More Information Is Good, And All Information Is Better
[June 28th] - Unlike many of my conservative friends, I am a proponent of more information and not less. The first amendment is a wonderful thing and I support its use on a regular basis, especially when the discussion involves things that makes me feel "uncomfortable." A prime example is the discussion of Gay and Lesbian issues in school. Although there likely is a place for it, I haven't yet seen a system that distributes benign information rather than trying change minds and value systems through propaganda.
The PTA [Parent Teachers Association] mirrors the view of the NEA [National Educational Association] and wants more information about homosexuality in the schools. At a recent gathering in Columbus, Ohio, a PTA workshop stressed the need to incorporate more "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender" (GLBT) issues in public school policies and curricula." While that concerns me, an open, inclusive policy of knowledge and information sometimes includes things you don't want to hear. But here's the problem. The PTA, during this same convention, refused to allow an organization of former Gays and Lesbians to rent a booth in the hall. Why? If the PTA is going to be so inclusive that they want to increase the amount of knowledge regarding Gays and Lesbians, should they not also want students to know that being Gay, or acting Gay, is not always a lifelong lifestyle. Why won't they?
We all know why.
The Gay and Lesbian special interest groups don't want that information in the schools. Often, schools that offer a Gay/Lesbian curriculum use an "off the shelf" program provided by one of the many pro-homosexual groups in the country.
Learning has become too one-sided. To be fair, to be open and inclusive, both sides of every story must be offered to our children. It should sound like this: "Estimates of how many Americans are Gay range from 5-10%. Most say that being Gay is not a choice, but there are others who disagree. There are groups of former Gays and Lesbians who teach that, for them at least, it was a choice at a time in their lives when they were searching for something." Fair. Balanced. No choosing sides.
But that isn't how all of today's public schools work. Just visit your local high school. You'll be very surprised.
Teacher's Aren't The Enemy But Some Of Their Actions Can Be [Wrongly] Interpreted That Way
[June 26th] I need to first say that I have no problem with teacher's unions. I am a junior at Idaho State University in the College of Education. I have been a member of the Idaho Education Association as well as the Northwest Professional Teachers Association. I was Vice-President of the IEA Student Program in 2003, and President in 2004. I have attended dozens of meetings with the leaders of both the local and national unions. They are decent and caring people with a passionate belief in all things education. And the teachers in this image are correct, they are not the enemy. So who is?
I live in Idaho, by far the most conservative state in the union. A Democrat has no chance to win a state-wide election here, and only Blaine County [Sun Valley, a playground for rich Democrats] voted for John Kerry. President George Bush beat John Kerry 69%-31%. So I was very surprised that the organization has a decidedly liberal bent. When politics were discussed, John Kerry often received applause and ovations while George Bush was constantly derided. The leadership of the IEA worked very hard to be fair and neutral in their politics [as much as a union can], but the organizational leadership were liberal without question.
The teachers in Idaho are hardworking, underpaid and work hours that would amaze those not in the profession. So why are they considered, to some, the enemy? Because of a union mentality that doesn't reflect the union's beliefs. Many of the conversations I overheard dealt with the "stupidity," "unfairness," "cheapness" and general dislike of the school board and district superintendents. An "us vs. them" relationship was harming the children. I'm not saying which side was right, maybe both, maybe neither was. But bad things happen when adversarial relationships are part of education. When parents fight, the children suffer. When teachers and school districts fight, the children suffer. Dollars and resources and talent are redirected to "winning" instead of "helping" the kids.
I'll begin my teaching career in 2006 at the age of 50. I know the hours are long, the pay is small, and the rewards, if you can get past the angry parents and principals, are worth it. I understand all this going in. It was this way in 1950, it was this way in 2000, and it will continue to be this way in 2050. Teaching is a calling, not a job. Certainly, the school district must be fair and reasonable in its dealings with their employees, but it is unfair to change the rules, to expect more just because someone in charge of an organization says so.
So the picture is right, teacher's aren't the problem. But teachers can become the problem if they allow politics to begin to overtake the students as their most important asset. For the most part, the teachers I have met hear have put their kids first. Let's keep it that way, for the kid's sake.
