Blog 4 History

The headlines recently stated: “Obama calls for less standardized testing” and “Obama says too much testing makes education boring”. Yet No Child Left Behind legislation that mandates all the standardized testing is still in place! Not sure where I am on this as I kind of agree with the President that we are so focused on teaching to tests that we take the exploratory nature of history (and learning) and throw it away. This also goes for AP Testing as well. But recently I had a discussion with my Principle who told me they no longer care about AP scores and want maximum enrollment; meaning to slow it down and reduce the work. The reasoning? The more AP students there are the higher the graduation rate. I think I am finally on board with this and am freed from the driven system of go-go-go. I am going to next year stop and, if you will, smell the roses. Allow for my student to do some deep exploring with historical topics. I have had to cover an incredible amount information and it, indeed, takes the fun out of it. Yet, I do understand those who say we need to measure learning and success.

As an educator in a public school the day Obama was elected there was much adulation that this would mean the end to NCLB (No Child Left Behind). Most teachers (and the Union), it seems, voted for him because they believed he would reverse the NCLB legislation of George W. Bush and the Republicans. According to current NCLB legislation, 100 percent of students had to be proficient in reading and math by 2014. When this first came out, pure astonishment by us public school educators. But, we hunkered down and are doing our best. From the rural communities of Colorado to the inner cities of Chicago, NCLB is not achieving the success it so promised. You can either blame the educators, the system, or the students, I guess. One article even describes it as Obama’s War on Schools.

As one journalist noted,

The theory behind NCLB was that schools would improve dramatically if every child in grades 3 to 8 were tested every year and the results made public. Texas did exactly this, and advocates claimed it had seen remarkable results: test scores went up, the achievement gap between students of different races was closing, and graduation rates rose. At the time, a few scholars questioned the claims of a “Texas miracle,” but Congress didn’t listen.

A recent study showed that 216 Vermont Schools Fail To Meet Federal Standards. The consequences could be school closings. In fact, Eighty-two percent of schools in the U.S. are not meeting the NCLB standards. Indeed, not even close, and inner-city school districts are perhaps feeling the most heat.

As 2014 nears, tens of thousands of schools have been stigmatized as failures, thousands of educators have been fired, and schools that were once the anchors of their communities are closing, replaced in many cases by privately managed schools. NCLB turns out to be a timetable for the destruction of public education.

With the economy in such dire straights and with the political gridlock in Washington, it is doubtful that anyone will have the political will to truly tackle the issue. Yes, recently, U.S. education secretary called for overhaul of No Child Left Behind. With a Republican dominated House of Representatives don’t count on any significant change to NCLB. And that disappoints me, I was one of those cheering that the Democratic Congress and President would do away with NCLB and fast. BUT, they did not!

So the question, Has Obama Betrayed Educators and Teacher Unions?, is valid but missing the mark. Frankly, I doubt there will be any serious movement on this. I don’t want to throw billions of dollars at it again, it never sticks and the test scores never really change.

Had a reader point me to the NEA (National Education Association) website this morning. (As a public school teacher I can’t tweet, blog, facebook, at all hours of the day unlike some on here! I have to teach 32+ students per class from 7:30 to 2:50, then it’s coaching and after school activities. So sorry so late on this.) I digress!

I never thunk to visit the NEA and peruse their recommended reading lists for EDUCATORS, just never occurred to me that there would be anything there to suggest that SOME members of the NEA MIGHT be proponents of Social Justice and also teaching the doctrines of Saul Alinsky. Who is Alinsky you say? Well he “wrote the book on American radicalism.” So why would the NEA have on their 2009 “Recommended Reading” one Saul Alinsky, and his Leftist classic: “The American Organizer”?

I know, it baffles many that this would even be an issue. The other two Recommended Readings: The Introvert Advantage and The Thin Book of Naming don’t sound or look like Conservative Classics. Now if one of them was an extreme Right Wing book by say Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity or, gasp, Glenn Beck, you could argue that the suggested readings have balance. I still would say none of these should be “Recommended Readings.” I don’t pull out Glenn Beck’s Arguing with Idiots and spout from it or quote it! Have never purchased a book or read a book by any of the three. Yes, Mr. Levin, hard to imagine. (Note they do mention so-called “conservative radical” Michael Patrick Leahy’s, Rules for Conservative Radicals. But in an off hand way and not as a recommended reading and good, sounds like more of the same, but from the Right. Don’t want that either!)

But is the NEA asking SOME educators to do just the very thing with Alinsky? I wish we just had to deal with Social Justice proponents, this guy makes them look like boy scouts.

I know. No big deal. That this has nothing to do with what is going on in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Michigan and maybe even to a city capital near you!, is naive at best.

All the NEA is asking of its members that they: “will discern from Alinsky’s books grassroots organizing strategies that will best help us bring our members together around the common goal of improving public education.” Sounds great, all for it! Yup, improving public education!

Let’s take a look, shall we!

From the NEA website:

Alinsky, the master political agitator, tactical planner and social organizer didn’t mince words…

“Liberals in their meetings utter bold works; they strut, grimace belligerently, and then issue a weasel-worded statement ‘which has tremendous implications, if read between the lines.’ They sit calmly, dispassionately, studying the issue; judging both sides; they sit and still sit.

“The Radical does not sit frozen by cold objectivity. He sees injustice and strikes at it with hot passion. He is a man of decision and action. There is a saying that the Liberal is one who walks out of the room when the argument turns into a fight.

“Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.

“Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action – by using power. Liberals may then timidly follow along or else, as in most cases, be swept forward along the course set by Radicals, but all because of forces unloosed by Radical action. They are forced to positive action only in spite of their desires …

“breaking the necks of Conservatives”… hmm.

Alinsky is an admitted radical who would absolutely support SOME teachers who blatantly left their jobs, lied about being sick, and encourage their students to “Agitate” with them. I know, I know, how could anyone have such a mindset!? Clearly I have issues. Clearly I am “disgraceful.” They are just striking, er, protesting for their rights.

More from the NEA website:

Alinsky devised and proved thirteen tactical rules for use against opponents vastly superior in power and wealth.

1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. “Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. “Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. “Keep the pressure on.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. “Major premise for tactics is development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it

For Alinsky it is about: “Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize.” Looks and sounds a lot like what I have seen on the news recently.

Great, just what we need to be recommending that our educators teach, or use or whatever it is SOME do with this great stuff!

LOTS OF QUESTIONS! Why does the NEA promote such a man and such a “radical” (their words not mine) ideology?

Look at the language in the above 13 tactical rules that the NEA is supporting: “Enemy”, “ridicule”, “pressure”, “threat”, “terrifying”!

Sounds like the new civility some people are talking about. This is not the reading that makes for better teachers or students. And is that even the goal here for SOME?

Do we want SOME (ALL, NONE?) OF our educators teaching… using…this?

Do we want SOME OF our teachers more concerned with activism than, I don’t know, proper education?

COULD THIS be PART of the reason why our education system is failing? You tell me!

I know, I know, conspiracy theorist and hate monger…. this is all simply harmless.

Mr. Levin?

The new civility on display in Madison, Wisconsin has given me as a teacher pause. As a teacher I have to be held to the utmost level of integrity, do I not? I spend 8 hours a day with other people’s children; often more time than the parents do. I encourage students to work hard, be honest, and disciplined. As a history teacher I point to the nature of our democracy where majority rules, and that elections are to be taken serious as they indeed, as our esteemed President noted, “have consequences.” Yet in Wisconsin teachers have decided to use what is a teachable moment, and demonstrate that lying, banter, and at times, incivility should be used when one does not get what one wants. But none of this should be surprising when we look at how educators are taught today and how they are encouraged to be exemplars of Social Justice and to teach for Social Change. (If you want more on Teaching for Social Justice please click the category tag above). For example, one e-newsletter I receive was very clear on how we should interpret and use the Labor unrest in Wisconsin. The publication offered this quote:

“If teacher unions want to be strong and well-supported, it’s essential that they not only be teacher unionists but teachers of unionism. We need to create a generation of students who support teachers and the movement of teachers for their rights.”

– Howard Zinn in an interview with Bob Peterson for Transforming Teacher Unions

“…teachers of unionism”? Really!

Today’s teacher unions and educators in America, in public schools, are failing their students and for multiple reasons; some of which have nothing to do with the teachers. But some aspects of this failure have to do with bad teachers and ones that have agendas. Take the literature that is being promoted by the late Howard Zinn and other radicals. In some Universities and Colleges we are producing activists and not educators, and this explains what is happening in Wisconsin. Those who willing lied, took phony sick notes from unscrupulous doctors, and railed against the democratic system, are sending students the wrong message and setting the wrong example. You want to protest, do it after school or on the weekends. Want to organize peacefully, fine. In trying to come up with an editorial on this subject I found another teacher who also had issues with what was happening in Wisconsin, so instead of my own words I’ll let her speak:

To the editor:

When did getting one’s political way justify lying, cheating and disrupting the legal political process? As a teacher and a parent, I always found that example was the strongest teaching tool there was. I will speak only to the teachers and politicians in Wisconsin since those are the people with whom I am identified. What kind of example are you setting?

I was horrified watching teachers accept “sick” notes handed out indiscriminately on the street. In effect they are saying, “I’m well enough to stand in the cold and protest politically, but I’m too sick to be in my classroom.”

What would that same teacher call a student’s note of that sort? A lie. That lie also breaks the contract those teachers signed with their schools and the taxpayers who fund them. Cheating. One teachers’ union official was filmed saying, “Our first interest is in educating our children,” yet he supported abandoning classrooms in favor of seeking political ends. Might I add hypocrisy to my list?

Finally, the duly elected officials, elected by a majority of all the people in their districts, are so afraid of or complicit with this vocal sector that they abdicate their sworn duty to uphold the constitutional law of this country and go into hiding, disrupting the lawful process.

I won’t comment on the merits of either side of the political argument, but when the belief that the end justifies the means becomes prevalent, the rule of law disappears. Historically, the next step is anarchy. From the title of an Alan Paton novel, “Cry the Beloved Country.”

Anne Paradis

President Obama, after winning the White House in 2008 proclaimed that “Elections have consequences.” But perhaps we should place an asterisk there and add “Democratic victories only” have consequences. Wisconsin elected a Republican and he is doing what Republicans do. How uncivil for these protestors to not accept the verdict! I wonder if they will be treated like the Tea Party Protests were in the wake of the Obama Election?

Wis. Gov. Scott Walker is attempting to address a serious budget issue in Wisconsin, one of many states that are frankly broke. Wisconsin is $3 billion in debt. (By the way has he once blamed his predecessor?) Among numerous things, the state is simply asking state employees pay a little for their own health care (could care less about the impact on the Unions); as they pay nothing. I’ll repeat that: nothing. I pay almost $700 a month for health care (not complaining by the way, think everyone should pay for their own care.) As a teacher I took a pay cut last year. Did I protest? No. Happy to have a job. And remember, the Left is supposed to be the party of compassion and caring. I don’t see how not going to work and its impact on the children displays their compassion. Do these teachers realize if Walker gives in and does not cut spending he has already told them 20,000 state employees lose their jobs?

I watched the protests this past week in Madison, Wisconsin, and I was stunned by the lack of civility, especially after the shooting in Arizona where the Left found it very easy to blame the Right and preach about needing a “new discourse.” Here’s some of the new civility the Left is delivering:

Some areas of the news are calling the unrest in Wisconsin and elsewhere a “Progressive Revolution.” The Progressive Era Part Two.
MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan seemed to suggest just such a thing. “Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for a revolution?” Ratigan asked. “The answer obviously is yes,” he added, and “the only question is how to do it.”

Salon.com has an article proclaiming Why FDR would support the Wisconsin protests, and of course he would. Just look at his New Deal legislation.

I think what is happening in Wisconsin represents the decline of American Exceptionalism (if it even still exists.) State employees having to help pay for their health insurance, my God. Teachers calling in sick so they and their students can protest. These are tough times.

So instead of students being in school and learning in Wisconsin, they are in the streets carrying signs of SOLIDARITY. What does this teach them?

I have no doubt some will report the growing unrest of Unions and the protest over spending cuts as a worker’s unite kind of progressive movement.

Now, a bit of hyperbole on my part? Sensationalism? Sure. Those are but a handful of idoits in the crowd. But the question still stands, How will the unrest in Wisconsin and perhaps elsewhere be remembered?

With so much talk recently of the United States’s involvement in the Middle East and how it violates our Founding principle of “isolation,” I had an interesting discussion recently with my students concerning the historical theme “Isolationism.”

The debate centered on whether or not the United States has always been an isolationist nation? On the surface it is very easy to show cause and effect and change over time with regard to American foreign policy.

But seeing that we are expected to teach (here in Colorado, at least) “Isolationism” as a foregone conclusion, the question stands, “Isolationism, The Myth of the Founders?”

If we first consider George Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality (1793) and his belief that United States should act”friendly and impartial” towards any “Belligerent Powers.” Washington was being prudent, if you consider the year you know that the United States is but a fledgling nation having just created a Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was struggling to maintain itself. Though his cabinet was somewhat split on who to support in the European conflict between England and France, the road to Neutrality was the obvious one, to be sure.

As President Washington signed the first American Neutrality Act (1794), he seemingly established the tradition of isolation. Moving forward to Washington’s Farewell Address and his appeal to the Nation to keep America’s involvement in “permanent alliances” to a limit, “which to us have none or a very remote relation,” and recommend a policy “to steer clear of permanent Alliances,” the case seems closed.

And, if that does not solidify the argument in favor of America being an “Isolationist” nation, Thomas Jefferson followed up Washington proclaiming that “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations,” was the goal and to avoid “entangling alliances with none.”

However, as should be noted, neither Washington nor Jefferson had any understanding of “Isolationism” as the word had not yet made it into the English vernacular. Both would arguably have issues with suggesting that the United States be “isolated” from Europe. Both looked to expansion in the West and the continued immigration of Europeans to their “Empire of Liberty” for settlement.

And Jefferson, as was his way, proved to be the enigma as he would send the U.S. marines to “the shores of Tripoli” to rescue Americans kidnapped by Barbary (Muslim) Pirates and to protect American commerce. He would unconstitutionally purchase the Louisiana Territory, an expansion that guaranteed the United States would probably be involved in foreign affairs. Jefferson, in particular, wanted the continued importation of European culture — hardly the stance of an ideologue bent of isolation.

From our involvement as a fledgling colony in the first World War (Seven Years War) to our ideological involvement in the first world crisis after independence: the French Revolution. Perhaps “Isolationism” is but a myth.

The United States of the late 18th and early 19th centuries could not afford an active role in foreign affairs, and perhaps had never intended to be as “isolationist” as we teach our students on a yearly basis.

Read more: http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Isolationism-The-myth-of-the-founders.html

I remember back in November (busy time of year for me and didn’t get a chance to discuss it) when former MSNBC host of The Countdown with Keith Olbermann, proposed the question, Why would the any state want to celebrate the Civil War?

Olbermann Quotes:

“The 150th anniversary of, you know, treason and defense of servitude and murder and suicide, billed as a joyous night of fun, dancing, food and drink… Don’t forget the silent slave auction.”

“Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday, treasonous secession that started the Civil War and was the direct result of slavery, happy birthday to you.”

“And as part of the continuing historical revisionism that tries to claim the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, the secession celebrations have begun. Yay, treason, yay.”

The thing about Olbermann is, you have to know when he is being, well Olbermann… Anyway.

However, it is an interesting question. With the Sesquicentennial, how do we remember the war?

The debates will rage about the cause(s) of the Civil War, could the South have won, why did the North win, ect. There are also heated discussion over who fought, why they fought, and why some didn’t fight? The motives and the experiences!

So, should we “celebrate” the event? The question’s answer seems obvious to me, nothing to celebrate. Olbermann was right, as much as it pains me to say that, the Civil War was a tragedy and the institution of slavery was as well. No balls, banquets or dinner parties, please. Remember it, study it and learn from it. Let’s not break down the nuances of the word “celebrate,” we know what the word stands for. We should not remember the Civil War like we “celebrate” the 4th of July, right?

But it seems I am in the minority here, do a simple Google search for the Civil War and Celebration and the results are troubling! Lots of Celebrating going on! Oh well…

Ever wonder what you can purchase in a store dedicated to “Social Justice”? Let’s take a look!

There’s actually some really nice things that you can purchase:

“The medieval feminist,” Joan of Arc. T-shirt, coffee mug, water jug, lots of goodies with that symbol.

You can also find t-shirts and other stuff with the slogan. “Diversity Rocks! Show your appreciation for diversity, equity, and justice!” Agree, diversity does indeed rock!

How about these (and remember this is a store for Educators and Activists! Maybe someone who is teaching your child some good ole Social Justice!!)

Old Boys Network
Meet Harry Slickman of the Old Boys Network. What a Jackass!

(You can get the following with this stereotype slogan, you know, all those rich white people, like myself, who are keeping everyone else down.)

Hats, Mugs, t-shirts, ect..

(But wait, there’s more: Infant outfits, bibs, boxer shorts, underwear, doggy t-shirt, mouse pads, coasters, and even a pillow. So you can go to sleep and dream about Mean Old Whitey!)

White Supremacy Sucks
White supremacy really does suck. White supremacy is white privilege is racism.

Kill Imperialism
Don’t kill people. Kill imperialism and advocate human rights.

Revolute!
If you care for social justice and peace, help foment revolution!

Got Revolution?
Black T-shirts with a variety of “got _____?” statments (their mis-spelling): got diversity? got peace? got justice? got feminism?

Outraged!
Pay attention! See racism, sexism, poverty, homophobia. And do something! (If you’re not outraged then you’re not paying attention!)

Karl Marx, defender of the working class. (That’s right, he’s a good guy!)

and my personal favorite:

Whitey O. Pressor Thong

(Image at top featured) Whitey is an anti- anti-racism advocate. I know, that doesn’t make sense. Make sure to see the back of the items for Whitey’s “You may be a White O. Pressor If…” list! (Just $23.99)!

Very catchy!! However, my main question here is, what does the Feminist think of such an item!? Are you a “Whitey”? Check out the image to the right and find out!

Anyway, Maybe that’s me, “Whitey O. Pressor.” Gonna get my Whitey on and purchase one for my Woman locked up in my house making my dinner!

This past weekend in St. Louis a special Civil War Reenactment took place on the steps of the Old State House, only it was not your typical gun smoking affair. This time a group of historians and local residents reenacted what they called a “last slave sale.”

From the article:

The site of the “auction,” the Old Court House, has a long history related to the slave trade. It was the site of public auctions of all kinds of property at sheriff’s sales, usually in the course of settling estates or enforcing court orders for damages stemming from lawsuits. The Old Court House was also the site of the first hearing of the infamous Dred Scott case.

The auction, as expected” drew some criticism. If you’re interested here it is:

I think the intentions were good and the presentation effective.

Apparently not just my school district is rethinking how to use and present A.P.U.S.H, but the college board has as well. As some of you know I was told recently that “scores do not matter,” that the goal now is to make it more inclusive and get as many kids taking the class. I’m all for more kids taking AP classes, but from the beginning was told to “teach to the text,” “weed out the weak,” and “improve the scores.”

According to this interesting New York Times article the focus of the exam will be less on the massive amount of information and memorization, and instead to “to clear students’ minds to focus on bigger concepts and stimulate more analytic thinking.” This should lead to a far better classroom environment where it seems “history becomes a blur” to most students. This whole new approach, it is hoped, will be more conducive to “critical thinking” and see the “themes” of history. It will also provide more leeway for instructors to delve into a topic and really explore it. I applaud these changes!

Final note, according to the data the number of students taking the U.S. History exam (which is the most popular topic with the most students) have gone up while scores have gone down. This seems to support the new direction that the College Board is taking.

The letter is written and signed by R. G. Smith of Kokomo, Indiana. R.G. Smith who was born in Virginia in 1820. His wife, Elisabeth was born in Kentucky. Census records in 1850 reference that R.G. Smith was a Farmer and lived in Union, Indiana. Census records for 1880 reflect that he lived in Kokomo, Indiana and had four children living with him, Clarence, Carrie, Abram and Henry. He also had a traveling salesman living with him by the name of Milo Barns.

Mike a great many things have happened since you left this country. A great and bloody war has been waged. Thousands and thousands of lives have been lost, and millions and millions of money spent on carrying the said war. The Southern people have laid down their arms having lost their property in slaves, the great bone of contention of the war. It must be acknowledged that taking everything in consideration, the Southern people fought nobly, and bravely, but the Northern armies were too numerous for them to ever gain their Southern Independence.

But be the causes of the war as they may, we do know one thing and that is this. That the rebellion did exist, that many bloody battles were fought and that Lee surrendered to General Grant with the understanding that the Union should be restored and hence, once more reign supreme in the land.

About that time Mr. Lincoln was assassinated and Andy Johnson became President and the extreme radicals thought he would be very severe on the South, but he being a Southern man and already knowing that those people had suffered in lift and property enough, could not and did not inflict such penalties on them as ultras of the North desired, and Congress became divided and the breach became more and more widened as things transpired and to cap the climax they got up the impeachment bill and then they failed to impeach. Poor old Thad Stephens did all that human being could do, and afterwards have up the ghost and is dead. — R.G. Smith, September 12, 1868