9/11, The Day After or maybe it was 20 Years Later.

 A lot has been said this week about that feeling of unity on September 12, 2001. Where has it gone? What happened? Was it all a dream? Have we somehow lost our way?

I was teaching 4th grade in Manhattan and living in Brooklyn at that time and I do recall something akin to unity but I'm not sure that's really the right word. I do remember a sense of shared shock and horror at what we saw that day. I recall the growing family album of photos of the missing on posters that appeared on walls around the city and the tributes and alters in places like Union Square. I knew I was part of something larger than myself and felt a connection to those I saw everyday - we lived through something together. 

Was that unity? I remember one of my fellow teachers talking to us before we started the next school day shouting that we would be okay, that we would rise to this challenge because we were New Yorkers (dammit!) and I felt included in that crowd, but where did that feeling come from?

Was what we call unity the fact that we shared a horrific experience? Do people that survive a plane crash stay in touch and find ways to connect and work together? When I meet someone who was in New York or Washington DC these days I do feel a certain kinship, maybe unity, a shared experience but what should I expect from that?

I wonder if the media coverage is missing something here. Is the unity they speak of really more a shared trauma? 

What do we expect of that shared experience? 

We are living in a time when a minority of the country is actively fighting against the democracy the country was founded upon. We are living in a time when that minority is quite loud and has the backing of one of our political parties. How does that shared trauma work with the current challenges?

Does the unity felt in that traumatic moment mean I have to accept the position of those who are working to destroy democracy? Those who lived through that day share something unique and powerful but perhaps we expect too much from that feeling of unity.

Let's Get Political

 More and more I hear the well intentioned phrase "I don't want to be political", "I'm not trying to be political", "let's not be political, no politics here, this is a politics free zone" and so forth. Why?

That's a rhetorical question obviously. I know why, it's because political discourse can be filled with anger and venom and most people don't enjoy the upset stomach that comes with that kind of bitterness served up for dinner.

Politics, however, are the real world application of our beliefs and values. Perhaps we value clean air and water and maybe we value pissing-off (aka "owning") those people who don't look like us. Whatever it is we really value comes out pretty clear in our politics and that's fine. When I hear someone say "I'm not political" I hear "I have no values, no beliefs and don't care about anything". 

Perhaps we fear knowing more than we'd like about our fellow travelers on this planet. Maybe we'd rather not know that our cousin supports white supremacist ideas, is a bigot and an idiot to boot. Can we know these things, or more accurately perhaps, believe these things and still be in relationship with someone?

The current experience of Covid-19 is a good challenge for us to navigate. You can make the simplified but rather accurate classification of those who are working to slow the spread of the virus and those who are working to increase its reach and its deadly consequences. Those who promote vaccination, wearing masks and altering social interactions at present are working to save lives by limiting the pandemic and those who oppose such measures are, quite simply, working to make things worse in terms of the death toll and the long term health of us all. 

Taking a stand against science, public health and saving lives is a political position because the Republican Party, one half of our viable political landscape, has taken the position against slowing the pandemic. One might argue that health concerns, or science is not political and they would be correct. Science, knowledge, objective reality are apolitical by nature but they become political when a political party refuses to accept objective reality as we know it.

I saw a recent announcement of a bluegrass music festival postponing due to the pandemic. "It's not political" they stated, but in truth it is. While I fully understand the desire to limit the fall out with some fans of the genre, there's no getting around the political nature and that's fine. What I read between the lines in their statement is "We're concerned about public health and public safety and feel it would be wrong to move forward with an event that we cannot have safely". That statement is political but only because one party is loudly proclaiming that they don't care about public health and safety. 

In this case, the intentions of the organizers are clearly on the side of concern for the audience and general well being. That will be considered political by some who choose to make it so. That may be uncomfortable but it is a loud and clear statement of everyone's beliefs and values.

Forward In All Directions

I've been thinking about direction in terms of teaching. When I was an undergrad a lot of time was spent on creating lesson plans that were very directed. "SWBAT" was the acronym that ruled the day, standing for "Students Will Be Able To..." and especially in my field of Art, we were taught to be very specific about what would happen and have very specific guidelines for how to measure and grade students. Even at the time I thought the notion of stating emphatically that students would do this or that was a little presumptuous. How did I know what exactly they would do, at best I could hope or guess. I wasn't even thinking about what students really needed to be able to do. Over the years as a general education classroom teacher as well an art teacher I've found there's fewer things that students need to do and many more things they can do.
These days I do teach specific skills, although they tend to come more from student's requests. To paint with watercolors you need a brush, paper, paint and water - that's what you need to know. "Oh, you want know how to make this kind of textured look that works well if you're trying to show a grassy field? That's called "Dry Brush", here, I'll show you how that works..." That's a typical teachable moment. Who "directed" that particular lesson? I can tell you that I don't write that sort of thing in any lesson plans, so it must have been the student. Perhaps I've changed that old phrase to "Teacher Will Be Able To Explain What is Needed In The Moment".
Another word that is used a lot in education is "Control". Teacher evaluations place a lot of emphasis on control. Is the classroom or are the students "Under Control"? There are many good reasons for paying attention to control. Out of control is almost always unsafe. So while I am always attending to control in that way I've also started thinking about the word as it applies to how the students go about their learning.
I'm perhaps most interested in controlling the class in terms of motivating them to be focused on learning, on the serious work of exploring, questioning and collecting ideas and experiences. What direction they will take with their work is of less interest to me. I would rather see a student in control of their learning experience, focused and engaged even if what they produce seems to be a random collection of ideas. A student who, in the art room, is really exploring ideas may not create a single finished, beautiful piece of art that will hang in the family's living room. They may have been going in many different directions, but the work they did can still be worthwhile assuming they were in control of the process.
I realize that I value control over direction. It's asking more of the students to develop their ability to control, their self control and accept that the direction their work takes them might not be known at the start but I think the experience is much more fruitful, both in the moment and long term.

The Prize Box Solves Everything

Every day I have students who come to class carrying clipboards, tickets, popsicle sticks in a cup, charts and other means of tracking and or modifying their behavior. It's not uncommon to have three or four students in a class who have some sort of a behavior plan. Yesterday afternoon one class had two students with popsicle sticks in a cup, one loses a stick every time he blurts out, another loses a stick anytime they are not paying attention, two other students have charts where they are scored on various behaviors either positive or negative. At the end of the day, remaining sticks are counted or score sheets tallied and if the score is within a certain range the student gets a reward. All of this makes me wonder if the estate of B.F. Skinner collects royalties on the use of his basic theories, or does Pavlov get a cut as well?
We talk a lot about 21st century learners and curriculum designed for the digital learner and yet there is much in schools that looks the same as it did in the early 20th century. Behavior modification practices are especially noticeable. Should we consider how much more work we expect students to do, or how much more time is given to testing and test prep? Should we consider student's lives outside of school, the increase of planned activities such as sports, drama, dance, etc.? Perhaps it's worth considering the increased time spent on laptops, video games, cell phones or watches. Is it possible that with all these changes to student's lives, that the same old ideas about how to alter behavior, especially when there are legitimate questions as to whether those ideas work in the long run.
Is it possible that we, in schools today, are in such a headlong rush to do more faster, test more, finish more and so on that we grasp at what appears to be the easiest answer for a child who can't or won't sit still, finish math, stop screaming, play nice or have a positive attitude?
When I observe teachers and administrators still waiting for students to line up quietly before going outside for a brief recess repeating the same "We'll wait here until you're all quiet, you're wasting your recess" lines in May, after having spent the entire school year on the same routine, I have to ask if the methods we're using to alter behavior work. Of course it's also fair to ask if these expected behaviors really line up with our overall goals for students.

Play Day

Schools across the country are participating in the Global School Play Day . It seems that educators, child psychologists, doctors etc. have noticed that kids need unstructured play time, a lot of it in fact, much more than they get in their normal day to day experiences. Like most of life, the reasons for this shortfall are many and often complex. The available menu of enrichment activities has mushroomed over the years and who doesn't want to take part in gymnastics, soccer, orchestra, drama, sculpture classes, rock climbing and dance in between visits to the local museum or national park? The average curriculum of your local elementary school has changed over time as well. Some of you may remember taking a nap in kindergarten. Those days are long gone as students practice for the tests which take up an ever increasing amount of the day.
Yes, children need unstructured play, a lot of it, far more than the average child experiences. Yes, it's great that schools are showing some awareness of this fact and wouldn't it be nice if it happened more than once a year?
Here's a modest proposal - why not devote most of one day a week to inquiry and play at school? Who knows what might happen.

A Catalog of Brilliant Ideas That You Can't Use Anytime Soon.

I've had a few careers in my time. Working in radio, playing music full time and teaching. All of these are centered around communication in one way or another. Playing music often has, at it's core, the desire to reach an audience whether live people in front of you or listeners around the world who are streaming a recording you made. As a teacher, I often see myself as a song and dance man. One area where my various careers diverges is how feedback is processed and how new ideas are implemented. Perhaps it's because broadcasting and music are both very much market driven fields that response and adapting to new trends or information tends to happen quickly. Teaching, on the other hand seems to exist in a strange Twilight Zone of alternate reality when it comes to change and growth. I've often said that my grandmother, who taught elementary school in the 1940s-50s could be dropped into most any modern classroom (with a little help from a time machine) and apart from the computer on the teacher's desk, be able to jump right into most any lesson. Show her a schedule and she'd be lining up kids for lunch, or music, practicing writing or multi-digit multiplication with ease. How much has the world changed in the last century? How much more do we know about how humans learn? How little difference is there in the basic structure of schools?

My experience over the last few years in education has been that most all research into effective and powerful learning shows that the best ways to guide student learners are completely at odds with the standard school structure.  Dan Heath writes about the "power of moments" , Alison Zmuda talks about student engagement and a host of studies show that student centered learning, or learning experiences that embrace the messy qualities of learning are the most long lasting. Not surprisingly these kinds of learning experiences rarely fit into the daily schedule of most schools. I conducted research focused on reading instruction several years ago and the basic finding was that to have a high quality experience, to really push students in their thinking skills, we needed to throw out the current literacy program (Rigby) and make the reading time open ended, it might take 45 minutes, it might take an hour and a half. Everyone reading the report loved the insights the students showed in terms of the books they were reading, everyone loved the depth of the conversations and the connections made, everyone agreed that we'd never be able to do this in our schools.

I wonder. Do other professions have this interesting disconnect? Does the research that demonstrates how best to move forward, how best to achieve the stated goals of the profession receive glowing praise and then is ignored?

Data is the Holy Grail of contemporary education. "Drilling down in the data" is a favorite activity as long as the conclusions or discoveries can be used within the constraints of the school system.

What would happen if we really investigated and then acted on the discoveries? What would happen if we didn't already have an answer in mind, but were open to possibilities? 

Imagine that.

Change Gonna Come, Will Change Ever Come?

The latest school shooting, the 18th of this year (which is not quite two months old yet) appeared below the fold on the front page of my local paper this morning. Normal size headline font and apparently less important than the zoning issues and speaker at the local university, stories that earned more space, larger font and better placement. On the radio this morning I listened to a congressman pour all the enthusiasm he could muster into plans to build more barriers around schools, more doors, more locks, cameras, airport style screening devices. "We've got to get serious about this!" he exclaimed.
How is it that we allow people like that to speak in public without shame?
Are we sacrificing reason, intelligence, logic, compassion, humanity at the alter of free speech?
When I was young, the notion that you could stop a person from smoking in public was unthinkable and yet today imagine the reaction if someone walked into any public building smoking a cigar. What happened? How did we, as a society, go from not only accepting smoking,  but even glamorizing it to marginalizing the practice in a matter of thirty years or so?
Just as the facts concerning the health effects of smoking are known, the ways to limit gun violence are there for all the world to see. Indeed, all the developed world does see them, with the exception of the United States of America.
How do we get to that place where no one would be caught uttering a phrase like "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" or "Guns don't kill people..."?
Is it rude to not allow smoking in restaurants or public spaces? Would it be unfair to ridicule someone who claimed a right to smoke in public because founding documents of this country provided the right to the pursuit of happiness?
Do we need to increase the scorn and ridicule for those who twist the founding documents of this country to argue for unfettered access to deadly weapons?
Those who argue for so-called "Gun rights" have no logical standing, they have no facts, to back up their case and literally a world of evidence against them and yet every day we allow them to speak as if there is any semblance or reason or intelligence in their words.
What would society say, if as a teacher, I purposefully taught false information in school every day, two plus two equals thirty five, the world is flat, there is no such thing as gravity...? Some children might believe what was being taught, and what would be the consequences? Probably some failing grades on standardized tests.
Every day we allow the National Rife Association and fellow travelers to purposefully teach false information about guns and the reasonable controls that the rest of the world employs. Some citizens believe those lies, and what are the consequences?
The consequences appear somewhere below the fold on the local newspaper.

Good Morning Class...and Good Luck Part Two.

Recently I met with several fellow teachers for a book study group that was required by our district. The book, "The Differentiated Classroom" was an excellent book for starting discussions and is part of the latest trend or buzz word in education "Differentiation" - tailoring lessons to suit each individual learner. Two things stood out for me. One was that after reading many anecdotal accounts of well designed and differentiated classrooms our group talked about what we had read, and the first thing that came up was "Where are the students who throw their chairs against the wall?" "Where is the student who randomly yells or makes noises during class?" "Why are there no mentions of the six or eight students in the class who not only doing no work, but also breaking pencils or throwing erasers at other kids?" We were left to assume that the classrooms described in the book were either works of pure fiction or existed in some alternate universe devoid of special needs children or ones who choose for whatever reason to not follow expectations. Our take away was that it all sounded nice but since what was portrayed was so far from our reality it was hard to see how to make use of any of the ideas.
The book, which was highly touted by the district, talked of curriculum that followed the interests of the students and allowed for open exploration. One of the teachers in our group asked rather bluntly if we'd ever be allowed to do anything like this given that the demands on curriculum pacing are tied directly to testing and every student must complete the exact same classwork, the exact same tests in the same order and pacing as everyone else. The answer was an honest "No". Which obviously begs the question "Why are we reading something that explains a curriculum we can't actually teach?" Never mind the questions about whether or not the style of teaching is truly workable, or makes sense, we can't even begin to set up a system as described in the book. What was the purpose in reading this?
In my twenty plus in education I've seen many "latest and greatest" curriculums, theories and practices and that's not to mention the multitude of educational philosophies that appear in books and are the topic of deeply engaged conversation for the next day until replaced by something new.
Strangely enough, if my grandmother who taught elementary school seventy years ago could be transported magically into a fifth grade classroom at my school, apart from the laptop, she'd have no problem fitting in - "We're studying multi-digit multiplication, okay!" So little has really changed. And yet we're constantly bombarded with ideas and suggestions, many of which are promoted as the best thing since sliced bread while in most cases there's no chance that the ideas will actually be implemented either because it's impossible in the current structure of schools or because when push comes to shove those in authority don't really like the idea or don't understand what it implies.
When Writing Workshop was the hot new style of literacy instruction I took a job at an elementary school where they were thrilled that I had previously worked at the Reading and Writing Project at Columbia University where the actual text books the school would be using were written. The principal was pretty much horrified to discover what Writing Workshop actually entailed once I got there. They had been excited to have an expert in the latest, greatest trend, the only problem was no one really had any idea about what they were promoting.
Do other fields have this problem? A constant bouncing about to the latest idea, shifting resources and energies back and forth only to come back to more or less the same model as before? Any study of history will show that the basic best practices of education haven't changed since the days of Plato. Of course a serious and honest assessment of that fact would cause panic in the education publishing field, but who are we supposed to be serving here?

Good Morning Class...and Good Luck.

This cute t-shirt design caught my eye the other day, worn by an elementary school student who does their best every day to live up to the motto on the shirt.  It's a funny reminder of what many teachers experience on a daily basis, that definition of insanity to try the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
I teach art in an elementary school and I see students from kindergarten through fifth grade every day. Classroom teachers at every level often drop their students off for art with a comment like "They're insane today...good luck" or "I'm sorry we're late, it took ten minutes to get them quiet enough to walk down the hall". What's going on?
As educators we've all been taught to construct assessments based on what has been taught, and if a large number of students do poorly on an exam one area you must look at is your presentation of the material. That always has to be considered. Perhaps you didn't cover the material well enough, maybe you were asking for something on the test that students couldn't reasonably do.
More than one teacher this past month has said "With this class, if you are not on top of them like a drill sergeant 24-7 it's complete chaos, they can't work on their own at all, everything has to be directed". My classroom is in the middle of the building so I hear classes passing in the halls and see and hear students in the lunch room across the hall. Every day I hear an almost endless "Shhhhhhh", everyday I notice the lights turned off in the lunchroom, the signal that it's too loud and students must eat silently. Having been there, I can't say I disagree with the "too loud"description, but what's going on? Why is this the normal experience, not just in the first week of school, but all year long?
Could it be that the rigorous testing that goes on every day in kindergarten through fifth grade is too much? Could it be that early elementary grades K-2 should have some free time to build, explore, and interact with other? Is there a problem when the first time apart from a 15 minute recess that a five year old gets to have some freedom of choice comes in art class when they can use the watercolors to paint whatever they like? My guess is that most people have no clue that the early elementary grades no longer include nap time, or much story time for reading out loud, building blocks etc. Most people probably have no clue that students are expected to read and write in kindergarten.
I realize that part of my job when a student comes into my class jumping up and down, yelling, breaking things right and left, is to stop them from doing that, but I think it's also worth asking why? Why are they behaving this way?
I don't have any good answers.
I do have some observations though that might lead to questions, discussions and possible answers.
Elementary students are expected to be in class from 9 -3:30 each day paying attention and looking like they're paying serious attention. There's a 20 minute lunch and a 15 minute recess but no coffee breaks and no real break in the kind of work they're doing. How many adults have that kind of job?
Young children who are often experiencing their first extended social interactions are given little if any time for that important skill, they are expected to be "on task" all day long.
Teachers are expected to "differentiate" or offer learning experiences tailored to the 30 or so students they have that will meet each students specific and unique needs. There are few, if any, support people to assist the teacher. Students who once were consigned to special ed. classrooms are now mainstreamed without real support for their needs. When a child is disruptive a teacher can take time to talk with them, have them reflect on what they were doing, come up with a plan to make things right while teaching the rest of the class, giving one-on-one attention to students while monitoring the whole group. Sound impossible?
Why are we doing this?

Two Houses That Occupy The Same Space Cannot Stand.

During the 2016 election Donald Trump and his supporters argued that America was a devastated landscape economically, that only his financial genius could turn the country around. The day after his inauguration his fans cheered the amazing turn around in this country's fortunes. A year later those songs of praise still ring loudly even though many of the economic indicators show either no change from the previous four or five years or in some cases a slight slow down. The same economic data that was previously a disaster is now a startling accomplishment. Imagine that the New England Patriots, on their way to yet another Super Bowl appearance were talking in press conferences about the need to "Turn the team around and get on the right track". Any reasonable person would doubt their sanity, just as reasonable people doubt the sanity or the motives of the Trump supporters.
Apart from the electoral consequences of his supporters living in an alternate reality where Mexico's government will be paying for a wall in penance for their practice of selecting murders and rapists to send across the border to steal jobs when they're not otherwise busy with killing and raping, there is, perhaps, a larger problem for us to consider.
I believe that many in the top 1% of the 1% understand the game plan, disheveled and crazy as it seems at times of the Trump administration - to move more and more of the country's wealth into fewer and fewer hands. The greediest of this group no doubt applauds that practice and some may honestly believe that this will benefit the country as a whole. The extreme racists, the neo-Nazis, the Klan etc. are perfectly tuned into his wavelength and understand clearly the racist message, recognizing their own propaganda finally freed from dog whistles and innuendo. There is another group I see in his followers; those who don't identify as white supremacists although they may share some core beliefs and who are certainly not in the top 1% of wealthiest citizens, and yet accept the same alternate reality that the administration has delivered.
When this administration is gone we'll still have the disgruntled racists and they'll most likely retreat from center stage as they did in the 1960s as the civil rights marchers began to be seen as the heroes and respectable participants in the struggle while those will the clubs, fire hoses and angry dogs became a national embarrassment. The greediest of the wealthy will be able to retreat into their many homes and continue the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, but what of the rest?
One would hope they would recognize the false narrative they've been fed and begin to support polices rooted in reality whether liberal or conservative, but with the option of 24-7 input from Fox News, Breitbart etc. it's easy to see how they could continue in this Twilight Zone of hatred and rage. It really is a science fiction scenario, a group of people who are living in an alternate reality, an unreal world set in the real world where the actions of those alternate reality people impacts the real world around them, and ultimately themselves and yet remain unaware.
Discussion, debate, progress requires a shared reality - either economic indicators are up or down, 4% unemployment is good or bad, it can't change minute to minute and it can't be both simultaneously. We may have to deal with fellow citizens who continue to live in the alternate reality that has been fashioned for them because they still occupy the same physical plane as the rest of us, and their actions can still have real world consequences. I would argue it's easier and more productive to debate policy with someone who acknowledges the same set of facts as you but suggests another approach than you've thought of than to try to work with someone who sees black as white and up as down.

You Just Might Be A Racist.

I've heard the comments many times in the past year that so-called liberals are doing themselves a disservice by labeling people with terms like racist or bigot, that all they are doing is creating a toxic atmosphere where they won't be listened to. On one hand it's good to know that words like racist and bigot are still powerful enough to create unease or even revulsion. They are nasty words and should carry some bite.
When members of various white supremacy groups marched in Charlottesville in August 2017 the news and social media were blanketed with photos of angry white mostly young men carrying torches and chanting slogans borrowed from the Nazis of a previous generation. Thanks to the improved technology of cell phones the photos were quite clear even in torchlight and the participants easily identified. Following those marches there was no shortage of outrage and horror on the part of many who were there at being seen, being identified and now being called racist.
It is hard to generate much sympathy for the marchers who couldn't connect the dots to understand that their actions were indeed racist, but at the same time understood that the term once applied to them might cost them social standing or a job, but there you have it - a sad, strange world of ignorance to and yet also extreme sensitivity to consequences.
If there is some sympathy to offer it might come from a recognition that the world has changed, just as it always has. As a teacher I know that for years now we've taught history lessons on the civil rights era where racists were those people beating in the heads of marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. They were portrayed as somehow alien and inhuman beings who were defeated when Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "I Have A Dream" speech which ushered in an era of equality for all. That is essentially the narrative I have seen presented over the last 30 years that I've worked in education whether at the elementary or secondary level. It is not hard, given that background, to see where a young person today would hear about taking pride in your race, or how all lives matter and think that's only striving for equality or fairness, just like Dr. King. In my experience we, as educators and curriculum developers, have done a poor job of tracing the lines of prejudice and racism from George Wallace and Bull Connor to the current President calling mostly black football players protesting racism "Sons of bitches". We have also done a poor job of acknowledging that the world has changed. In 1965 you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would place marriage equality or gender identity in the civil rights struggle, but the world has changed.
Perhaps some of those marchers who were deeply offended by being labeled racist or bigot were truly ignorant of the changes that have occurred in the world around them and maybe it's just too bad that they didn't have someone around to stop them before taking to the streets with torches in hand. Nobody likes to be taught a lesson so publicly, but the world changes and learning is essential to progress.
I've said that education has done a poor job of connecting the dots and pointing out the modern day versions of the racists we see in those old newsreels and maybe the answer is that we all need to be teachers. How do we do that? We could start by giving no safe haven to racist or bigoted words. We could confront every Confederate flag or complaint about gays ruining the institution of marriage. We could remind, gently even, anyone who shouts "Religious Freedom" in their defense of discrimination that freedom doesn't mean you never will encounter someone who is different from you. To create a society where no one is confused about whether or not they're a bigot or racists, that would be a good start.

What Do I Hate?

Is Donald Trump and evil person?
This is something I'm thinking about and this is why I believe that calling someone "evil" as opposed to condemning their actions, rather than their humanity might be important.
I should say that I realize this may be primarily a matter of semantics.
If we use the word "evil" to describe a person or people as in "The Nazis were evil, and Adolph Hitler was Satan incarnate" it can set those people apart from ourselves.
To me, it can feel like I'm describing something so far outside the human experience that it's akin to encountering an alien life form and I begin to lose any connection to myself, including whatever connection that might help me see any tendencies or leanings in their direction myself.
In case there's any doubt, I consider the actions and words of the Nazi Party who ruled Germany in the 1930s through 40s to be evil and those who participated committed unspeakable evil. Those who participated, primarily at the higher levels of the party, have been rightly held responsible.
Donald Trump's words and actions are also evil, his embrace of ignorance, bigotry and racism bound together with a string of disdain for decency and celebration of vulgarity is astounding. His followers, supporter and enablers are equally complicit. Their support is abhorrent.
Can Donald Trump and his supporters be "good people"? Do their evil actions preclude any goodness? Can I, or should I, judge someone as a "good person" or "bad person".
I use the phrase all the time "He's a good guy" when talking about someone who would come pick you up if you car broke down or take the time to show you how to play "Angeline The Baker" on banjo. What if that same person who would help you fix your backyard fence also supports racism and bigotry?
I don't know.
What I do know is that the words, actions and intentions of President Trump and his supporters, and for the record, this includes all who use the "Well, I don't always like his methods..." excuse are vile and vulgar examples of the worst of humanity. Those words, actions and intentions are evil.

The Miracle on 5th Avenue: A Holiday Fantasy

I've been listening to various supporters of Donald Trump, and especially several advisers to his transition team. The unifying theme of their comments is that he will change more or less on a cellular level by surrounding himself with intelligent, and experienced people who will guide him in decision making. The story I'm hearing is that the crazy ideas, the racism, bigotry, ill manners and general ignorance of government will all disappear as he changes into a man who, at 70, becomes a thoughtful individual who never acts rash or rude and follows the advice of those around him who understand the job he is about to undertaken. I'm an optimist at heart and am completely willing to believe this can happen. I also need to see results. A first major test of this holiday story line will be whether or not the President-Elect divests himself of all his business holdings, and of course not just the silly idea of turning them over to his children, but the entire family divesting themselves and everything placed in a blind trust by the time he takes office in two months. Anything short of that would create a mine field of conflicting interests and render him incapable of being President. I realize that placing such a large company with it's connections to foreign governments in a blind trust in two months time would be a huge undertaking, but if his supporters can believe that he will change into a completely different person in that amount of time, I'm sure we all could believe such a miracle would occur.

What I Know (post election reflection)

What I know: I am still the same person I was yesterday, the day before and tomorrow. I hold the same values that motivate and inspire me - simplicity, peace, integrity, equality, conservation of our natural world and community. Sometimes I see those values reflected in the leadership of our country and sometimes not. Sometimes my work is devoted more towards moving those ideals forward and sometimes the energy is directed more towards defending them. I am old enough to recall decades like the 1980s where my primary work was standing up for those principles against the prevailing political winds. I see a new storm blew in last night, I am pretty sure I know what my job will be. Time to get to work.

Thank You Donald Trump

This political season has certainly been entertaining, although painful to watch and for that we can thank Donald Trump for his off-handed thoughtless comments tossed to the eager fans like cheap, sweatshop made t-shirts hurled by an outlandish mascot at a sporting event.  Come to think of it, Trump really is the outlandish mascot of the current GOP, all we need is a little dance on the dugout roof or push-ups after a touchdown and the image would be complete.
As bizarre and ridiculous as his whole campaign has been to this point, the moment that prompted the "Thank You" on my part was his comments on abortion this week where he said a woman should be punished for having an abortion assuming it was illegal as he proposes to make the practice.  Of course all hell broke loose on all side of the abortion debate but strangely enough his comment is perfectly logical and we owe him a debt of gratitude for pointing out the obvious.  If abortion was illegal then it follows that there must be a penalty.  There have been several studies done of the so-called "Pro-Life" movement and just about every case people who are pushing to make abortion illegal have no idea what to do in terms of punishment - fines? prison?  Forget for the moment that there's no real evidence that making abortion illegal will prevent it from ever happening, just consider the rather strange position of someone trying to make a currently legal practice into a crime but having no idea what the punishment for that crime might be.  In most cases people haven't even thought about the fact that crimes and punishment go hand in hand.
The Pro-Life movement, when they have accepted that there would be some punishment for an abortion, have presented the idea that only a doctor would be held responsible and punished.  After all, women can't make decisions about their own lives can they?  Next thing you know they'll want to own property and have jobs outside the house.  As Trump quickly backtracked from his statements he settled on that absurd line of reasoning for a moment before moving on to "I was misquoted, taken out of context".  Which, of course, when it was a direct answer to a direct question, but anything's possible this year, right?
Of course the Pro-Life position of punishing a doctor only is demeaning to women but it also fails miserably when considered within the current judicial system of this country.  If we assume that a women who makes the decision to have an abortion is not guilty of anything but the doctor performing the procedure is, then we'd certainly have to release every prisoner who was convicted of drug possession charges.  After all, they just used the drugs, the only person who could be sent to jail would be the seller of the illegal drugs.
Unfortunately the loudest voices of the Pro-Life movement are the least well informed and ironically the most harmful to what they claim to be their own mission.  Fighting to close Planned Parenthood clinics in the name of being Pro-Life is akin to destroying fire hydrants in an attempt the protect neighborhoods from fires.  Thank you Donald Trump for helping bring the absurdity of this position to light.  While I'm sure there wasn't a lot of thought put into the statement, it may have a positive effect after all.

After The Testing is Done, What Then?

If you've followed any of the stories about standardized testing in recent years you've no doubt read about all the time taken up either preparing for tests or taking the actual tests.  It is true that there's a lot of time in both of these areas.  At my own school we've just begun the new computer based online tests (early March as I write this) and they're scheduled through mid-May.  Yes, that's right three months.  By any standards that's quite a lot of time in the school days taken up with students navigating or trying to (as there are often technical glitches) online tests.  We could talk about what else students might be doing during this time or how the intense focus on tests shapes curriculum but I'd like to look at some of the things I'm noticing as a school teacher that I'll put in the "Brave New World" folder.  One example is the issue of technical glitches in the testing environment. There has always been a huge focus on the testing environment.  Cell phones are not allowed in the classroom, computers often can't be turned on, students are not allowed to come and go at will, and these are just a few of the rules put in place to make sure the testing environment hasn't been compromised.  Now that the tests are online I see students who will be "dropped", the wireless goes down in the building, there's an issue at the server or any number of other issues comes along and they're stranded while a teacher helps them get back online.  Some students may wait twenty minutes before being able to log back on to the test, perhaps the work they had been in the middle of may be there, or maybe not.  Now suppose you take two students in a class who are taking the same test, one has to log on more than once as one of the technical glitches kicks them out of the test, the other has no issues.  Can we call their testing experience equal?  The whole point of the standardized test is that all students are tested equally.  Has the testing environment be compromised in anyway?  So far I haven't heard anyone addressing that issue.  It may well be that the online testing format is the best option we have considering the speed at which the information can be processed and results returned to the schools, but its clearly far from perfect, maybe even far from good.  I'm not against online testing but think for a moment of the last time you opened a text book, had the words suddenly disappeared? Did a teacher tell you to close the book and open it again to see if they had come back? Even the tech savvy computer experts have issues from time to time, and when you have hundreds of students logging on to a test site you can bet that the problems will be more often than not.  I haven't heard any discussion on this point and it seems like just one of those things we are to accept as the new norm.  The disconnect for me comes from operating with what might be an old set of expectations in a new norm.  If having the student log into the test possibly several times is okay, then the definition of the testing environment has changed and we should acknowledge that change.
One of the promises of the new tests is the rich data that can be mined from the results.  I've been in meetings where the presenter will talk with great passion about how we can dig down deep in the data to learn more than ever before about students abilities and pinpoint areas of weakness.  That may be but what will we do with all this information?  At the elementary school level it will still likely be one teacher and twenty five to thirty five students.  I have yet to hear any insights on how that teacher will be able to alter time and space to be able to teach each student individually to cover all the areas where they need to improve.  Consider that if a student is below grade level in reading skills, say perhaps they are a fourth grade student reading a second grade level, studies show that they would need extra work beyond the regular school day, perhaps an extra two hours per day of focused instruction to get on track.  Any teacher could tell you that you don't need a series of tests to find out if a student can't read effectively at their grade level, from my experience you can determine this kind of information within the first week of school.
The latest tests promise to deliver data that is more nuanced and specific than ever before.  We're told that we can learn the particular style of non-fiction texts that a student has trouble understanding for example.  If school districts were funded to a level where they could employ a whole host of specialists just as a football team has coaches for the receivers, the linebackers, the running backs, etc. then we might be able to do something with all this data.  If these tests can show us, as they promise, the exact elements of a child's reading abilities for example that need more work, who will do the work of guiding that student?  Are we really expecting a single teacher to be the expert in every area and have the time and space to work one on one with every student?
The current testing structure takes a lot of time and energy.  The benefit we're told is the rich data.  If that data, however, has no realistic way of being used to meaningfully impact students then is it worth the time we take to discover it?
We are living in an interesting time indeed and I'm quite aware of that expression being used as a curse.  More and more data is available at every turn.  I can check my email now by simply looking at my wrist, never mind the outdated and difficult task of taking a mobile device out of my pocket.  In the world of consumer electronics we're trading money for these gadgets as well as the time spent looking at and consuming the data they provide and it is always worth asking if the deal is fair.  Is this worth the cost?  With the current trends in school testing we are also spending money, our tax dollars to be specific.  Is it worth the cost?  Could the millions paid to companies to produce and administer the tests be used better elsewhere?  Is it worth the time?  Make no mistake, when you are testing for several months out of the school year somethings are dropped from the school day.  Perhaps it's shorter recess times or maybe independent reading or the chance to develop a science experiment based on some new information you've read about.
The current push for data has very real costs in time and money.  If, as I would maintain, the data has little to no value due to the inability to use it in any meaningful way to positively impact the student's learning then I believe the costs are too high.  We are not getting a good deal.

Who Will Be The Next Pete Seeger?

I’ve written before about Pete Seeger.  In a previous article I called him “My greatest teacher” and he was that as well as an endless source of inspiration and ideas.  Yesterday I watched the concert at Lincoln Center as a part of Seeger Fest laughing, crying and singing along and just immersing myself in the amazing “Pete-ness” of the whole event.  I was particularly struck by the words from Harry Belafonte when he asked who would be the next Pete Seeger.  This isn’t the first time I’ve thought about this idea.  In the worlds of music, art, dance, or any creative venture there’s always a thought about what or who will be the next big thing.  I believe there will never be another Pete Seeger.  That’s partly due to the amazing range of his accomplishments but also due to a realization that the world has changed.  Pete began his musical seed sowing when the recording industry and radio were still relatively new.  When the Weavers sold a couple of million records that accounted for a huge percentage of the record buying public, when they appeared on radio or TV with the small number of networks available, a large portion of the country listened.  While most of us hold in our hands devices that can literally broadcast around the world via social media the sheer number of people doing exactly the same thing means that the chances of any one voice, idea or song being heard by most of the population is decreased.  The media landscape that Pete walked through most of his life was such that when he spoke it often carried more weight. What would be the modern day equivalent of his performance of “Big Muddy” on The Smothers Brothers show? A You Tube clip? Today’s version might reach several million but would it have the same impact? I don’t think so.  Pete’s regular column in Sing Out! magazine might not have reached the same number that see one of today’s popular bloggers but the audience that was reading was really paying attention.  In the grand scheme of things, the readership of the “Appleseeds” column might not have been large, but the percentage of readers who started writing their own songs, became activists or joined political movements was huge. 

There may be others who will work as tirelessly as Pete Seeger at cleaning up rivers, opposing wars and violence and pushing for civil rights and they may be every bit as good a musician as Pete (although that would be quite a challenge!) but it will be different.  As much as he would try to deny it, he was a star, a major star, a super star, coming from a time in the world of commercial music making where stars were made.  That star power is something we’re not likely to see again. 

Of course if Pete was anything it was optimistic.  I often heard him talk about the boundless opportunities that existed for reaching out and sharing with others.  Will there be another single individual who will be connected to most, if not all of the major figures in American folk music, introduce audiences to songs from all over the world, record multi-million selling records, write songs that are covered hundreds if not thousands of times in every language, invent essential language for music notation, write the first important book on playing the banjo, influence millions of young songwriters, musicians and activists through his endless travels? No, most likely not.  But, there are thousands and maybe millions of people doing amazing and creative work that speaks to the essential beauty of human dignity and they are sharing that work around the word right now.  Rather than wonder who might be the next Pete Seeger I would suggest that we all have a part to play in carrying on his work. The next Pete Seeger would not be recognizable if we’re looking for anything like what we’ve seen before.  We are all Pete Seeger now, and have been for some time, perhaps the fact that Pete was still here might have blinded us to that fact.  We are all the seeds he planted and we are the gardeners tending the fields for the future generations. 

Here's a couple of photos I took of Pete over the years at People's Music Network gatherings.

Thinking out loud

I've been following the news from Ukraine this past week and am intrigued by many things I hear.  One of the first statements that caught my attention was from Secretary of State John Kerry saying that "You don't just invade a country on phony pretexts to assert your interests".  I would agree completely, in fact there are plenty of international treaties in place stating just that and add that one risks looking like a fool if you don't acknowledge that the United States is guilty of that exact same action, most recently in Iraq.  Apparently I am not cut out for a job in politics because I don't think I could deliver a line like that with a straight face.   I would at least have to add "Look, we should know, we've tried it time and time again, it just doesn't really work out, at least its not worth the costs involved."  But, as I've said, that's not my job and I don't think I could do it anyway.
Presidential critics who last week were decrying his dictator-like-iron-grip-tyrannical personality now see him as weak because no foreign country would dare break international law if a real leader occupied the White House.  The dizzying speed at which some folks rush to condemn anything that President Obama (or his wife for that matter) says and does has yielded many silly moments and this may just be one more in the long line, not worth even trying to understand let alone answer. The prize for most ridiculous has to go to the chorus from the right praising Putin and holding him up as an example of how to be a leader.  As a teacher though I'm always looking for teachable moments and possibilities for learning.
I asked many of my POTUS hating friends for suggestions on what they would do, and of course this is not a scientific study, but the answers I got where mostly not answers at all.  One person suggested the same economic or political sanctions that are currently being discussed but everyone else couldn't come up with anything they would do.  A more interesting point I think is why should the President of the United States be the one who guarantees proper behavior from all the other countries in the world?  Going back to one of the criticisms of the President, that the events in Ukraine are completely his fault due to his weakness, if that's the case you'd have to assume that there's never been a strong President because countries engage in all kinds of infractions on international treaties all the time.  I would defy anyone to find a point in history where some country wasn't invading, interfering with or otherwise messing around with another country and not matter who is President of the United States it still goes on.
I hear some lamenting what they see as the end of American power or influence on the rest of the world.  Considering how that's gone for us lately is that such a bad thing?  Are there voices in other countries leveling the same critiques of their leaders? Why isn't England leading the way?  Oh for the days when Germany barked out the orders and everyone snapped to attention!  Secretary Kerry also made some comments about Russia taking a 19th century approach to the 21st century.  Could it be that all this angst over what appears to be America's diminished role in controlling the fate of the world is just as out of place in the world of today?

...and You Are There

One of my favorite TV shows in the days of my youth was "You Are There" which featured re-enactments of famous moments in history with the addition of a TV newsman, I think the show was on CBS so Walter Cronkite Mike Wallace might be interviewing General Custer before his famous battle or something like that.  The idea of the show was wonderful, to put the viewer in the middle, as much as possible, or a history making event.  To me, that's the point of studying history, to put ourselves into those moments that create change and try to understand the factors at work and how we are impacted by those events today.
Over the years teaching school I've often heard students express disbelief or disgust when studying the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s.  "How could people be so cruel?" or "How could people be so stupid? Don't they know everyone deserves equal rights?" These are common questions and challenging ones too.  They are challenging because while you might be tempted to write off the bigots of the Citizen's Councils or the KKK as deviant members of society they represent the feelings and beliefs of a much larger, although not always as vocal, section of society.
As a teacher I have appreciated the current civil rights struggle for marriage equality on several levels.  First, of course is the fact that people are demanding their equal rights and at the moment things are going well in the fight for equality, at least in the courts.  Second, it gives today's students a chance to see a civil rights struggle play out.  The voices against equality chant the same slogans and invoke the same religious traditions as they did a half century ago.  The recent attempts at creating new laws that allow discrimination in states like Arizona even create the same photo opps of people being denied service at restaurants, hotels, and other public places.  Students who have asked those questions and expressed disbelief at the bigotry on display need look no further than the front page of the paper or the evening news.
As before, those who hope to discriminate and seek legal backing to do so, act as if they are the ones being discriminated against.  Talk to any true believer in the myth of the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy"and you'll get an earful about how terrible it was that they were denied the right to buy and sell humans.  As recently as this past year a congress person used the phrase "The war of Northern Aggression" to describe the Civil War that was started by the Confederate States of America over their desire to continue slavery.  Discrimination based on the color of one's skin was a time honored tradition sanctioned by religious beliefs that were near and dear to many people and this, I think, highlights another learning opportunity for us.
The leading voices against marriage equality all come from pretty much the same position, that allowing people the right to marry would infringe on the religious freedom of those who believe it is wrong.  The recent attempts at legalizing discrimination in Arizona and Kansas go even further by saying that you should be able to discriminate against anyone who lives in a way you find objectionable.  Of course a quick read-through of the Constitution should clear up any questions about making laws to enforce your particular religious beliefs on others and I would think a bit of common sense, if not common decency, would render the argument that your religious beliefs make it intolerable to encounter anyone who doesn't except your particular views as the gospel truth, seem rather ridiculous.
The opportunity that I see is for those students I've referred to and for those who support the founding documents and work for equality to develop some empathy for the bigotry.
I'm not talking about a free pass, I honestly believe that those claiming infringement of their religious liberties are misguided at best.  I'm thinking more of trying to understand what fuels this resistance to equality.  I realize that it may well come off as sounding patronizing and condescending "Oh those poor religious fundamentalists blah, blah..." If so, okay, that's my fault and I'll work on that, we don't all get things right the first time.  When I think of students asking me about the KKK and people screaming at the Little Rock students walking to school I want to find ways to make those faces from the old black and white newsreels come to life.  Today we have that opportunity.  The people who fight equal rights may indeed be lovely people to spend time with.  They might be your kind grandfather or your aunt, your mother or father.  They may indeed be frightened that something important to them is being taken away.  If you've grown up being taught that dark skin meant that the person was inferior and that it would threaten your world to allow them the same rights as you then to be told that your beliefs were bigoted, as true as that may be, would be a rude awakening.  I've spoken to many friends in the past few years who are mightily offended by the notion that their opposition to marriage equality for example makes them a bigot.  "Its not bigotry if you're discriminating because of a religious belief" one person told me.  It seems to be a rude awakening or maybe a nightmare to think that you might be a fellow traveler with those hurling insults at Ruby Bridges fifty years ago.
One of the teachable moments we have right now is to remember that people are not two dimensional characters, they are much more complex.  Those contorted faces screaming at African American children going to school have perhaps become more like fairy tale villains than real people who went to work, loved their families and lived real lives.  Bigotry doesn't always look like evil on the surface.  Sometimes it shows up as people who are friends or family who might belong the same church as you do who are expressing beliefs you have been taught to accept since you were a child.  I think that we will be able to move forward as a society embracing and promoting equality which benefits us all if we can learn to recognize when that equality is threatened because it won't always be obvious.
History is playing out in front of us every day and perhaps when people study this time in the future and students ask "How could people have been so cruel? Didn't they realize that we all deserve equal rights?" Some of us will be around to remind each other that its not always so obvious when you are denying someone else their civil rights, especially if they look and act differently than us,  and we'll encourage them to look around to see what, perhaps uncomfortable, opportunities exist to promote equality.

My Greatest Teacher

I heard the songs he wrote, adapted or otherwise shared with the world long before I knew there was a guy named Pete Seeger who was a famous singer. In later years as I learned more about him and had the chance to spend some time talking with him I realize that’s exactly the way he would want it to be. It seemed that for Pete fame was a useful, if sometimes uncomfortable, way to get songs out into the world to do the good work that needed to be done.
When I worked in radio our station had a closet filled with promo records that the program director had decided we were never going to play. DJs were able to sift through these piles of albums and take whatever we wanted. One day I found a batch of Pete’s Columbia releases and took them home. I was aware that he was the guy who had written “If I Had a Hammer” and some other tunes but not much else. I started listening to the albums and I was transfixed. I felt like I had opened a magic door to an amazing world that was hiding in plain view. It was as if the songs on those albums were diamonds that had been laying on the ground all around me and I had seen them a thousand times, just never really noticed them. I also discovered that he was a brilliant instrumentalist on 12 string guitar and banjo, I dug out an old 5 string banjo from my parent’s house and started trying to play like Pete. Just one of a couple million other pickers who have fallen under that simply beautiful spell.
As I began to seek out all things Pete I discovered that those old albums in the public library with the thick cardboard covers were indeed Pete Seeger’s old Folkways albums and once again I tumbled into another wonderland. There was, and is, such power in the simplicity of his arrangements of traditional folk songs often accompanied by only his banjo sketching out the melody under his voice. Soon I was filling up notebooks with the words and chords to hundreds of folks songs that I learned from listening to those albums over and over and over again.  In those long lost days before the internet, YouTube, mp3s and such seeking out those recordings was something akin to an archeological expedition.  One of the many things I discovered about Pete over time was his incredibly pragmatic optimism.  Anyone who lived so long and experienced so much could be excused for longing for the good old days or griping about the way things are today but Pete seemed to always be looking for what was good and possible all around him, maybe that looking is what helped him find so much good and do so much.  To hear him talk, the world was constantly in need of good deeds and the possibilities for how we could accomplish those good deeds was always increasing.
The first time I met Pete was at a gathering of The People’s Music Network for Songs of Freedom and Struggle. There were workshops and song sharing sessions and I had been taking pictures at one of Pete’s workshops. Another attendee came up to me and told me that Pete really didn’t like people taking pictures during the workshops. Later in the day I found Pete and asked him about the photos. The first thing he said was “Aren’t you the guy who sang that song about living on a farm last night?, that was great”. He then said “You know, I used to think that music was the universal language but I’ve come to believe its photography because pictures are instantly understandable to anyone anywhere.” We then talked for an hour or so about photography and ways to use images in conjunction with music. He told me he was writing about this gathering for Sing Out and asked if I would send photos to them for his article.
I learned over time that this was pure Pete. If someone came up and told him they loved his music or thought he was the greatest banjo player he’d be polite and friendly but if you came up and said something like “Pete, I just found an old garage full of tractor tires what do you think we could do with that?” His eyes would light up and he’d be tossing out twenty ideas to the dozen.
I often admired his energy and I think he was a master at soaking up the energy of the people who were around him and radiating it back ten-fold.
As a writing teacher I often talk about finding a “mentor author” to study, Pete was my mentor songwriter for sure. When I play a song of mine like “One New Road” and see people singing along the first time they’ve heard it I know Pete’s lessons are coming through. I listened to many of his songs when I was writing “Paul Robeson Song (Powerful Voice)” and had the somewhat scary experience of playing it for the first time in public with Pete sitting in the front row. When I finished the song I stepped off stage and was kneeling down to put my guitar in the case when I felt a hand on my shoulder. I turned and there was Pete “Now, that’s a damn good song!” He said. That was just pure Pete.
Of course Pete would die someday. I often wondered about how I would feel. I did have a little practice though. I remember waking up to the radio when he was given the Kennedy Center Honors award. I woke up to the sound of President Clinton’s voice talking about Pete and saying all kinds of wonderful things. “Oh no, I thought Pete must have died, the President is saying all these wonderful things about him” I couldn’t imagine the President of the United States saying something nice about Pete Seeger unless he had died. A few months later I was able to share this experience with Pete who thought it was pretty funny.  I only met him a few times, played music together once or twice, just like ten thousand or more other pickers and singers.  However I'd be willing to bet that anyone who has been touched by his music felt they knew him as a friend.  From what I saw he would get a group of people singing spontaneously at some gathering and he would also work hard with a group getting every note just right.  He began his work as a songwriter when standard musical notation was the form to share songs and lived to see digital files of his songs flying around the world, and always was delighting in whatever way the songs could do the work they were meant to do in this world.
That old physical part of Pete is gone but so much is still here. When I read the news this morning I felt sad but not overwhelmed. Maybe because it was morning and I was getting ready to take my son to school and get to work myself I was rushing around and the news was still sinking in. We went out and got in the car. I turned the key, the radio was on and instantly the car was filled with the chiming electric twelve strings of The Byrds playing “Turn, Turn, Turn” from the back seat I heard my son singing along and that’s when I really cried. It was pure Pete, one of his many gifts being passed along to the next generation.
To everything there is a season, indeed and we’re so fortunate to have been here for the Season of Pete.
He once sang “To my old brown earth and to my old blue sky, I’ll now give these last few molecules of I”. Pete truly gave every last molecule of “I”. He’s a part of my world as much as sun and sky and always will be my greatest teacher.