicans. The idea that Sarah Palin, of all women, might go down in history as the first woman president or vice president, nailed it.
I'm not going to enumerate the reasons why I find that possibility absolutely unacceptable. You know them all already. The bottom line is this: Unless my state is obviously "safe," I will be casting yet another vote AGAINST someone, instead of for someone, in November. I'll be casting my vote against McCain/Palin.
That doesn't mean I suddenly think better of the Democratic nominee. It means that I recognize that, while I won't get what I want no matter who wins this election, an Obama administration will allow for more battle strategies, and will, in the bargain, not make me any more ashamed to call the U.S. my country than I already am.
In this case, I have a request. How about, since the Republican vp selection is done, both conventions are over, if we set aside bitching, whining, and despairing over the opposition and talk about what we can do to defeat them?
To be honest, I probably won't be talking all that much. Now that the school year is back in session, my weeks are too busy, and I can't spend all weekend at the 'puter. I'm reading more than posting, at least until Thanksgiving.
As far as the real world goes, since I'm not a great fan of the nominee, I'm thinking that I'll be an attack dog. While I'm busy attacking the opposition, people who are more enthusiastic about the Democratic ticket can talk it up.
After the horrific primary race/gender wars, I've wondered this: If HRC had been nominated, would McCain have picked a black man? I think so. I think his pick is calculated to take advantage of the biggest weakness, the rift caused by those race/gender wars. Will Democrats let that strategy succeed? Or will they, in time, establish that it's not race or gender, but issues, that count? My hopes for the primaries were dashed. Is it too late to move the focus to issues for the GE, or will we be fighting the race/gender wars all the way to November?
Just thoughts and suggestions from this "minority" DUer.
I wrote to my reps about the recent judicial hearings. Today I got a response from my republican senator. What do you hear when you read this? What I hear is bolded after each paragraph:
Dear LWolf,
Thank you for your letter regarding the power being exercised by the executive branch of our federal government. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me.
I never really saw your letter; an assistant opened it and sent you this form letter.
Given events that have taken place during President Bush's administration, the executive branch, including the president and the attorney general, have been called upon to make a great number of decisions to protect national security. While the legislative branch has taken action to give certain executive agencies greater authority to act in the best interest of our nation, we in the Congress have taken great care not to relinquish the powers granted us under the Constitution.
It's a scary world. 9/11 showed us that any values can be compromised for safety. And they have. Aren't you still scared enough to "get" that?
I understand that you have concerns regarding some of the actions taken by the administration. There is little doubt that our nations's greatness is built upon the values we cherish, and our principles of liberty and justice must not be compromised.
Except that I just excused compromising them in the previous paragraph. Our principles of liberty and justice are best demonstrated by voluntarily compromising them to keep us safe. If this is confusing you, remember that war is peace, and that liberty and justice can't be defended if you don't give them up.
While I recognized that a significant number of Americans have differing opinions to those of President Bush, I believe that America is the greatest nation in the world, and much of that greatness stems from our diversity and the ability to express our differences. Rest assured, that I will continue to protect the values and civil rights that define America from threats both home and abroad.
You get to express your differences by writing me a letter that I get to answer with this form letter. I get to express my differences by ignoring your point of view, and acting to support what you oppose. I'm on President Bush's team; I don't want my team prosecuted.
Thank you again for your correspondence. If I can further assist you with this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
What a great job! I get to "assist" people by patting them on the head, thanking them for giving me the chance to disagree with them, and sending them on their way. Life is good.
Warm regards,
Gordon H. Smith
I sometimes wonder why I bother to contact my reps. Then I remember that every contact is a tally mark somewhere that they'll look at the next time they campaign. At least while they are campaigning, they might acknowledge voters' wishes, even if they don't do anything about them once the election is over.
Rocky River Middle School Principal David Root critical of emphasis on school tests - Regina Brett 'We don't teach kids anymore,' principal says Wednesday, July 23, 2008 Regina Brett Plain Dealer Columnist
It's 3 screen pages long; I've <snipped> some of the highlights, but it's worth reading the whole thing.
he school report cards came out in June.
Rocky River Middle School did well on the 2008 Ohio Achievement Tests, re quired to be given each year to assess math, read ing, science, social studies and writing skills among all the state's public-school students in grades three through eight. The school earned an "Excellent" rating and met the mandates for Adequate Yearly Progress.
For all those accomplishments, Principal David Root has only one thing to say to the students, staff and citizens of Rocky River:
He's sorry.
Root wants to issue an apology. He sent it to me typed out in two pages, single-spaced.
He's sorry that he spent thousands of tax dollars on test materials, practice tests, postage and costs for test administration.
Sorry that his teachers spent less time teaching American history because most of the social-studies test questions are about foreign countries.
Sorry that he didn't suspend a student for assaulting another because the attacker would have missed valuable test days.
Sorry he didn't strictly enforce attendance rules because all absences count against the school on the State Report Card.
He's sorry for pulling children away from art, music and gym, classes they love, so they could learn test-taking strategies.
<more snips>
He cringed when he heard one say, "I really want to do well, but I'm not that smart."
He wants students to learn how to think, not how to take tests.
"We don't teach kids anymore," he said. "We teach test-taking skills. We all teach to the test. I long for the days when we used to teach kids."
Recently, DU has been full of concern about the perceived "move to the center," with some DUers having been centrist all along, some jumping on that centrist bandwagon, some gritting their teeth and going along with it, and some protesting.
Along with that, we've had several posts promoting a republican on the ticket in the VP spot.
None of those suggestions has been locked, as far as I know, so in the interest of fairness, this one should be okay, too.
For those of us who prefer not to move any further to the center or pander to republicans, for those of us who would like to balance Obama's centrism with someone from the LEFT side of the political spectrum, I offer you:
To start with, on the "About Democratic Underground LLC" page, it says, the bolding mine:
<snip>
Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.
Then, on the rules page it says, again, bolding mine:
<snip>
2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.
Now, I've always seen a conflict here. Not all Democrats, or Democratic candidates are left-wing. Very few, in fact. It's supposed to be a left-wing discussion board that supports non-left-wing Democratic candidates. A conflict usually addressed with the pragmatism, lesser-of-two evils, and/or anything to win, deal with contradictions later philosophies.
These days, the conflicts are becoming more pronounced. First of all, as DU has grown, it has also grown towards the center. I see more centrist philosophy espoused on DU than I do left-wing. Especially now that the party has nominated a centrist. Any day now I'm expecting to see DUers advocating all kinds of center-right positions.
I understand that the board has evolved; no longer "left wing," and no longer really "underground." It may be that it's time to update that "left wing" characterization on the "about DU" page.
But what about that rule? That rule that says DUers are expected to support Democratic candidates? You know, the one that locks any discussion other than bashing of 3rd parties or independent candidates? Does the same rule apply for DUers that support republican candidates?
If so, what is going to happen if, as some DUers are already pushing, Obama chooses a republican to run on the ticket with him?
Then the rule doesn't work. I can't support the nominee, the democrat, without supporting a republican. I can't support the democratic ticket without breaking the rules.
Will the rule be suspended for a republican, when it isn't suspended for left-leaning candidates that are not democrats?
Will the rule be rewritten to include support for republicans, rejecting only independents and 3rd party candidates?
Will people be tombstoned for refusing to support the democratic nominee for president because there is a republican on the ticket?
How will DU respond to this conundrum? How SHOULD DU respond to this conundrum?
One suggestion: disallow the promotion of republicans on DU. Shut down the threads promoting a republican on the democratic ticket.
What say you, DU? Are some republicans now our allies, with support allowed at DU, while others are still "the enemy?"
Should we "change," and "come together?" Should "changing" and "coming together" include supporting any candidate, from any party, or do we just change the rules for the republicans Obama likes?
What say you?
More to the point, what will DU admins decide, should a republican end up on the ticket?
I'm not "angry" at republicans; they are just being who and what they are. Why be angry about that? I disagree; I stand in firm opposition; but I'm not angry.
I'm angry at Democrats because they seem so willing to BECOME FUCKING REPUBLICANS.
I'm angry at Democrats because I feel betrayed. It's personal.
It's not just elected Democrats I'm angry at, either. I'm angry at Democratic voters who keep supporting candidates and elected officials who are willing to give away the bank. I'm angry at voters who do not support and vote for the best, the highest democratic ideals. I'm angry at democratic voters who are willing to betray democratic ideals to follow a candidate into fucking republican territory. I'm angry at democrats who are willing to leave blue behind, and become purple.
I'm angry at democratic voters who are not willing to hold their elected officials, and their candidates, accountable for democratic values.
DU needs to change the "About DU" page. I suggest these changes:
"Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier purple websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active purple discussion boards.
We welcome purple Democrats of all stripes, along with other Democrats who will work with us to achieve our purple goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.
Democratic Underground would not be possible without the participation of purple -minded individuals from across the country and, indeed, from around the world. The content for the site is provided by people who feel that their purple views are not represented by the conservative "mainstream" media in the U.S. We accept article submissions from those on purple Democrats who wish to write, so that DU represents a variety of purple viewpoints. We have a particular appreciation for satire and humor."
To be progressive is to move forward...to progress.
It doesn't determine the direction of progression.
Some use it as a more politically correct version of "liberal," but you don't have to be "liberal" to be "progressive."
Republicans can be progressive; I'd suggest that the Bush administration has been aggressively progressive.
Fascists can be progressive.
RW fundamentalists are progressive.
And blue-dog, corporate, "centrist" democrats are aggressively progressive, if the movement of the Democratic Party is any indication. The DLC is progressive. That's why their think tank is "The Progressive Policy Institute."
Obama is progressive. He's moving forward with his version of "change."
As a matter of fact, everyone who doesn't want stagnation is "progressive," no matter what kind of "progress" on what kind of "change" they are working on.
Since the term can be accurately used to describe progress that has nothing to do with democratic principles or ideals, I think that Democrats should drop the term for something more accurate.
"Liberal," "Left," "Centrist," "Right," are more accurate.
It's time to stop using the word "progressive" as synonymous with the liberal left--it's not.
I know I'll have something of substance to think about.
In this case, I'm thinking in a lot of different directions.
I'm thinking about your question. About Obama. And about the term "progressive."
The problem with the term "progressive" is that it can be spun so many ways, depending on which definition you choose.
At it's core, "progressive" means to move forward, to make progress, with an agenda. It doesn't have to be a "liberal" agenda. Conservatives, and fascists, can be "progressive." The DLC, the conservative/corporate wing of the Democratic Party, has a think tank: "The Progressive Policy Institute." Whether you consider that an Orwellian use of the word or not, we might be able to agree that their goals are not traditionally "liberal" or "left."
Then there's the common assumption that "progressive" is a politically correct version of the abused "liberal." I don't think this is particularly accurate at this point in time. Plenty of progressives are not particularly "liberal."
In that case, Obama can be fairly called a "progressive," even though he's clearly not a "liberal." The casual use of the term, without specification, is much like his campaign. It uses all kinds of terms that lead people to envision something that may or may not be what he intends. I think part of the problem is that some people who voted for him in the primary thought they were getting a liberal progressive, rather than a PPI progressive, despite the number of times it was pointed out to them. Now they are experiencing voter's remorse.
I don't think there IS unity within the "progressive" community. We've seen "progressives" that are willing to sell liberal principles, and even Constitutional protections, down the river for Obama's sake. And, of course, there are others that are less willing, or not at all willing.
A look at Obama's history is instructive. You refer to him as a "progressive community activist" early in his career. This, too, leaves me wondering: do you mean he was a liberal/left community activist, or the same kind of progressive he is now?
You mention his need to change. Did that "change" mean learning to work the system, instead of fight it? Did it mean adopting centrism as a vehicle to "progress?" It surely meant learning to fight "dirty," as he did when he challenged petitions to nominate all his challengers in 1996, clearing the ballot of any challengers at all, including the liberal activist Alice Palmer.
I see that he has the political skills to win an election. The big question is what, exactly, will we be achieving with him in the White House? Will we get someone who puts his obvious fighting skills to work for actual liberal/left causes? Or will we get someone who, in guise of "working with" republicans, gives away the issues? We've seen more compromise than fight on issues since he hit Washington. Why would we think he will be different in the oval office?
As president, he'll have to show up to sign or veto everything that gets sent to him. No skipping the tough votes, a reputation he gained in the Illinois Senate, according to David Ignatius.
Obama is not a win for the liberal left. At best, there is a possibility for guarded cooperation. That's certainly more than McCain offers, of course.
It's also not enough to earn the enthusiastic "trust," the blind faith, that some of his supporters are pushing for.
The real question I'm left with is this:
To use your metaphor, just WHO is fisherman Obama tossing worms to? Some would say he's fishing for centrists and republicans. Some would say he's luring liberal/left votes with the deliberately vague "change we can believe in," which can of course be shaped to the differing beliefs of each person who hears it. Who will end up gutted and fried in the process?
1. War as an instrument of international policy comes to an end. No military presence in the world, and the U.S. military never acts except in response to direct military threat from outside.
2. Kill NAFTA/CAFTA in favor of fair trade agreements based on environmental and labor standards.
3. Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit, comprehensive health care
4. Civil Liberties
5. An updated version of the fairness doctrine to cover satellite, cable, and all other media.
6. Updated, stronger anti-trust laws
7. De-privatize, re-regulate. Everything.
8. End NCLB, all high-stakes testing, and the "standards and accountability movement" in public education.
9. Election reform: campaigns 100% publicly funded with no outside campaigning allowed; no polling; equal NEUTRAL media time for all; hand-counted paper ballots; IRV; no corporate media debates, but real debates where all candidates answer all of the substantive questions, and get equal talk time; and, in the case of the presidential primary, no caucuses, and one national counting day for all primary votes, no matter when cast.
10. Universal public preschool - trade school or college.
the juvenile name-calling blame game sure to start immediately upon the coronation of a candidate, designed to allow the adolescent urge to gang warfare to proliferate, and to win the blame game when the candidate selected by the majority doesn't win?
I've got a better name for those who think that's a great idea: bullies.
That kind of bullying is likely to lose more votes than it wins, so let's be more specific: moronic bullies.
The Democratic Party loses more of my respect every time the majority refuses to be accountable for their own votes. If the nominee can't win, it's the fault of the nominee and the majority who chose to nominate him or her, not the fault of the voters who were taken for granted or thrown under the bus. Assuming a clean election process and vote count, of course.
Nobody owes the nominee a vote. Votes are earned. Why not go out and earn some, instead of trying to engage in more divisive bullshit?
Even better, if you already think you're going to lose, and need to gear up for this war before the nomination is even official, why not put all of that excess energy where it might do some good?
Instead of battling voters who don't agree with you, if you want warfare, take on the issue of election fraud and corruption. Without confronting and cleaning up that mess, you won't win anyway.
Posted by LWolf in Education
Sat Apr 12th 2008, 02:07 PM
A grievous, and yet uplifting, thing has happened this week. I have been carrying it close to my heart all week, and today realized that it illustrates a point about what really matters in public education, so I thought I would share it.
The background: Back in the early 80s, I was an instructional aide at a local elementary school, a part-time college student, and a full time mom to two young children. The district I worked for piloted a new program, in a new school, and I put my oldest son in that school. He started as a 2nd grader.
It was a K-8 school, and he was in the first class of 8th graders to "graduate." By that time, I'd been working as a library tech in that school for several years, still a part-time college student. I knew every student by name, and many of the 8th grade class were friends of my son. Some of their parents were colleagues. We were a very close knit community.
The original program this school began with was by this time defunct. Like most new programs, it blazed through and burned out with little notice. What happened, though, in this little school, was the building of community. A structure that allowed for each staff member to build a longer-term, closer relationship with each student. When that first 8th grade class graduated, we gathered with tears and joy to celebrate and send them out into the future.
As the years went by, and the standards and accountability movement moved in, the school was restructured several times, with staff transferred around the district until the school was gradually "standardized." We all moved on, I gained my teaching credential, and kids grew up.
I stayed close to many of my colleagues; we worked together at other schools, and never lost the commitment to school community that we had learned at that early school.
I kept up with many from that first graduating class; they were my son's friends. When my son moved out on his own for the first time, they were his roommates, sharing rent to make independence affordable.
My son is 30 years old now, and none of us live in that community any longer. I'm a thousand miles away, and he lives about 5 hours away by car. He went back to watch the super bowl this year with his old roommates, and a bunch of that same 8th grade class that still live in the area.
On Monday, one of the roommates died. He was discovered by another roommate, who immediately called my son after calling paramedics and the parents, and my son immediately called me. At work. Shocked and grieving, I blasted off an email to one of the original teachers of that group, who immediately contacted every single one of the teachers who had taught this young man who was still available. 4 days before the district issued official condolences, all those who had worked together at that school back in the 80s had gathered together to mourn and support the family.
Today is his memorial service. I can't be there; there is no budget for a 2000 mile round trip this weekend. I spoke to my son again this morning, who said that he had gathered "almost everyone," with the exception of one old classmate he couldn't find, and that they are all there. They will all be there today, to remember this young man: his K-8 classmates, teachers, school secretaries, librarians...they are all there together.
20 years after the students left the school, and the school staff was redistributed by the district, they did not hesitate to come together for one of their own.
This is what makes a school powerful, and effective. Not programs. Not methodology. Not standards. Not test scores. Not authoritarian regimes.
Relationships. Community building. That's what results in positive outcomes for all who spend their time learning together.
I'm grieving today for a wonderful young man. I'm also celebrating the community gathering to remember him, to support and love his family, to affirm what I've known for all these years about why I'm a teacher, and what my vision of a good school, and a good education, consists of.
