Thursday, July 30, 2015
I'm an Economics Teacher
I'm an economics teacher. I didn't start out to be one, but like many people, things just kind of fell into place, and here I am. I love it. I've taught social studies for 6 years now, and I enjoy studying history and cultures. So I guess it's not strange that I enjoy economics as well, since that's a fundamental component of any society. Since I started teaching economics, I have encountered many misconceptions and flat-out falsehoods. In fairness, my audience is high school students, so it may not be surprising that they don't know much about economics. But I hear many of these misconceptions from adults as well. The teacher side of me wants very much to correct these misconceptions, but not just for academic purposes. Economics is a part of our daily lives, as individuals and as a society. I believe that the financial stress that people and nations endure is due to the lack of an adequate understanding of economics. This post will serve as an introduction to a series of posts explaining 12 principles of economics that I think people should learn.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Too Much Paper
Recently an e-mail was sent to all the teachers at my school, informing them of the high paper usage on our campus. According to the e-mail, in the first 9 weeks of school, we had used 291 cases of paper, totalling approximately 1.4 million sheets of paper. When I first saw that number, I was astonished. But then after conferring with a few other teachers, we put that in perspective. We have 2,600 students on our campus. Each student has 6 classes. We've had 43 instructional days so far. Crunching the numbers, the result is that each class gives every student, every period, approximately 1.6 sheets of paper. Now, granted, classes like PE and such may not use as much paper as, say, an English class. But to me, 1.6 pieces of paper per day does not sound unreasonable. So that got me thinking. What is the problem with this level of paper usage?
First, I hope it's not being used as a measure of the quality of the teachers here. Do bad teachers use more paper than good teachers? Actually, maybe. But not necessarily. And in order to draw this conclusion, it must be known who in fact is using paper, and in what quantity. This is unknowable given that teachers are not issued personal printer codes. If good teachers use less paper, why? Is it because they use electronic resources? I'd love to, but the only internet connected computer in my classroom is the one I use. Tablets? Nah. We can't trust our students with those. So how do I assess my students' learning without paper? Sure, I do lots of activities that don't require them to write something down, but when it comes time to put a grade in the gradebook, I have to be able to defend the grades I give. I need documentation. I need proof. So I give them a test, worksheet, or some other intellectual torture. Paper usage cannot determine the quality of a teacher, only their methods, and then only in a limited way.
Second, I don't believe it's related to environmental concerns. We live in East Texas. We're surrounded by trees. Pine trees. Trees that people hate. And around here, people think Green Peace means taking a stroll in the pasture on a sunny day.
Third, I can't imagine that anyone thinks we're giving our students too much work. I've never heard of any school telling their teachers to give kids less work.
My conclusion is that this is a budgeting issue. Which I totally understand. Times are hard. State money for schools has decreased. The district finally gave their teachers raises in the amount that they would have been getting had they gotten their annual increases (which amount to about a 1% increase). I appreciate that. I really do. So I'm not saying we shouldn't watch our dollars and cents. However, we recently spent $100,000 on a fence surrounding our school. A fence which, incidentally, has served to make it more difficult to get in and out of our campus (for evil-doers, but mostly for the staff and students). We just put new astroturf on our practice field. We recently built a brand-new field house. But we're straining over the cost of paper? Seems odd. But more importantly, unless it can be determined that paper usage has reached unacceptable levels campus wide (which it has not), or that certain teachers are using too much paper (which can not be done), why is it the concern of the teachers to be mindful of budget issues? I'm more than happy to do my part to conserve paper when possible. But do I really have to bear the burden of keeping my campus financially solvent, in addition to the stresses implicit in my role as a teacher? Sorry, but I don't have any spare brain cells to designate for this purpose.
There are solutions to this issue, but they come with many up front costs that will be major downers for people. Yes, I'm talking about integrating technology into the classroom. But when you don't allocate funds for that, and don't train your teachers how to implement it, and you haven't created an environment where students understand the role of technology in their education, it's really hard to implement such a thing. Schools do it all the time, with varying degrees of success. Personally, if it were up to me, I would never give a paper handout ever again.
In the mean time, there are a few intermediate steps that could be taken to reduce - slightly - our paper usage.
For example, how about eliminating the 6 mandatory unit tests that the district requires. I print out a class set so they all share, but they average 16 pages (front and back). Times 6 tests, times 35 students, equals 3,360 pieces of paper. These tests are given in the four core subject areas, with approximately 12 teachers each. Plus, we print the answer sheets for each student, so that's about 60,000 pieces of paper just for the answer sheets (2600 students X 6 tests X 4 classes) So in all, this one component of our program, required by the district, eats up nearly 250,000 sheets of paper. These tests are given in addition to the tests that teachers create and administer, which uses up an approximately equal amount of paper. Using technology to administer tests alone would reduce paper usage by nearly half a million pieces.
What's the point? I don't know. It's just another illustration of the inefficiencies of government, due to the misappropriation, or lack, of funding, as well as decisions made at the administrative level. It also illustrates how the effects of those decisions trickle down to folks at ground level. It's frustrating in part because most of it is beyond the control of those who have innovative solutions.
Fun trivia fact: Our usage of paper for the entire year is still less than if one set of Obamacare regulations were printed for each member of Congress.
First, I hope it's not being used as a measure of the quality of the teachers here. Do bad teachers use more paper than good teachers? Actually, maybe. But not necessarily. And in order to draw this conclusion, it must be known who in fact is using paper, and in what quantity. This is unknowable given that teachers are not issued personal printer codes. If good teachers use less paper, why? Is it because they use electronic resources? I'd love to, but the only internet connected computer in my classroom is the one I use. Tablets? Nah. We can't trust our students with those. So how do I assess my students' learning without paper? Sure, I do lots of activities that don't require them to write something down, but when it comes time to put a grade in the gradebook, I have to be able to defend the grades I give. I need documentation. I need proof. So I give them a test, worksheet, or some other intellectual torture. Paper usage cannot determine the quality of a teacher, only their methods, and then only in a limited way.
Second, I don't believe it's related to environmental concerns. We live in East Texas. We're surrounded by trees. Pine trees. Trees that people hate. And around here, people think Green Peace means taking a stroll in the pasture on a sunny day.
Third, I can't imagine that anyone thinks we're giving our students too much work. I've never heard of any school telling their teachers to give kids less work.
My conclusion is that this is a budgeting issue. Which I totally understand. Times are hard. State money for schools has decreased. The district finally gave their teachers raises in the amount that they would have been getting had they gotten their annual increases (which amount to about a 1% increase). I appreciate that. I really do. So I'm not saying we shouldn't watch our dollars and cents. However, we recently spent $100,000 on a fence surrounding our school. A fence which, incidentally, has served to make it more difficult to get in and out of our campus (for evil-doers, but mostly for the staff and students). We just put new astroturf on our practice field. We recently built a brand-new field house. But we're straining over the cost of paper? Seems odd. But more importantly, unless it can be determined that paper usage has reached unacceptable levels campus wide (which it has not), or that certain teachers are using too much paper (which can not be done), why is it the concern of the teachers to be mindful of budget issues? I'm more than happy to do my part to conserve paper when possible. But do I really have to bear the burden of keeping my campus financially solvent, in addition to the stresses implicit in my role as a teacher? Sorry, but I don't have any spare brain cells to designate for this purpose.
There are solutions to this issue, but they come with many up front costs that will be major downers for people. Yes, I'm talking about integrating technology into the classroom. But when you don't allocate funds for that, and don't train your teachers how to implement it, and you haven't created an environment where students understand the role of technology in their education, it's really hard to implement such a thing. Schools do it all the time, with varying degrees of success. Personally, if it were up to me, I would never give a paper handout ever again.
In the mean time, there are a few intermediate steps that could be taken to reduce - slightly - our paper usage.
For example, how about eliminating the 6 mandatory unit tests that the district requires. I print out a class set so they all share, but they average 16 pages (front and back). Times 6 tests, times 35 students, equals 3,360 pieces of paper. These tests are given in the four core subject areas, with approximately 12 teachers each. Plus, we print the answer sheets for each student, so that's about 60,000 pieces of paper just for the answer sheets (2600 students X 6 tests X 4 classes) So in all, this one component of our program, required by the district, eats up nearly 250,000 sheets of paper. These tests are given in addition to the tests that teachers create and administer, which uses up an approximately equal amount of paper. Using technology to administer tests alone would reduce paper usage by nearly half a million pieces.
What's the point? I don't know. It's just another illustration of the inefficiencies of government, due to the misappropriation, or lack, of funding, as well as decisions made at the administrative level. It also illustrates how the effects of those decisions trickle down to folks at ground level. It's frustrating in part because most of it is beyond the control of those who have innovative solutions.
Fun trivia fact: Our usage of paper for the entire year is still less than if one set of Obamacare regulations were printed for each member of Congress.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Less Social Studies?
In the interest of full disclosure, I will say up front that I am a Social Studies teacher. I like Social Studies, and I like teaching it. I believe that Social Studies is the most important subject students will learn in school. I'm biased, of course. Without question, students need to know how to read and write and do math. But without the societal context that Social Studies provides, what good are all the other abilities? Sure, they may be really good at their jobs, but is that all we expect of our students? To be good at their jobs? Don't we want them to be responsible members of their communities? Don't we want them to understand the way their government works? Or the importance of cultural understanding? Or the value of the lessons of history? Maybe Social Studies is not MORE important than the other three core disciplines, but nobody in their right mind would argue that Social Studies is LESS important than the others. Having said that, consider the following proposition:
There are people in our district, at various levels of administration, who think it's a good idea to reduce the number of Social Studies credits in high school from 4 to 3. I'm scratching my head. Read the headlines: Economic crisis. Middle East crisis. Environmental crisis. Political crisis. And the list goes on. What do all these crises have in common? That's right, they all involve Social Studies. Sure, Math, Science, and English are involved, and to some degree necessary to understand the issues. But Social Studies provides the framework for all of it. So I'll ask the question again: Why would anyone think it wise to produce students with LESS knowledge of Social Studies? I have actually come up with a few answers, none of which makes any more sense than the others, but it's all I've got.
Answer 1 - We don't require standardized tests for all 4 Social Studies classes. I think this is possibly the most likely response, based on a series of recent events. In the 2011-2012 school year, Texas introduced a new standardized testing system called the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness, or STAAR. This replaced the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, or TAKS. The TAKS test did not test all four subject every year. It only tested Social Studies in 10th and 11th grades. Under STAAR, every core subject was tested every year. For the first time in at least 20 years (I have no information prior to 1990), World Geography and U.S. History had a standardized test. While I won't go in to the impact of the new tests, suffice it to say that the increased stress among teachers and administrators (not to mention students), was immediately palpable. Two years later, through the protestations of parents and teachers, the Texas House adopted House Bill 5, which was ultimately passed by the Senate. This law reduced the number of standardized tests from 12 to 5. Teachers and parents celebrated the new law, though educators did so with trepidation. They worried that with no standardized test requirement, Social Studies was up for grabs. In fact, one provision of the bill removed the requirement for four years of Social Studies. I don't doubt but what there were legislators who supported House Bill 5 because they intended all along to reorganize Social Studies. On the other hand, I'm sure many legislators knew the dangers of this provision, but supported the bill anyway because they knew that the STAAR system was flawed.
Answer 2 - There has been an increase in the emphasis in Career and Technical Education (CTE). CTE focuses on careers that students may pursue after high school that do not necessitate a college degree. For example, those interested in nursing, graphic design, or auto repair may not attend a 4-year college. The logic then, is, why do those students need 4 years of Math, Science, Social Studies and English? Why not offer an alternative graduation plan that focuses more on their intended career path?
Answer 3 - Social Studies has always been the red-headed step child of the academic subjects. I'm not sure why, exactly, but I think it has to do with the intense focus that the federal government has placed on Math and Science. I don't have any hard proof of this, but consider this: When you hear the government compare our students' test scores with those of students in other countries, which subjects do they mention? Math and Science. As many teachers know, there are student loan forgiveness programs for teachers in those subject areas. Social Studies and English? Not so much. Now, granted, some countries may not test, let alone teach Social Studies, but in most countries it's part of their curriculum. There has also been a new focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) programs at the secondary level. I understand that these subjects correspond to the types of jobs that are emerging at home and abroad. But does that justify reducing Social Studies education?
Answer 4 - It's all about the Benjamin's. Pretend you're a district administrator, and your district is strapped for cash. All of a sudden, the state legislature proclaims that from now on, your students are only required to have 3 years of Social Studies, rather than four. This might cause you to think about all those Social Studies teachers that you don't need any more. Obviously those students will have to have something to fill in that period. Now you're thinking about how you can let the other teachers in other classes absorb the excess. One solution is simply to increase the class size. In Texas, as in other states, elementary classes are limited to 22 students (I think it's 22, anyway). In high school, however, there is no such limitation. It's not unusual to have class sizes of 30 or 32. I personally have an average of 27 per class. There is ample evidence to support the benefits of smaller class size, so I won't go into that here. But even if all teachers are retained, there would certainly be a reduction in funding for Social Studies curriculum materials. Personally, the Geography books that I use are over 12 years old. Meaning we've been using them for over 12 years. And we're not scheduled to get new books for another two years. NOTE: I don't really want new books. I'd rather have technology - but that's a whole different topic.
My Response:
From an educational philosophy standpoint, I operate on the principle that as a teacher, to the best of my ability, I must do what's in the best interest of my students. That principle should apply to anyone who works for the school system, including those who set policy, be it local or statewide. The rebuttal to the above responses will probably be obvious to some, but in case they're not, I'll clarify them.
1 - Since when has a standardized test been the basis for determining the importance of a subject? By this measure, we would eliminate electives altogether. Under none of the testing systems (STAAR, TAKS, TAAS, TEAMS, etc.) have electives been tested. Yet now we're emphasizing their importance more than ever. In addition, in Texas, the school districts operate independently. This means that while they receive public funding, and are required to teach the same standards in the core subjects, they are autonomous when it comes to policies. This includes graduation requirements. So even though the state does not mandate 4 credits of Social Studies, the school district may. So the question remains, if we don't have to cut Social Studies, why would we?
2 - Reread the opening paragraph. I do not want to diminish the importance of CTE, STEM, or any other program that prepares students for their careers after graduation. I don't want to minimize the importance of the learning students will gain through these programs. But that does not negate the need for quality Social Studies instruction. But there's a larger issue that people aren't taking into account. If students pursue vocational certification after high school, instead of a traditional college career, they will not be required to take college level courses in Social Studies as well as other subjects. Some see this as justification to reduce Social Studies education at the high school level. I see it just the opposite. High school Social Studies becomes even more vital when students will not receive any after graduation. And I haven't even mentioned the ones that do not pursue any education beyond high school.
3 - I'm not going to talk about how other countries don't educate everyone. I won't talk about how only the smartest and best performing students even get the chance to go to school. I won't mention the fact that students in some countries have to pay for what our kids get for free, or how their parents have to sacrifice to put them through school. Even if we ignore those glaring discrepancies when comparing test scores, the question still remains: Why is Social Studies seen as a second-class subject? If I was a conspiracy theorist, which I am not, I could surmise that the effort to keep young people ignorant of Social Studies is by design. There are those in government who benefit from an unenlightened electorate. But that's so crazy it can't possibly be true. I think that the other subjects have been so emphasized, Social Studies just got overshadowed. Another part of the equation (pardon the math pun) is the widely-held belief that education is a zero-sum game. In other words, education is a pie, and in order to make one piece of pie bigger, some other piece must get smaller. I don't know why this belief persists, except for the fact that lots of people hold this view when it comes to economics. In order for people to get rich, they must be taking that money from someone else, who then gets poorer. Right? Actually, no. While you can't add more hours to the school day (you can, but only to a limited extent), you can enhance the instruction that occurs within those hours. This means enhancing educational efficiency. There's lots of pieces to that, but a few examples include investing in more advanced technology for the classroom, aquiring the most relevant and well-designed curriculum, and hiring and developing excellent teachers. These things are at times difficult and expensive, but pale in comparison to the societal costs of a generation of young people incapable of plugging in to their society in a meaningful way. I know there are barriers to implementing these methods, but the point is that they are there.
4 - Besides the cost argument presented in the previous point, it's inconceivable that cost is a motivating factor. To think that within an entire district there are not cuts that could be made, or funds that could be reallocated, is pure sophistry. One simple example. The average school textbook costs $80. Multiply that times 6 classes that each student must take, and you get $480. For that amount of money, students could each be given an iPad, or similar device. I won't detail the advantages and disadvantages of this, but I am fully aware of both. I still think it works better than a textbook. That's just a start. Furthermore, if student achievement is the goal, school districts must be willing to invest the necessary resources. Our school recently built a brand-new fieldhouse, and put new turf on the football field. I recognize that high school football is the official state-sponsored religion of Texas. But if we're to the point where we are willing to cut out teaching positions in order to balance our budget, our priorities are way out of whack.
In conclusion, I not only defy anyone to present a reasonable argument for the reduction in Social Studies education, I submit that in our time, it is more critical than ever. As our district is currently considering this very topic, I am appealing to all relevant organizations to pressure the district to put the well-being of our students ahead of any other priority. There are lots of changes that need to take place in our education system. This is not one of them.
There are people in our district, at various levels of administration, who think it's a good idea to reduce the number of Social Studies credits in high school from 4 to 3. I'm scratching my head. Read the headlines: Economic crisis. Middle East crisis. Environmental crisis. Political crisis. And the list goes on. What do all these crises have in common? That's right, they all involve Social Studies. Sure, Math, Science, and English are involved, and to some degree necessary to understand the issues. But Social Studies provides the framework for all of it. So I'll ask the question again: Why would anyone think it wise to produce students with LESS knowledge of Social Studies? I have actually come up with a few answers, none of which makes any more sense than the others, but it's all I've got.
Answer 1 - We don't require standardized tests for all 4 Social Studies classes. I think this is possibly the most likely response, based on a series of recent events. In the 2011-2012 school year, Texas introduced a new standardized testing system called the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness, or STAAR. This replaced the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, or TAKS. The TAKS test did not test all four subject every year. It only tested Social Studies in 10th and 11th grades. Under STAAR, every core subject was tested every year. For the first time in at least 20 years (I have no information prior to 1990), World Geography and U.S. History had a standardized test. While I won't go in to the impact of the new tests, suffice it to say that the increased stress among teachers and administrators (not to mention students), was immediately palpable. Two years later, through the protestations of parents and teachers, the Texas House adopted House Bill 5, which was ultimately passed by the Senate. This law reduced the number of standardized tests from 12 to 5. Teachers and parents celebrated the new law, though educators did so with trepidation. They worried that with no standardized test requirement, Social Studies was up for grabs. In fact, one provision of the bill removed the requirement for four years of Social Studies. I don't doubt but what there were legislators who supported House Bill 5 because they intended all along to reorganize Social Studies. On the other hand, I'm sure many legislators knew the dangers of this provision, but supported the bill anyway because they knew that the STAAR system was flawed.
Answer 2 - There has been an increase in the emphasis in Career and Technical Education (CTE). CTE focuses on careers that students may pursue after high school that do not necessitate a college degree. For example, those interested in nursing, graphic design, or auto repair may not attend a 4-year college. The logic then, is, why do those students need 4 years of Math, Science, Social Studies and English? Why not offer an alternative graduation plan that focuses more on their intended career path?
Answer 3 - Social Studies has always been the red-headed step child of the academic subjects. I'm not sure why, exactly, but I think it has to do with the intense focus that the federal government has placed on Math and Science. I don't have any hard proof of this, but consider this: When you hear the government compare our students' test scores with those of students in other countries, which subjects do they mention? Math and Science. As many teachers know, there are student loan forgiveness programs for teachers in those subject areas. Social Studies and English? Not so much. Now, granted, some countries may not test, let alone teach Social Studies, but in most countries it's part of their curriculum. There has also been a new focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) programs at the secondary level. I understand that these subjects correspond to the types of jobs that are emerging at home and abroad. But does that justify reducing Social Studies education?
Answer 4 - It's all about the Benjamin's. Pretend you're a district administrator, and your district is strapped for cash. All of a sudden, the state legislature proclaims that from now on, your students are only required to have 3 years of Social Studies, rather than four. This might cause you to think about all those Social Studies teachers that you don't need any more. Obviously those students will have to have something to fill in that period. Now you're thinking about how you can let the other teachers in other classes absorb the excess. One solution is simply to increase the class size. In Texas, as in other states, elementary classes are limited to 22 students (I think it's 22, anyway). In high school, however, there is no such limitation. It's not unusual to have class sizes of 30 or 32. I personally have an average of 27 per class. There is ample evidence to support the benefits of smaller class size, so I won't go into that here. But even if all teachers are retained, there would certainly be a reduction in funding for Social Studies curriculum materials. Personally, the Geography books that I use are over 12 years old. Meaning we've been using them for over 12 years. And we're not scheduled to get new books for another two years. NOTE: I don't really want new books. I'd rather have technology - but that's a whole different topic.
My Response:
From an educational philosophy standpoint, I operate on the principle that as a teacher, to the best of my ability, I must do what's in the best interest of my students. That principle should apply to anyone who works for the school system, including those who set policy, be it local or statewide. The rebuttal to the above responses will probably be obvious to some, but in case they're not, I'll clarify them.
1 - Since when has a standardized test been the basis for determining the importance of a subject? By this measure, we would eliminate electives altogether. Under none of the testing systems (STAAR, TAKS, TAAS, TEAMS, etc.) have electives been tested. Yet now we're emphasizing their importance more than ever. In addition, in Texas, the school districts operate independently. This means that while they receive public funding, and are required to teach the same standards in the core subjects, they are autonomous when it comes to policies. This includes graduation requirements. So even though the state does not mandate 4 credits of Social Studies, the school district may. So the question remains, if we don't have to cut Social Studies, why would we?
2 - Reread the opening paragraph. I do not want to diminish the importance of CTE, STEM, or any other program that prepares students for their careers after graduation. I don't want to minimize the importance of the learning students will gain through these programs. But that does not negate the need for quality Social Studies instruction. But there's a larger issue that people aren't taking into account. If students pursue vocational certification after high school, instead of a traditional college career, they will not be required to take college level courses in Social Studies as well as other subjects. Some see this as justification to reduce Social Studies education at the high school level. I see it just the opposite. High school Social Studies becomes even more vital when students will not receive any after graduation. And I haven't even mentioned the ones that do not pursue any education beyond high school.
3 - I'm not going to talk about how other countries don't educate everyone. I won't talk about how only the smartest and best performing students even get the chance to go to school. I won't mention the fact that students in some countries have to pay for what our kids get for free, or how their parents have to sacrifice to put them through school. Even if we ignore those glaring discrepancies when comparing test scores, the question still remains: Why is Social Studies seen as a second-class subject? If I was a conspiracy theorist, which I am not, I could surmise that the effort to keep young people ignorant of Social Studies is by design. There are those in government who benefit from an unenlightened electorate. But that's so crazy it can't possibly be true. I think that the other subjects have been so emphasized, Social Studies just got overshadowed. Another part of the equation (pardon the math pun) is the widely-held belief that education is a zero-sum game. In other words, education is a pie, and in order to make one piece of pie bigger, some other piece must get smaller. I don't know why this belief persists, except for the fact that lots of people hold this view when it comes to economics. In order for people to get rich, they must be taking that money from someone else, who then gets poorer. Right? Actually, no. While you can't add more hours to the school day (you can, but only to a limited extent), you can enhance the instruction that occurs within those hours. This means enhancing educational efficiency. There's lots of pieces to that, but a few examples include investing in more advanced technology for the classroom, aquiring the most relevant and well-designed curriculum, and hiring and developing excellent teachers. These things are at times difficult and expensive, but pale in comparison to the societal costs of a generation of young people incapable of plugging in to their society in a meaningful way. I know there are barriers to implementing these methods, but the point is that they are there.
4 - Besides the cost argument presented in the previous point, it's inconceivable that cost is a motivating factor. To think that within an entire district there are not cuts that could be made, or funds that could be reallocated, is pure sophistry. One simple example. The average school textbook costs $80. Multiply that times 6 classes that each student must take, and you get $480. For that amount of money, students could each be given an iPad, or similar device. I won't detail the advantages and disadvantages of this, but I am fully aware of both. I still think it works better than a textbook. That's just a start. Furthermore, if student achievement is the goal, school districts must be willing to invest the necessary resources. Our school recently built a brand-new fieldhouse, and put new turf on the football field. I recognize that high school football is the official state-sponsored religion of Texas. But if we're to the point where we are willing to cut out teaching positions in order to balance our budget, our priorities are way out of whack.
In conclusion, I not only defy anyone to present a reasonable argument for the reduction in Social Studies education, I submit that in our time, it is more critical than ever. As our district is currently considering this very topic, I am appealing to all relevant organizations to pressure the district to put the well-being of our students ahead of any other priority. There are lots of changes that need to take place in our education system. This is not one of them.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Opening Remarks
Well, I finally did it. I started a blog. I never thought I would. Mainly because it seems so, well, metropolitan. But I've been inspired. Why? Let me put it like this - Have you ever laid awake with a million thoughts spinning around in your head? Maybe your body is exhausted, but you can't shut off your brain. That's me. A lot. And sometimes I get great ideas, but they're soon eclipsed by some other thought, and I totally lose track of my great idea. So mainly I'm hoping that a blog will help me organize my thoughts, so that when I go back and look at them, it'll make more sense. Some of my friends may be interested in reading my blogs. That's great. But there's a few things I want folks to understand.
First, I will be posting on a variety of topics. I'm involved in a lot of things, so I have lots of thoughts. There'll be politics, religion, current events, education (my profession), economics, the outdoors (my hobby), culture, and family (my life). They won't always interest everyone, but that's not really the point.
Second, the main purpose of this blog is for my own personal benefit. If an experience that I've had causes people to think, or reflect on their own experiences, that's a positive side benefit. Having said that, I'm sure that some of my posts will stir some controversy. That's not really my intent either. So, while I certainly don't mind enlightened discussion or alternative points of view, this is not a debate forum. If you find yourself getting agitated at the nature of my posts, it may be better to just not read them.
Third, my perspective is partially revealed in the name of my blog. But perhaps it may be useful to clarify a couple things. Conservative does not mean that I'd like to roll back the clock to the way things were 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years ago. It means that I believe in a set of standards that is timeless. What I'm specifically referring to is a Biblical system of morality, that, while never perfectly implemented, offers guidance on how to respond to issues old and new. Perhaps as I post new things, it will become clear what I mean. Also, I am not a Texan by birth, but by choice. I don't take that lightly. In many ways I feel like I fit in here more than some native Texans. I certainly feel at home here, more than anywhere else I've lived. East Texas is a unique region, with a culture that is more country and southern than it is western. I think it's important to understand how a person's geography affects their culture. Living here certainly has changed me, but I think for the better. But geography does affect how you see things and respond to things. I like the Texas way of doing things, for the most part.
In closing, if you've read this far, I'm impressed. Hopefully the rest of my posts will be as interesting to others as they are to me.
First, I will be posting on a variety of topics. I'm involved in a lot of things, so I have lots of thoughts. There'll be politics, religion, current events, education (my profession), economics, the outdoors (my hobby), culture, and family (my life). They won't always interest everyone, but that's not really the point.
Second, the main purpose of this blog is for my own personal benefit. If an experience that I've had causes people to think, or reflect on their own experiences, that's a positive side benefit. Having said that, I'm sure that some of my posts will stir some controversy. That's not really my intent either. So, while I certainly don't mind enlightened discussion or alternative points of view, this is not a debate forum. If you find yourself getting agitated at the nature of my posts, it may be better to just not read them.
Third, my perspective is partially revealed in the name of my blog. But perhaps it may be useful to clarify a couple things. Conservative does not mean that I'd like to roll back the clock to the way things were 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years ago. It means that I believe in a set of standards that is timeless. What I'm specifically referring to is a Biblical system of morality, that, while never perfectly implemented, offers guidance on how to respond to issues old and new. Perhaps as I post new things, it will become clear what I mean. Also, I am not a Texan by birth, but by choice. I don't take that lightly. In many ways I feel like I fit in here more than some native Texans. I certainly feel at home here, more than anywhere else I've lived. East Texas is a unique region, with a culture that is more country and southern than it is western. I think it's important to understand how a person's geography affects their culture. Living here certainly has changed me, but I think for the better. But geography does affect how you see things and respond to things. I like the Texas way of doing things, for the most part.
In closing, if you've read this far, I'm impressed. Hopefully the rest of my posts will be as interesting to others as they are to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)