Excuse Me, But Your Awfulness Is Showing...

Yesterday I was struck again by how absolutely ridiculous and sickening it is that children, not only in Flint, but in most urban areas in NJ and all across this country, have been exposed to elevated levels of lead in their drinking water due to crumbling infrastructure.

INNOCENT children fulfilling a basic need of quenching their thirst are potentially being exposed to irreversible mental and neurological damages because of gross negligence on the part of the people who are supposed to be overseeing everyone's health and safety, but, who instead are too busy arguing about their dick size, closing bridges out of spite and carrying around the proper hot sauce while pandering for votes.

It reminded me of this scene below.

WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT YOUR IMAGE WHEN YOU'RE LITERALLY DESTROYING OTHER LIVES!?

As a new mom, I have little time to spend/waste of my own. When I sit down to catch up with what is going on in the world, I find it increasingly more difficult to care about the ins and outs of the extended election season in the US and much to their imagined chagrin, even about the candidates themselves, as they all possess glaring character flaws  This is not a democratic process - it's a dog-and-pony show that perpetuates itself through promises to special parties that supply lavish donations.
If we're really running a democratic election, then our collective monies and efforts would have been going toward the creation of an informed populace: Instead, our leaders slash ed funding and malign educators as leeches instead. Politicians was want you stupid for their career's well-being. They might claim it saves you money or that they're on your side, but in a perversion of their supposed intention to help others as public servants, many only seek to help themselves. "It is no accident that all democracies have put a high estimate upon education; that schooling has been their first care and enduring charge. Only through education can equality of opportunity be anything more than a phrase. Accidental inequalities of birth, wealth, and learning are always tending to restrict the opportunities of some as compared with those of others. Only free and continued education can counteract those forces which are always at work to restore, in however changed a form, feudal oligarchy. Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife." -John Dewey

Finland's education system, again

Look, I know Finland doesn't have "the diversity" the US does, but how do economic , social and/or racial differences play into appropriate programs for the developmental age of children. Piaget didn't say, "Oh, only Swiss children benefit from play and social discovery at young ages."

Sure, there have always been shifts in how children and their education should be viewed - from seeing them as stupid or likely to die and therefore ignorable to mini-adults that can be trained to act properly (think Mozart and his sister). In the wake of the birth of psychology and modern democratic societies, the importance of an educated electorate became more clear. John Dewey's beliefs on education, while liberal compared to many education reforms we see being put into place today, also had the practical purposes of preparing people for life on their own, out in society, both in the here and now AND the future. In an almost Zen-like focus on the present day, Dewey sought to make education in the US beneficial the development of children INTO adulthood, not just for adulthood. On the contrary, today's overall goals for education often seem to be focused on the future. Ends-focused reforms that look to expand the eligible workforce in particular areas, such as STEM fields are not bad. In fact, they are also practical when thinking in the long run. What is not good practice are the reforms that use standardization through testing and curricula to ensure that certain goals will be "measurably" reached.

I am not calling for teachers to have no accountability to some higher standard. What I would like is that teachers, if given a certain benchmark to meet before being hired, such as particular educational requirements (Masters degree, classroom experience, etc), should be entrusted to know what is going to work in their classroom for their students. With the additional layer of actual supervisory guidance (and not check the box, standardized observational systems), teachers can grow their practice into an art, rather than be penalized for a random assortment of missed checked boxes on a rubric. All of this reminds me of the scene in "Uncle Buck" where Buck goes to talk about his niece's progress in 1st grade:

The VP's attitude is not uncommon in public education. The desire to mold children into good little citizens from day one seems to be, for people of this mindset, something that is done through having children sit in one place for a long time beginning at a young age. Some children ARE predisposed to sit and listen, others are not. In fact, many are not, especially in early elementary education.It can be argued that sitting and not doing actually impairs their ability TO learn.

Today, we know so much (and still so little) about how the human brain and body function - more so than any other time in human history, and yet, we still continue to stuff everyone into the same sort of boxes that continue to fail percentages of the population. No one is asking the education system to wholly embrace Howard Gardner's "multiple intelligences" model as scientifically tried and true, but by just being in the world, anyone observant enough can see that people approach problems in different ways. What always kills me about many of the administrators that I come across is that they will spout the importance of differentiated instruction and respect for various learners in the classroom while forcing their faculty to act in lock step. The panopticon-style, mass institutionalization of children will lead to the ultimate end of public education in the US in two ways- it will crush children's ability to adapt through being able to explore, try and fail in the safe confines of a classroom and it will eradicate a teacher's capacity to creatively express the importance of sociocultural and content based learning.

For those who see this as another "public school teacher complaining about shit" post, well maybe consider this- it will also contribute to an electorate who votes in an extremist- whether you see that as Trump OR Sanders- due to their 'tiredness' of the establishment.

Selling Our Children's Futures

Personalized Learning, part-time faculty and an end to education

If you're not a teacher or have never worked in a school, you may read this editorial and say, "Eh, so what?" But parents, let's be honest. Think about the amount of time YOU yourself waste when on a computer or a personal device. Or think about how annoyed you get when your child ignores your questions about their day because they're scrolling through Facebook or texting their friends or Snapchatting a pic of the dog instead of making eye contact with you for 30 seconds.

Not to say we're here yet, but imagine that your kid is supposed to "learn" by sitting in front of a computer all day. In this scenario, all tenured teachers were fired, and in their stead, the school district purchased personal devices (laptops, let's say) and an online curriculum for each student. Then part-time assistants were hired to ensure your student stayed on task. How do you think your child's learning experience would change?

Part of the public school experience IS the social experience. As a teacher, I can tell you that more than just learning historical content knowledge happens on a daily basis in my room.Even at a high school level, students learn how to: manage their time, advocate for themselves by asking questions and/or asserting their opinions, listen to the thoughts of others and respond in a constructive way, practice social etiquette by sharing space with other people and of course they also learn the particulars of the content for the day. Sure, my students could go home, read the textbook or article and then do some online exercises that are graded via an online program. From that, I could tell that either they have good reading comprehension skills or that they're adept at cheating off of a classmate. What I cannot tell is how they feel about the information, what questions they have regarding it, and how they'd apply their knowledge in particular scenarios. 

Think about the situation in this sense - would you entrust your neighbor to watch your toddler while you were at work at an unauthorized day care they were running in their home? You might have to if you had no other options. But DO you have other options? Would you feel safe dropping your 2 year old off in a room with 10 other children and one attendant, your neighbor, for 8 hours? Would you feel more comfortable if the daycare had more than one attendant? Or if there was a set schedule for the day? Or if you knew your neighbor had a teacher certification? If s/he had CPR and first aid certification?

Does the human connection have a cost? The answer simply is yes.

Of course, full time faculty cost more in some respects- like in NJ, maybe your property taxes are higher. But what benefits are there to skimping out on the future of America? Cheapest isn't always best.

Democracy's Failings

"I am a conservative. I intend to give the American people a clear choice. I welcome a fight between our philosophy and the liberal left-wing dogma which now threatens to engulf every man, woman, and child in the United States. I am in this race because I believe the American people have been pushed around long enough and that they, like you and I, are fed up with the continuing trend toward a socialist state which now subjects the individual to the dictates of an all-powerful central government." -George Wallace

George Wallace, segregationist governor of Alabama and candidate for president multiple times, while far more elegant than Donald Trump, had the same core principal that "political correctness" and other forms of liberal ideology (like an opposition to segregation) were ruining this country. Reread his quote above to note the similarity in rhetoric to what Trump is saying today. In the recent weeks, Trump's role as a charismatic showman has won him a series of primaries and garnered much national attention in the media. The media spotlight on his campaign has also shone a light on a darker side of those who support him - not just those who love "telling it like it is" or those who are swayed by literal dick-size talk and bravado, but also the people who take what he's saying as a return to a "purer, simpler and greater" America, where there was less diversity and thusly, fewer problems.

Lifting oppressed minorities up does not stamp out another group's rights. Sharing the same basic rights does not demean anyone's existence. As a teacher, I often have to deal with the ignorant and sour grapes commentary of people who insist that I've got it all - that it's not fair I have job security, a benefits package, 10 month contract, etc. As a member of a union, our group stands united against being stripped of labor concessions that help us to succeed as educators, such as tenure status (to protect against unfair and often political firings), workload and manageable administrative duties. This can also be the path employees in other industries take - unionizing to protect their interests against a bottom line of profit. Teachers' or other labor unions have not stripped anyone of their right to collectively bargain. In fact, our continued presence should provide hope. Instead, politicians have repeatedly used union action as a scapegoat for economic ills, blinding the average voter to the fact that the people most in charge of the economy are those NOT most like them- the millionaire living in the neighboring town or the politicians authorizing bad investments of public monies.

The backlash against unions is one thing, but Trump's calling out of people on their personal identifiers - Muslim, Black, Mexican, differently abled - marks a deeper, more visceral discontent than simply political. Whether he intends to or not, he's struck a chord of hatred based on personal and even biological difference. People cannot change their skin tone, birthplace or ethnic identity. To hate someone for any of these unchangeable aspects of their identity will only result in a violent outburst. Trump's continued race toward the GOP nomination shows the failings within our own society to promote inclusivity, openness, and empathy, all qualities needed for an actual democratic society to survive. Without the ability to allow others (not like us) into a democratic process, we have to be willing and open to their experiences. This line of thought can and also should be levied at intolerant liberals who judge and condemn non-liberals without providing opportunity for productive learning, discussion, and growth by either side.

                          So, until then, maybe everyone can just shut up and listen for once. 

A Case of the Judgey Judgersons

Today I came across this post on a feminist news site I often read: Baby Showers Suck and I clicked on it because I kind of agree. I had a bridal shower (against my will) and the baby shower will hopefully be avoided (through many veiled threats to my mom - j/k, but seriously, don't plan me one....or else). I do attend and participate because, for the most part, it usually seems as though the recipient of said shower really does feel honored (haven't run across a bridezilla or momzilla yet), which is a great human sentiment to share in. However, once I read this article, my agreement ended with the title. The author's snarky commentary was off-putting and, frankly, uncalled for. Some of what was written wasn't even true. For example, researchers have studied and found that there's no such thing as the forgetful "pregnancy brain" she mentions. Perhaps the people this author knows that are pregnant are thinking about way too many things at once because, you know, THEIR LIVES ARE GOING TO CHANGE GREATLY. Their brains are more likely in overtime trying to figure out how everything is going to play out in the next few months. It has nothing to do with their hormones being out of whack, which, as the author is a female, you would think would be an offensive "diagnosis" to her too, though she goes on with talking about it and essentially reworks the old, "ah, you're just being hysterical," line to put down other women.

If you have chosen to live a life of being child-free, there are perks that go along with that. Similarly, if you have chosen a life of being a parent there are an entirely different set of perks. Both sides also have their negatives. If you engaged in a parallel life where you somehow chose the opposite of your original selection, you would trade one for the other, and, surprise! there are benefits and drawbacks to both....see the logic here? 

Being nearly 5 months pregnant, I can say that my choice to have kids has nothing to do with you, fair reader. In fact, it was a choice my partner and I made in our lives. I am still a teacher, friend, coach, wife, student, et al,, that I was before insemination. In fact, what I would truly prefer, but what seems to be impossible for most people to be able to do, is that I be treated by you in the same way that I was before you knew. I'm not talking about every moment of my pregnancy, not sharing sonogram photos, not signing cards with my future child's name on it, or anything that might overly alert you to the fact that I am indeed with child unless you're looking directly at me (and even if I were doing those things, can't someone be excited in a different way from you? It's not for me, but it's also not WRONG). Unless I am in physical distress, I wouldn't want to be treated differently. Pregnancy is not a disability. Maybe I take things too far, because it would be a dream for there to be no comments about my body or "condition" on a daily basis, as there are now, but I am dealing with it because this is the nature of humankind and I cannot change them.

Similarly, a while ago, a former student, who identifies as transgender, told me he really wished that he could be left alone to live his life as he chose. Instead, everyone, including the wider gay community, felt a need to weigh in to tell him that he was "doing it wrong" (the "it" being dependent on the particular group's definition). I absolutely agreed with him. We discussed why the hell so many people feel compelled to constantly impose their way of life upon others, to be offended by the mere thought that someone might have decided to do something a little different with their lives.

Maybe it's insecurity or uncertainty that drives so many to constantly prick at others, but throughout my teen and adult years, I haven't been successful at entirely figuring out why the personal decisions of others are so open for discussion. Sure, everyone judges everyone else all the time - we naturally look someone up and down upon meeting them, consider their clothing, hair style, how they present themselves, etc. But we all do not tear down other's life choices with vitriol. I say and truly believe in, "you do you, I'll do me," sort of attitude. It's not judging your way of life, in fact, it;s freeing you to make that life your own, free from judgment by me. Yet, I have been told that my aloofness and general carefree attitude toward other's choices leads them to think I am judging them because I am not constantly validating their choices. The validation part just isn't how I roll. Especially if you're an adult I know, but even if you're my student. I have no authority to validate your choices! Hell, I don't even know what I'm doing most of the time. And that's OK. The typical theme of my posts is getting to the point of being OK with the uncertainty and the unknown. Sure, judging the crap out of other people is a big known - others will join in, you can find solace and security in knowing you didn't do what that idiot did, but it's also addictive. Eventually, you will  need to constantly tear down others to get validation that what you've chosen is right. But, in reality, your "destiny" is still a big unknown, no matter how dumb that person in the cubicle next to you is.

Impressions of Life

Last night I watched Moonrise Kingdom, a Wes Anderson movie set in Rhode Island in 1965. I know Anderson gets flack for his, typically, all-white casts, or the focus on the eccentric within the elite, but I do consistently like his films despite this. After a long discussion of the types of movies I like after watching, I realized that his films often fit into the framework of providing "impressions" of plot, time, places and characters, without much development in any of these fields besides what the viewer needs to know to follow the story.  The viewer works to fill in gaps to string together a more coherent story while watching. But, just as in reality, there's very little that does make a complete, neat little story arc in our lives - we fill in the details for it to be so in our attempts to understand and make sense of a world that doesn't.

Looking to other movies I also really enjoy, there exists the same pattern of impressions, rather than strict development. For the longest time, my favorite movie has been Amadeus.While not historically accurate, the presentation of Mozart as a flighty genius that burned too brightly and thus, too quickly, rings true. The narration by rival composer Salieri reveals all of our darkest feelings of jealousy, hatred and desires to control.  Even though the viewer can clearly see how manipulative and selfish Salieri is, being privy to his thought process, we cannot help but empathize to some degree because we have all felt the same. And for Mozart, who is supposedly the main focus of the manipulation, our questions of who he was as a person and how he was able to write so prolifically are left unanswered. We see an impression of a troubled young man, clearly a musical genius, but with a penchant for drink and self-destruction. His inner thoughts are not accessible to us.

Much like anyone who is venerated for a great skill or feat, our conception of how they must be does not jive with how they are in actuality. In fact, as many celebrities will attest to, I'm sure, their most devoted fans (and stalkers) are suffering under a delusion that their heroes are infallible, when in fact, as the humans they are, they eat, sleep and shit, just like the rest of us. That's the funny tendency we have as humans - to venerate certain people that we admire for particular qualities that make up the myriad of those which we all possess. When we meet these stellar beings, our conception is wholly false, due to the fact that they are clearly NOT representative of reality or any real person. In an interview with Hunter S. Thompson, he remarked that people would always come up to him and wait in anticipation of him doing something "crazy" whether he was sipping coffee in a hotel lobby or on a drug bender.

These pressures extend beyond the famous - we often hold our loved ones hostage to conceptions we have of them, rather than facing the reality of who they are, which is their mundane, daily existence, the one we live through too. We would all benefit from living to learn in a less expectant way, but with a continual inundation of immediate gratification, it will be harder to do so without conscious effort.

The Bridge

"Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman--a rope over an abyss." - Nietzsche

Admittedly, I've never read any work by Nietzsche in full. Quotes, synopses, excerpts, analyses, but never a complete work. I probably should because whatever I have read, I've really enjoyed. In fact, I am also reminded of my own thoughts when I do, which is somewhat scary, and not because he was a secret Nazi (he wasn't), but because he went insane. Always a little eccentric, the story goes that he saw a man flogging a horse on the streets of Turin, Italy in 1889 and he ran to the animal, crying and throwing himself over its body to protect it. After this public breakdown and a series of strokes and other health ailments, he died in the summer of 1890. In that interim, his ability to communicate effectively with the outside world broke down to the point that it was incomprehensible.

This is not a piece of self-aggrandizement - I'm no Nietzsche. It's more of an inquiry into genius, insight, and madness in our own society.
Societally, how do we treat those who think differently? Do we lock them away? Medicate them? Let them run rampant? When I teach history, I like to ask these sorts of questions because it helps to shed light on what a culture was in a particular time. If you've ever see the movie Amadeus, the composer Salieri is placed in an asylum after slitting his own throat. He is incredibly lucid but the other patients (more aptly, inmates) seem to run the gamut from the psychotically deranged to the mentally retarded. This practice was not all that uncommon, even in the United States through the 1970s - children with severe learning disabilities or emotional disturbances were oftentimes shuttered away rather than being given an education suitable to their abilities (or even having their abilities, whatever they might have been, cultivated in some way to allow them the freedom to enjoy a life outside of a confined space). Luckily, with the advent of laws that protect the differently abled, many children are now afforded opportunities that most other "normal" children are given - to be around their peers, have access to enriching educational environments, participate in sports and clubs, etc.


In Art History class last night the professor was discussing Van Gogh. His life was, to put it bluntly, depressing as fuck (she didn't describe it in those terms, though that would have been ahh-mazing). She joked that if he had lived today he probably would not have produced his most famous works, like Starry Night, because he would have been so heavily medicated. In fact, art historians have noted that his signature style can be closely tracked with his departure off the deep end. And what if she is right? What if our current society's obsession with making sure people are on the right drugs to help them through the day, to "normalize" behaviors are actually killing off human creativity? Sure, Van Gogh lived a shitty life and died a horrible death, but at the same time, he became completely immersed in his work and has been immortalized through it. I don't believe in fate, but her comments made the wheels start turning - What if that sacrifice was a necessity for the progression of art? How would modern art be different without Van Gogh's contributions? What would be the impact on those that followed if his works had not been made to learn from and enjoy in its mere existence?

In France, ADHD isn't really a "thing" that kids have. It's just called being a kid. Parents there aren't as quick to medicate their children. Why? Is there something to be learned from struggling that we, as Americans, are afraid to do? Of course I see a lot of this at work - parents concerned about their child's grade when its not what they expected (an A). Their child never got lower than an A before, how could it be that they're not doing as well as they (re: the parent) had expected? That's something we all need to learn - how to be able to work within the parameters set to succeed. And those parameters are not always fair either - throw in institutionalized racism or sexism and a lot of people have to work doubly as hard to gain acceptance, let alone success. At times, that struggle will seem insurmountable; but then we also might really learn something about the system, ourselves, humanity, etc.

I see that desire to push humanity in Nietzsche as I do in myself. I can get pretty indignant about the apathy that most people express toward doing anything that would push them out of their comfort zone. In high school, one of my friends joked that if I kept up this pace of trying to right all of the world's wrongs, I'd eventually lose my mind. She prophesized I would be a babbling crazy person in the street (not too far off for Nietzsche, honestly). Well, I do actually think about that a lot because there sure are times where I know I can't run away to Montana, but if I continue on here, I will lose. my. shit. So what's a girl to do? There is not an easy answer. At least not one that I have come across yet.

Recently, I read a biography of another one of my favorite philosophers Albert Camus. His works are more literary that straight up philosophical treatises and he was criticized heavily for this throughout his life. Readers, including his own friends (like Sartre), expected a logical approach to a problem and got poetic imagery-laden text instead. In the rejection Camus faced, he never stopped addressing the whole. While others focused on the trees, he saw the forest. He internalized the quote from Nietzsche at the top - that we represent the bridge between what we came from and what we can be. Critical of both the French colonial forces AND the Algerian armed resistance movements, Camus refused to take sides, preferring to work with civilians on the ground who were stuck in between the cycle of violence perpetrated by both groups. Indeed, his commitment to a cause likely led to his demise as well, but he too left behind a legacy of ideas and actions for succeeding generations to consider.


In today's world of constant internet outrage, I can sympathize with Camus not wanting to take a side. It's easy to jump on the latest cause bandwagon and to vociferously state an opinion from the safety of your smartphone screen. But that's virtual. Sure, you support the cause by posting a meme, signing a petition, et. al, but what else will you do about it? It's a lot more difficult to walk outside and find someone who needs help. Especially when no one quite understands what you're doing (poor Nietzsche). I know I come off as a luddite many times, but there has to be a balance between how we can use technology to our advantage and what we rely on it for (no boredom, ever!!) Panem et circenses meet res ipsa loquitur - we're doing this shit to ourselves and it's only getting worse.