[March 10th] -- Walk through the hallways in my daughter's highschool and you can feel it. You can see it. You can almost reach out and touch it.

The battle is nigh.

Idaho seldom sees groups of grumpy teachers. Oh sure, here and there, a lone radical will lose control. In a meeting last year, a junior high teacher rose to his feet and said that "Anyone who voted for George Bush should be shot in the head." Even in Idaho, I guess. But for the first time in recent memory, teachers in this right-to-work state are "mad as hell," and they aren't going to take it any more.

School District 25 teachers haven't seen a raise in quite some time, though their health insurance costs have risen several years in a row. Efforts to negotiate a new contract with the district has failed time and time again. Last month, Idaho governor Dirk Kempthorne gave all state employees a 3% raise. All employees, that is, except for the teachers. They believe they have been patient long enough. They're ready to strike against the district. Not "strike," mind you. This is Idaho after all, one of the most self-sufficient, anti-union parts of the United States that you'll find. No, striking isn't an option, although the teachers sure enjoy talking about it. At least, that's what I would have said just a day or two ago. Things are changing.

For the last week or two, the teachers have been boxing up all those things in their class that were purchased with their own personal funds. Books, computers and even blackboards are now unavailable to the students. The teachers think this is a "soft" measure, one that doesn't hurt anyone.

I disagree. Always have. Always will. Yes, the teachers deserve more money. Yes, the state of Idaho has not done enough to take care of the mentors of it's next generation. But since the days of America's first public schools, teachers have been underpaid, underfunded and overworked. It will never change. Being a teacher isn't a job, it's a calling. Removing learning aids from a classroom is never right, regardless of the circumstance.

When I was working in the business world, there were many times that my employer paid me less than I felt I was worth. It was an easily correctable situation. I got another job. Teachers seem to believe that they shouldn't have to switch districts if they are not happy. That is the mark of the union. You say you aren't making enough money?

No problem. Demand more. I've never agreed with this approach, especially from teachers.

I had a chance to talk with my son's junior high principal this afternoon, and asked him his thoughts on the situation. He generally supported his teacher's actions. He also believes that unless the school district makes some attempt to placate the teachers, a strike could occur as early as April. I asked him what would happen if some of the non-union teachers crossed the picket lines. His face changed, and he told me that the teachers "would be shunned like you could never imagine." He said that never again would those teachers ever be part of the teacher's cabal; backs would be turned as they walked down the hall. As I walked out of the building, I passed several teachers milling about the hallway; each wore a large red and white badge [they were just too big to be called 'buttons'] that admonished their students to support the union.

This is just plain wrong.

I look forward to being a teacher, but I see the job of a teacher differently from my friends. Simply put, a teacher should take no action that doesn't directly effect the well being of the child. All the posturing, the huffing and puffing, the window dressing is suplurferous.

I hope this district hissy-fit ends soon. I respect the teachers, but not their actions.

[February 26th] -- Every once in a while, a story makes headlines that reflects my concern about teachers unions. We all know that unions, paticularly in certain market segments, are a positive force. But teachers?

A high school principal in the Kenmare, North Dakota school district was having a difficult time filling a speech pathologist position in their high school. The salary agreed to by the district and the union just wasn't enough. A state fact-finding commission recommended that the position receive an additional $15,000 per year so that the school district could compete with the private sector. The principal liked the idea and hired a pathologist for the union pay plus the $15,000.

The Kenmare Education Association quickly filed suit to stop the hire. Said President Donna Schmit, "For one individual to negotiate an additional $15,000 in salary is wrong." Luckily, a district court judge saw differently and ruled in favor of the district's attempt to help their special needs students.

The union seems to be more concerned with keeping it's collective bargaining power intact than it does seeing to the needs of it's students. Without that speech pathologist, children who need help wouldn't get it. It is stunning that the union would rather let a child continue to have difficulty with their speech, and possibly be held back than lose any appearance of being the all-powerful, monolithic voice of all teachers.

It's no wonder that teacher's unions are losing members in record numbers as professional organizations are growing exponentially at the same time.

It's about the kids, everyone.

[February 18th] -- This is not an attack on the left. Although I am a Republican, I have always believed that for a democracy to work, all beliefs and values must be represented at the altar of government. I have lived in both Washington D.C. and the state of Idaho. Both have governments overwhelmed by a single party (Democrats in D.C. and Republicans in Idaho). I couldn't handle being in such a minority in Washington and moved to Idaho, where I would become part of the great majority. Well, it's a majority, but it's not "great" by any stretch of the imagination. My "side," unchecked by the "loyal opposition," make decisions every bit as damaging to the welfare of the people as do the "left-leaners" in Washington. The ideas are different, but the outcome is the same. And while conservatives have certainly done some damage in the world of education, it's the left that's trying to recreate it in their own image.

The National Education Association hasn't supported a Republican president since Richard Nixon. With each passing year, the NEA continues to align itself with groups that are well to the left of mainstream America. Groups that advocate abortion rights and the gay lifestyle are welcomed into the NEA's "big tent." That tent, however, is only big if you espouse an idea that the NEA supports. But the NEA isn't the sole education union trying to change the world by indoctrinating it's students with a liberal-specific lesson plan. Meet Pat Byrne.

Byrne is the President of the Australian Education Union, that country's equivalent of the NEA. She goes farther than does NEA president Reg Weaver in trying to change the world. She admits exactly what she is trying to do.

Byrne said that the world took a step backward two years ago when Australia, England and the United States re-elected their conservative governments. "This is not a good time to be progressive in Australia; or for that matter anywhere else in the world" she lamented soon after George Bush's reelection in 2004. Anyone familiar with AEU policies will know the teacher union, along with other cultural elite groups such as the ABC, teacher academics and assorted artists and intellectuals, consistently attacks Australian society as socially unjust and champions a range of left-wing causes. Teachers are no longer asked to teach the facts as written by science and history; rather, they are pushed down a road of political correctness and causes of social justice, often at the expense of reality. Australian children are "all winners" in the public schools as "feeling well" has replaced "learning well."

Worse than teaching children to just feel good about themselves are the new, anti-bias curriculums that are popping up throughout the western nations. Part of this new type of education is "enthnomathematics,' which emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) may exhibit racial or cultural bias. The problem with this new way of learning is that there simply isn't any time left for 2+2 after the children learn the "warm and fuzzy" aspect of math.

If Byrne and the AEU were serious about strengthening government schools, the way forward, as in the US and England, is with innovations such as charter schools and vouchers. Empowering local communities by allowing parents to establish charter schools improves standards and builds the types of values embedded in social capital.

[February 10th] - It's stories like this that make me question if I really want to be a teacher.

Larry Neace has been a teacher in Gwinett County, Georgia for 23 years. He is loved by his students. A physics teacher, he is called "doc" by his students. What happened to Neace is every teacher's nightmare.

Neace handed out a work assignment with twenty minutes remaining in class and told the students to begin work on it -- it was a class project. Twenty-one students broken into groups and began to answer the questions that dealt with astronomy. The problem was that there were twenty-two students in the class. One young man, a star football player, put his head down and promptly went to sleep. He turned it in the next day, expecting to receive full credit.

He was given a "zero."

When the school year began, he had all the students sign the class syllabus, the same one he's been using for ten years. It specifices that part of the student's grade was based on class participation. Everyone in Mr. Neace's class understood that. So did the slumbering linebacker. When the boy complained to his teacher, he was reminded of the class rule and told the zero stood. The next day the parents were complaining, demanding that the grade be changed, that sleeping in class should have no effect on their child's grade.

Here's the part that scares teachers. The principal agreed. So did the school board. The school district has a rule that specifies that a student's grade cannot be reduced or harmed in any way because of "disciplinary" circumstances. They told the teacher to change the grade and he refused. He was fired. His students signed petititions and staged sit-ins. It all went for naught.

This is the new way of teaching where students' grades reflect 100% their actual school work. There were many times when I was young and in school that I received a "zero" because of my attitude and actions. And boy, did I learn from those times. The fear of failure made me "sit up and pay attention." Because I understood that my actions could affect my grade, I did my best to act in a manner that my teacher wanted. Oh sure, most of the time I didn't like it. But I learned a valuable lesson. I understood that their would be times in my life when I had to act and react in a manner that was foreign to my wishes.

Progressive principals and superintendents are teaching today's students that they can use profanity, sleep in class, wear inappropriate clothing and generally wreak havoc in the classroom and still pass the class and graduate from high school. Sure, there are mechanisms in place to punish this type of bad behavior, but sympathetic administrators give the student a "wink and a nod" and send them back to class.

Teachers have seen still another tool in their arsenal taken from them. They are required to teach the children but now have no say in their developing into adults. "Just get 'em to pass the test" is what they're being told.

And that's such a shame.

[January 25th] - James Garfield is one of my favorite presidents. I know, I know. Garfield didn't do anything of note during his presidency to warrant his being anyone's favorite.

Well, it's not so much anything he did that makes me like the guy; it's something he said.

"I love agitation and investigation and glory in defending unpopular truth against popular error."

Education today no longer defends the unpopular truth. History is often rewritten at the expense of political expediency. My daughter heard the following from her high school history teacher: "You must fight to make sure that a woman's right to choose remains the law of the land. If the supreme court over-turns, abortion will be illegal in America." Every teacher should know that if Roe v Wade were to be overturned, each state would then choose what to allow within their borders.

Less than 24% of Southern families owned slaves In 1860. 75% of those who did have slaves owned less than nine. Yet many history books depict a 'Roots' environment where slaves were regularly beaten and starved by ruthless corporate farmers. Would a farmer today slash the tires and cut the spark plug wires of a tractor that wouldn't start one morning? Of course not. So why would a farmer in 1860 beat his slave -- keeping him out of the fields for days or even weeks, leaving the slave-owner to do the hard work. It most certainly did happen, but not to the extent that are texts would suggest.

Sometimes, the truth hurts. Sometimes, what really happened in our past isn't pleasant. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[January 24th] - Sometimes, I just don't understand what people are thinking.

Last year, a student in the College of Education at LeMoyne College, a Jesuit school in New York state, was forced from school not by anything he did, but rather because of what he thought. As part of an teacher-education class, the student was asked to write an essay on what he perceived to be the "perfect" class. He received an "A-" on the paper.

But something he wrote was noticed by an administrator within the college. The student believed in corporal punishment, and thought that it had a place in the "ideal" classroom of the 21st century. This "riled up" the college's thought police.

When he tried to enroll the next semester, he was blocked from doing so. When he inquired, he found out that the administrator dis-enrolled him, telling him that his values "ran counter" to that of the college, and was no longer welcome there.

Finally, the New York Supreme Court voided the actions of the Lemoyne College of Education and ordered that the student be allowed to continue his studies at the school. The school didn't just lose, they got "whacked" by the judge afterwards. Said the judge, "President Beirne should be ashamed that his administration ignored its own rules, spent student's tuition money fighting litigation it invited, and cost one of its students a year of education simply because it did not like what he said in a theoretical paper. The school has no right to censor its students simply because of a differing of opinions."

Many colleges of education are now asking students to fill out a form that indicates their personal beliefs regarding the role of teachers in education today. If they are not in harmony with the school's monolithic mantra, they are refused entry to the college. Of course, it's the students with conservative and religious values that are refused entry.

At least this one time, reason triumphed over stupidity.

[September 15th] - I grew up in Fairfax County Virginia, part of the southern Washington D.C. suburbs. If you were to take a trip around the D.C. beltway, you would travel through several Virginia and Maryland counties, each new one just like the one you left. All of these counties are densely populated, quite wealthy, and very liberal. My Fairfax County Public Schools education painted an image of the world from a decidedly liberal perspective. It wasn't that my teachers scoffed at the conservative version of life; they simply never discussed it. I was told over and over that America was being "paved over," that soon there would be no forests left and no wilderness to enjoy. Because my little corner of the world reflected my teacher's warnings, I had little reason to question them. But I was astounded the first time I took a trip west. Once outside of the beltway, huge expanses of open space were only occasionally broken up by a town or a small city. It was at that point that I realized that I wasn't taught. I was indoctrinated.

Montgomery County Maryland borders the northern side of our Nation's Capitol, and reflects the same values and morals of my own Fairfax County. So it comes as no surprise that the Montgomery County Public Schools announced this morning that teachers would no longer be allowed to hand out gold stars to students for a "job well done." The school administrators are concerned that students who don't earn gold stars will feel slighted and offended. So to make sure that no one feels badly about themselves, no one can feel good about themselves either.

Oh brother.

Throughout my years in public education, I was the kid who never won an award, never was singled out for a job well done, and never, never earned a gold star. Did it bother me? You bet it did. But I didn't sit in the corner of my classroom and sulk at my mistfortune. Rather, I worked harder, listened more intently, and tried to be recognized for my stronger effort. It never happened in high school. Not once. But my adult life has been one continuous gold star.

I took that drive to succeed with me into the business world after graduation. I was an assistant manager at People's Drug at 19, the youngest ever. In 1982, I was the youngest Ritz Camera manager to that time. When I left management for sales, I seemed to always rewrite the records for most sales, highest customer satisfaction rating and was the "salesman of the year" more often that not. In 2002, I went back to college to become a teacher, and my GPA is in the top 2% of my class. I am or have been President of several organizations, and three professors have asked me to help them in creating lesson plans for their classes.

Had I grown up in an academic environment where my below average effort would not only have been tolerated but even appreciated, I would have entered the "real world" continuing to work "just hard enough" to get by. I would never had learned that effort below my capability was not acceptable, and that I could become better by working harder.

All those kids in Montgomery County who don't have parents pushing them to do their best will learn from their teachers that just "showing up" is acceptable. Another new rule says that a student who answers at least one question on a homework assignment [It's perfectly OK to get it wrong] can get no lower than a 50% grade.

I guess this would make sense to me if I still believed that America was only one year away from becoming a parking lot. But having left the intellectual confines of the beltway, I now know that this "feel good" style of education creates adults who aren't ready to take their place in the "real world." Employers are going to see the "Made in Montgomery County" label on these kids and look elsewhere for their labor needs.

And these school administrators should know this. Shame on them

[September 6th] - And just when you thought it was safe to go back to school.

The University of California system has recently announced that students who graduated from many private, religious schools will not be allowed to attend any of the state universities beginning next year. Officials said that they didn't feel that students who attended religious schools were prepared for the college experience. Wendell Bird, attorney for the university system, said that several English, science and social studies courses provided an incorrect perspective on the subject being taught. Ravi Poorsina explains that those requirements were established to "ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed."

Let's think about this for just a second. There is little doubt that a private education far surpasses a public one in both breadth and quality. So all those students with a secular, inferior education are welcomed into the California university system, but students with a much stronger education are turned away at the door because of their religious beliefs.

Students who attend private schools generally come from better homes, have a better sense of right and wrong, and are better equipped to make a difference in this world. But those who believed in God enough to attend a Christian school are "marked" by the California education system as "undesireables."

It makes sense. By keeping out of the system these students, radical leftist students and professors won't have to worry about demonstrations by the right on campus, because there won't be anyone there with a different opinion.

[August 24th] -- Nothing in education brings out the emotions like school choice does. And well it should.

My wife and I moved our family from St. Louis Missouri to West Palm Beach Florida in the fall of 1985. I had taken a job with a better firm that paid more money, and our family was beginning to reap the rewards that hard work offered. We spent a good deal of time finding the "right" place to live to make sure that our daughter was going to attend the "right" school. We found a nice apartment in an ideal part of West Palm. Once moved in, my wife and I went to the local elementary school to register our daughter.

"You can't send your daughter to our school" said the principal. It seemed that that part of Florida was under a judges bussing order, and in the name of forced segregation, Kira was going to be bussed to a predominately black part of the county, nearly a 40 minute bus trip from our home. Luckily, we were able to circumvent the law because we had a "special needs" child in our home, and my daughter was able to attend the local school.

Today, school choice is as important a topic as it was 20 years ago. Many parents, working with local legislators, are trying to create a "voucher" system, which would allow familes to send their kids to the schools of their choice. Of course, the NEA and is subsidiary associations are against the idea. And that's fine. But when members of either side create information that is less than factual, they only hurt themselves.

Phi Delta Kappa recently published the results of an opinion poll they commissioned which suggested that only 37% of Americans supported voucher programs. Thinking something was askew, the Friedman Foundation asked the Harris Poll Company to create a poll of their own. The Harris Poll showed that 60% of Americans supported school vouchers. Why the difference?

Phi Delta Kappa used a "loaded" question, asking if the person supported using public funds to send students to "private" schools. Of course, this is not how vouchers work. Parents can use the voucher at any public or private school. When Harris added the "public" to the "private" schools in the question, support for vouchers received an astonishing 23% increase.

Phi Delta Kappa is on the same page with the NEA. They seem more intent in maintaining the status quo rather than admitting that something needs to be done to give our future generations a chance for any real success in their lives. Perhaps vouchers are the answer, perhaps they are not. But truth and accuracy should never be shunned in the hopes of making any side of an argument more palatable.

[August 15th] - When I was a young boy just beginning public school, there was no political fight regarding the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution. As late as 1963, God was as prevalent in public schools as blackboards. Oh sure, Darwin's theories were explained, but evolution was but one of several ideas discussed.

Then Came Madeline Murray O'Hare.

Her lawsuit effectively removed God from the classroom. In that vacuum, Darwin's theories became the only answer to the question, "Where did we come from?" No longer were educators allowed to teach "Intelligent Design." For the next forty years, America's school children were faced with an "Iron Curtain" of thought that was erected by the secularists that offered only one side of the story. Teacher's in many school districts faced dismissal if they brought up the possibility of intelligent design in their classroom. One district in New Jersey dismissed a teacher for wearing a cross around her neck, citing the separation of church and state as being all encompassing. The question is, why?

Teach the students, teachers. Don't indoctrinate them. If you believe that science supersedes America's strong religious roots, then allow the kids the opportunity to see both sides and then trust them to make the right choice. I believe strongly that every student has the right to make an informed decision, especially on the topics that tear at the very fabric of society. I'd much rather have a student make a choice that opposes my own personal beliefs then be forced to believe something because they weren't given all the information.

[August 5th] - This mascot is simply wrong. Although I personally do not believe that schools who have chosen Native American names and mascots are inherently racist, there is such a thing as good taste and decorum. Mascots that are created using stereotypes and caricatures shouldn't be used by schools.

That said, no government entity or private group or organization should have the ability to forbid their use simply because certain specific individuals within that group or organization feel they are offensive.

The NCAA, which governs college athletics, announced August 4th that they would not allow any member school to participate in post-season play if their team mascot is brought to the venue, or if the mascot is represented on the team uniforms or other team property. Currently, there are 18 schools who have been singled out for this ban, including Florida State and the University of Illinois.

The NCAA does not have the right to forbid certain schools to participate in post season tournaments because they believe the school is fronting an offensive stereotype of Native Americans. Forget for a moment that the First amendment protects the actions of these schools. The problem we face is that where will this alleged "offensive" status be applied and by who. These schools have been singled out because of strong Native American lobbying. But why stop with Native Americans? Are we not concerned that the Michigan State Spartans name and mascot might be offensive to some Greeks? Certainly, the team's mascot is stereotypical of a Spartan soldier. Why is that OK but a man on a horse portraying a Seminole Indian is not? I attend Idaho State University, and a school in our conference, Northern Arizona, is known as the "Lumberjacks" with a big, burly stereotypical lumberjack mascot. Couldn't that offend men who cut down trees? We could find schools like this in every conference across the country.

It is no one's business but the schools as to their team names and mascot. When the NCAA begins to decide which names are offensive and which we are not, and they then become no different or no better than any group who haphazardly discriminates based soley on their personal beliefs. Don't believe it can happen? A few years ago, the NCAA passed a resolution that said all NCAA teams had to play on any day asked of it in the post season, including Sunday, or that school would be forced to forfeit the game. This was known as the "BYU" rule, as no other team had a problem with Sunday play. It took a backlash from many of the nation's secular schools to force the NCAA to change its mind.

It's just not right.

[July 27th] - "Oh, if our educational system was more like the 'continent' countries" one teacher friend said to me recently. "Continent countries?" I asked. "Sure, y'know, France, England, like that. There system is more student-inclusive then ours -- they have the opportunity to experience more than our kids do."

Roger that.

I recently read an article written by a British undercover reporter who posed as a substitute teacher at several secondary schools in their public school system. She was stunned. I am aghast. When I think of the British, I always picture the "stiff upper lip," very proper and well dressed types that I remember during my visits there when I was younger and living in the Middle East. Not any more. I don't want to bore you by repeating what she wrote. Click on the link above and read her story, and then tell me if you think that American education should take a page from the British.

[July 25th] - Just when you thought it was safe to send your kids back to the classrooms this fall, the battle over ebonics has returned.

The San Bernadino School district has decided to again make African American slang part of the educational process. School officials indicated that by making the classroom "more fun," they would be better able to keep the kids interested in their studies.

Uh-huh.

I ran a business for 15 years, and when job seekers sat down for an interview, I never looked at their resume or job application. I was interested in how they communicated, how they held themselves. A high school graduate with good communication skills would always get the job over a college graduate who couldn't speak well. Now, young men and women who are already being taught in a system bereft of concern for its student's long-term well being, are reinforcing a way of talking that outside of their neighborhood is indicative of poor education and poor communication skills. By using the ebonics system, the San Bernadino school district will ultimately be making it harder for these young kids to succeed in college and ultimately thrive in our society's business world.

C'mon, San Bernadino. Aren't we making it hard enough for these children to succeed as it is without adding ebonics to the growing list of roadblocks they must face? Wassup wit dat?

[July 24th] - Since the September 11th attacks, Americans have tried to understand why young Muslim men carry so much anger towards the United States. Many, including the federal government, have surmised that Muslim schools are teaching a bastardized version of both Islam and the Koran. Mulahs, it is believed, latch onto these young boys at their most impressionable period, and "create" these men of hate who are so willing to kill both themselves and others in the name of a perverted religion. This may or may not be true. I have never been to one of these schools, so I cannot say with accuracy if this happens. However, doesn't anyone else find it curious this same type of one-sided education is happening right here in our own back yards, and yet no one says a word?

Today's students don't have much of a chance. Gone are those special teachers who knew so much and taught so creatively that they both educated and entertained. Today's new teacher's are often provided a lesson plan to follow. Certain words and phrases, many ideas and beliefs are taboo. The discussion of abortion is fine as long as the teacher's lesson plan supports "Roe V. Wade" and doesn't provide equal time to those who disagree. Homosexuality is also a teachable subject. Many teachers and school districts bring in representatives from Gay and Lesbian organizations to offer their point of view. Of course, it would be "mean spirited" to offer the view that homosexuality is somehow wrong, so the students only get one side of this story. History text books are excised and scrubbed of reality because certain words and images are "stereotypes" and "anti" somebody or something.

I believe that students, especially in high school, deserve the opportunity to be exposed to as many ideas and beliefs as possible, even ones I don't like. That's democracy. But it's not democracy when the other side of an issue is abridged or erased altogether as a result of political ideology. Bring in a gay man, bring in someone who disagrees with the gay lifestyle. Let a feminist teach the class for a day, give the same opportunity to a "traditional" woman. Offer both sides and then discuss the new information. But that's not happening. Because of the seriously liberal bent of the NEA and most of it's state affiliates, no effort is given to fairness. It's all about the politics. Kids don't understand this. Kids, especially younger ones, can't tell when information is missing from a lesson plan They don't know that part of the equation is missing.

It is the responsibility of all teachers, regardless of their ideology, to present all pertinent facts when discussing a subject of importance. To do any less is to do what many Americans blame the Muslim teachers of doing, which is to indoctrinate, and not educate. If we don't like it happening in Riyadh or Beirut, Cairo or Mecca, then we must stop it from happening in New York and Chicago, Los Angeles and Miami.

It's the only right thing to do.

[July 23rd] - My teacher friends always say the same thing when we discuss the National Education Association. Out here in Idaho, teachers who fully support the NEA are few in numbers. But many apologize for the union's actions and tell me that we must look past the NEA, and see the good the Idaho Education Association does. Now, they're right of course. As Vice President in 2003-04, and President the following year of the IEA Student Program at Idaho State University, I have attended many meetings in Boise with the IEA leadership. They are wonderful people, all of them. But to be part of the IEA, you have to also be part of the NEA, and that therein lies the problem.

At the recent national meeting, the NEA voted on dozens of resolutions that would effect the policy of the association. The first 14 resolutions had nothing to do with education. What was more important than the children? The NEA voted to investigate companies as to their position on Social Security privatization. They voted to sponsor "political training" for candidates who were "friendly" to the NEA and their policies. They also voted to demand a military withdrawal from Iraq. My personal favorite: Join other union organizations in an "Anti Wal-Mart" campaign. What?

Although as a conservative, I don't agree with very much of the liberal dogma that comes out of the NEA, I nonetheless support the right of any person or organization to espouse their views. I'd rather listen to someone I don't agree with than the sounds of silent contempt. But this isn't the "National Liberal Political Association." The NEA's sole responsibility should be to create the best possible educational environment for the young men and women of this country. Anything else doesn't matter. In states like Washington, where belonging to the union is mandatory, the NEA's radical agenda doesn't matter in terms of recruitment. But in "right to work" states like Idaho, being part of the union is optional. The last numbers I saw indicated that just under 60% of Idaho teachers belong to the IEA/NEA. In talking to the teachers who are not members, the answer is almost universal: "I'm not going to be part of an organization whose politics is so different from mine."

Not only is the singularly liberal NEA not helping children with their political agenda, they are driving away potential future members. In regions of the United States where Americans are the most religious are the regions where the union has lost the most of its membership. New professional organizations are growing nationwide to offer politically neutral havens for teachers. I am a member of the IEA/NEA because I wanted to see for myself if my preconceptions were true about them. In my opinion, they were. I am also a member of the NWPE, a professional organization based out of Spokane Washington.

After three years of feeling like "a fish out of water" with the NEA, I am "home" with the NWPE. Again, I have only good things to say about the IEA and its leadership; I cannot and will not be associated in any way with the NEA. I support other teachers who choose to be part of the NEA, and I hope they support my decision not to be a part of the organization.

[July 12th] - The National Education Association has taken another step to create a stronger association with the Gay & Lesbian community. Representatives of the local and regional associations voted this past weekend to create a new and more sophisticated strategy to combat what they perceive as a "attacks" against NEA policies that provide a safe and friendly environment for Gays and Lesbians within America's schools. The "Washington Times" quotes the chairman of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus of the NEA, who asserted that "extremist groups are using increasingly sophisticated and aggressive tactics to attack school districts with affirming GLBT policies, curriculum, and practices." As is usually the case, when a conservative member of the meeting rose and and reminded the caucus that the NEA continues to ignore groups who represent "ex-gays," that being gay is not in and of itself a rigid lifestyle, the member was booed from the floor for several minutes before NEA President Reg Weaver brought the discussion to a close. A member of the meeting said that the NEA believes that members who speak out against the NEA's pro-homosexual ideology are "plants" from the religious right.

No. They are parents and concerned teachers who don't want sexual choice politicized in the school system.

The NEA does not represent the vast majority of American families and many of its teachers. They represent the far left of the Democratic party, a group whose goal is to change the value system of America from within the schools. How do I know this? Because I have been a member of the NEA for three years.

I am a student at Idaho State University. I will begin my teaching career in a year or so. I have joined the IEA/NEA to see if my concerns about the union were correct. I was Vice President of the student program, and became President last year. Much of what I heard at the Presidents meetings seemed like it came right out of the Democratic handbook. Don't get me wrong, the people were wonderful; each and every one of them were top notch teachers. But even in Idaho, the long arm of the NEA reached out and touched a few on the left who made if difficult to be a moderate or conservative and still remain part of the union. There are just so many jokes about George Bush's intelligence that a person can take. There are just so many standing ovations for John Kerry that one can listen to. I respect the right of anyone to support any candidate, but not once did a conservative in these meetings feel comfortable saying something positive about the President or his party.

The people the NEA are going to fight regarding it's pro-Gay & Lesbian stand are the parents of the children they are entrusted to teach. We are the "radical element" that they are preparing to "go to war" with. In 1972, a socialite lamented in a post election party, "How could Nixon have been re-elected. I don't know a soul who voted for him." Nixon Won 49 of the 50 states. This is the problem with the NEA. They don't "know" any conservatives and they don't care to. The NRA has the same problem. When you don't come in contact with those who disagree, you believe that those who disagree with your views are irrelevant and radical.

I can live with the Gay & Lesbian lifestyle being taught in my local schools as long as both sides of the story are being discussed, but the NEA simply won't have any of that. And so, another layer of the union has been peeled away because more and more teachers don't feel comfortable supporting their singularly monolithic views. I am now a member of a professional teacher's organization, the NWPE based in Washington State.

One day, the president of the NEA is going to have a meeting and nobody will come. The NEA does many good things; I just hope they stick to teaching the children and not indoctrinating them.

The following comes from the New York Times. In a recent survey of academics, 7 out of 8 are Democrats. This number is three times higher than it was in the 1970s. With those types of statistics, there has to be a liberal bias, right? Each and every one of those liberal professorial types must be working hard to transform their "middle-of-the-road" students to radical Berkeley types. Right? I mean, each of those six care only about creating a bunch of "mini-me's" to take over in the decades to come. Isn't that so?

As a conservative, I want very much to be able say with statistical accuracy that all of these Democratic teachers and professors are using their position to change the future of our country. But I can't. Oh sure, some of them do, maybe many of them, but it's not part of some predetermined plan created by the liberals. Liberals by design are more radical, more "in your face" then conservatives. They tend to wear their politics on their sleeves. The stories we hear about professors who force students to write anti-Bush essays are true, but they don't happen very often, and they aren't limited to the liberal left. A professor at Bob Jones University once forced a student to write over and over that "Darwin is a loon." It comes from both sides Is it bias? No. It's passion.

I am a junior at Idaho State University. Even here in the most conservative state in the union, we have liberal professors. My first was Dr. Shein, an English professor. She was funny and she was smart, and seemed like a good professor. During the first week, we got on to the topic of Native Americans and British Settlers. She referred to the colonizers as "European Invaders." I went quietly ballistic. Throughout the semester, I worked hard, but never forgot what she said. I listened to every word she said for more proof of her "bias." But a strange thing happened. She taught me how to think differently. She showed me how to see things from a different perspective. I never agreed with much of what she said politically, but I learned to respect her views. That was something very new for me.

So this liberal professor, this one of the six out of seven, taught me not how to be a liberal, she taught me how to think like an adult, to see and respect both sides. If this is the scary liberal professor my conservative friends have warned me about, then there is no reason to be concerned. Dr. Shein, and professors like her, are doing their job by making their students think. Sure, castrate the bad ones, but don't blame all the professors for the act of a few.

This afternoon, yet another article was published about yet another survey that showed yet again that "abstinence only" sex education programs don't work. It was created and paid for by a group led by Planned Parenthood.

These groups have the best interests of our children in mind. However, the kids don't use the information as these groups suggest they do.

The picture above shows several high school girls having a weekend party. Of course, alcohol is part of the fun. The blonde girl is holding a "sex information" booklet that is given out through their school. Those that think that our children will use these guidelines as "protection" don't much remember what it was like to be a kid. Look at the faces of these girls. I chose this image out of the dozen or so in the group because you can't make out whats on the pages. The others, however, were very graphic. In very basic, coloring book type of line drawings, the book shows how a girl should "handle" touching a man. The girls see the book as an owners manual for their sexuality, a tacit approval by adults to pretty much do whatever they want with their bodies.

The article I read this afternoon underscored that abstinence doesn't work, that our schools should provide not only the "how to" instruction about sex, but provide the necessities to make "safe sex" safe.

Look again at these girls. None of this is about not getting pregnant or passing along sexually transmitted diseases. It's about being as free as possible, as young as possible, to enjoy ones sexuality.

And that's not the place of our schools.

[July 3rd] - Speaking at the NEA's annual meeting, union President Reg Weaver announced that the NEA believes that the starting salary for the typical teacher should be $40,000 per year. Think about that for a second.

A young man, barely 21 and with a 4-year degree, working 9 months a year, should begin his career earning $40,000 a year, or about $28 an hour. Now don't get me wrong, I'm about a year away from getting that 4-year degree, and Lord knows, I'd love to earn $40,000 a year as I learned how to do my job. But it makes no sense, and this is precisely the reason that so many teachers in right-to-work states are leaving the unions and joining professional organizations. The president of the largest teachers union says he is going to use all of his "political clout" to make this happen, yet he admits that he has no idea how much this might cost a school district.

Well, let's consider Mr. Weaver's proposal on one elementary school here in my community. This school has 26 teachers. The starting wage here is $27,500. To be fair, you'd have to increase all teachers salary or first year teachers would be making more than 10 year veterans. So if a first year teacher earns $13,000 per year more, then all teachers would have to have a similar increase. This one elementary school would require an additional $338,000 a year. Of course, Reg Weaver knows this will never happen, but it's a good "red meat" issue for his members.

But it makes the union and union members seem unreasonable. It takes a highly specialized degree to earn that kind of money in the first year of any career, and I can say that, three-quarters of the way through my degree, that there is nothing specialized about it. It's a good degree, but not the kind that's worth $40,000 a teacher's first year.

I love teachers. I look forward to being one. But teacher's need to be reasonable. Let's begin by telling Reg Weaver that perhaps, just perhaps, he's off base about this whole "starting salary" idea.

[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.

[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.

LeMoyne College in Syracuse New York is a RELIGIOUS school. It is not part of our left-wing, post secondary system currently in place in the United States. They follow the will of God, not the ACLU. Yet, even in these conservative, religious surroundings, those who teach our future leaders just can't get it right.

A young man wrote a paper for a teacher education class in LeMoyne's College of Education where he suggested that corporal punishment might make the disruptive classroom of today more conducive to education. He never said he was going to whack the kids, nor would he superglue them to the walls. He said that corporal punishment has its place, but not in the public school system, where it is outlawed. His paper received an A-.

When he tried to begin school the next semester, he found that he was dis-enrolled. An administrator in the College of Education said that his beliefs were "counter" to the values and ethics of the college. Goodbye. Just like that.

This bothers me more than it might most because I am a Senior in a college of education. Although my school is politically benign, and in a very red state, it nevertheless has undercurrents of excessive liberalism. Many of us in school are afraid to say what we really believe in class for fear of reprisals by our professors. The concept of college as a free flow of ideas is fiction.

LeMoyne College, and other colleges like them, desire to produce teachers who hold their values and beliefs. All others are unwelcome. I live in Idaho, which is a right to work state, meaning that teachers are not required to join the NEA/IEA. Still, more than 60% of all teachers gladly pay the $500 in yearly dues. Considering a starting teacher in Idaho makes $27,500, that is a large percentage of their income. And they do this willingly.

Lets be honest. I am very religious and very conservative. But this will have no effect on the way I teach. My personal beliefs will never enter the class room. The "other side," however, seeks to use the classroom as a stage for their politics. I've seen it already. Our schools need teachers who teach, not who prostelitize their religion or radicalism. I don't know how much of a difference I can make, but I am sure going to try.

Hello All,
This has been a very difficult month for me. I have been sick, which makes little problems seem much larger than they really are. My handicapped daughter has developed seizures that are now so strong that she is passing out 20-30 times per day. My family's income right now [while I am in school] will be a little less than what I'll make as a teacher, and since I can barely pay my bills now [reality: many aren't getting paid], I had begun to consider using my teaching degree in a way that would allow me to survive financially [read: be anything after graduation BUT a teacher]. Wanting to make a difference, and being able to, are two very different things.

I began to wonder if it was all worth it. I am a non-union, conservative, religious Republican. Typical for Idaho, not typical for a teacher, even in Idaho. I began to wonder if I wanted to fight the system, to be shunned because I support vouchers and see teachers as, at times, part of the problem and not the solution. The behind-the-back whispers about me have already begun by those who see education through a prism of monolithic stagnation. "Ahhh" I thought, "It isn't worth it."

But it is. The reason why there is no diversity in education ['aint that a hoot -- that which the NEA embraces the most is what they allow the least among themselves] is because people like me say, "Ahhh ... it isn't worth it." It is worth it. The kids are worth it. Their future is worth it. They deserve a diversity of thought within the schools -- the whacky liberals and the whacky conservatives [that would be me] providing an educational pallet full of contrasting colors and hues.

I apologize that I lost sight of the "ball," at least for a moment. I'm back. I'm ready. To my future students, I say, quoting a favorite television character, "Who loves ya baby!"

The root of of evil, or the cure for all evil? 

Does anyone else ever get tired of hearing that if we throw more money at public education, it will improve? Who believes this? I mean, really believes this? While there are necessities that must be purchased, money often comes with a price tag too excessive for our children today. Discretionary funding for public education has doubled since 1996. Is the quality of education better today? No.

Read this sentence that appeared in this morning's Capital Ideas:

SACRAMENTO, CA – In his recent "state of education" speech, Jack O'Connell, California's Superintendent of Public Instruction, linked poor student performance to a lack of funding.

Really? So, when a teacher uses his/her classroom as a 'bully pulpit' to eschew their own political ideology, thereby providing students inaccurate information, that's because of a lack of funding? And, um, when a school district mis-uses / mis-understands the 2nd amendment of the Constitution, and forbids access to certain, important information, it occurs due to a lack of funding? And when good young teachers leave the profession (half of all first year teachers hired in 2000 will be out of the profession by this summer) because they are frustrated at being limited by supervisors as to what they can and cannot teach (we wouldn't want to offend someone, would we?), they leave because of a lack funding? Plu-ease.

I will begin teaching in about a year. My age (48) makes me a father-figure for many of my fellow students. They tell me things I doubt they would tell others because they know I would not judge them. I have yet to hear a single education student complain about how much they will or won't get paid, or how little their class may be funded. No, their concerns center on their future administrators (are they going to force me to teach things because they are politically correct?) and parents (are they going to let me teach things that aren't fun to listen to?).

Funding is a scapegoat. To hide chasms in an antiquated education system, administrators and education leaders use money as the reason for all ills in education. A good teacher, trusted by his or her community to do the right thing, and unshackled by persnickety supervisors, could produce outstanding students in a room with bare walls and no electricity, no books and no pencils. That's the easy part. Finding a school district somewhere that would give you the freedom ... now that's the challenge.

Please, money is NOT the answer. Placing the children above politics, personal and national, IS the answer.

Dr. Cyd Crue (Left)

KUDOS TO DR. CRUE

It's really nice when you find a professor who is passionate about their subject. It's remarkable to find a professor who is wholly fair. But when you find one that is both, well, you just have make mention of it.

Dr. Cyd Crue is a professor in the Sociology Department at Idaho State University. I have her for SOC 248, "Social Diversity." I know. The title is pretty scary. From the conservative side of the ledger (of which I proudly belong), diversity classes seem to have been created to make we white folk feel bad about ourselves. Often, those who teach these classes do just that. Perhaps that is not their intention, but it is nonetheless the result.

Not Dr. Crue. She understands how important it is to be fair when dealing with such a volatile subject as culture. She has repeatedly emphasized the importance of understanding how ALL sides feel. Dr. Crue spends less time on 'what' happened and more time on 'why' it happened and how we can keep it from occurring again.

I assume that Dr. Crue is liberal. I say assume because the way she teaches, it is very difficult to tell. Fairness seems to preclude her from using her 'bully pulpit' to further whatever agendas she might have (as we all have).

Although I have just begun taking her class, I am certain that I will learn a great deal. I may or may not change my beliefs regarding culture and diversity within the United States, but one thing is for sure: I will end this semester with a greater respect for the problems of racial divisiveness within our country. Thanks Dr. Crue.

Sometimes, I feel very much like a giraffe with a long neck. I have learned in life that in order to do your best, to make a difference, you've got to take a chance, you've got to stick your neck out. For years, I remained quiet and unwilling to be involved because of what people might say and do. Those who remain in the shadows never got made fun of you see. That worked for me. Then, when I went back to school, I began to see how much change was needed, especially in education. So, I stuck my neck out. Chop Chop.

99% of those you come in contact with will commend you for your hard work and passion. That other 1% though, can really be a pain. No one likes to create a controversy. But sometimes it happens. Ah, another teaching moment. How will I use the cuts on my neck in my classroom when I (finally!) begin teaching. Somewhere, somehow, I am going to push all of my students to stick their necks out during the year. I hope they feel the sharpness of the verbal barbs as if it was cold steel on the back of the neck. I want them to feel it, to get over it, and get on with it. Hey, I think I just made up a saying: "Feel it, get over it, and get on with it." I like that.

I want my students to feel both the good and the bad that comes with service early in their lives. The ego bruises are less apt to stop a young person then someone way old like me. Come on world; my neck's still out there....

College of Education at ISU

T H E N I F T Y 2 5 0

All too often, students in the many Colleges of Education across the nation are taught all they need to know about being an effective teacher in a classroom. That's great. But the 'nuts and bolts' of being a teacher are seldom covered and almost never discussed.How much money will I make? How is the payscale structured? Do public school teachers get tenure? What are and are not appropriate topics to discuss in class? How should I expect to be treated by my students?These are the questions that first year teachers need answered. Theory is fine, but Dewey won't help you unlock the classroom door each morning. Students need a way to find the answers to these questions BEFORE they enter the classroom.

Idaho State University offers a class that answers just these sort of questions. EDUC 250 is a one credit class that acts as an introduction to the world of teaching. Teachers are brought in from the 'real world' to address the class. Time is spent explaining the 'hot button' issues of the day. This semester, 250 students will create their own education blog to help them become more acclimated to the technology teachers must understand in today's world.

Education 250. A great class and a great idea.

Dr. Beverly Klug is an expert on Native American studies. I was lucky enough to take an independent study course with her last year through the College of Education at Idaho State University. Unlike most professors who teach diversity, Dr. Klug strives to be inclusive of all cultures, and not just the ones that are considered 'politically correct.' She made me appreciate the plight of Native Americans not by disliking my culture, but by appreciating theirs. I highly recommend reading 'Widening the Circle' - - it is both fair and fantastic

One of my favorite sayings comes from an ecclisiastic leader of a half-century ago. "What 'er thou art, do well thy part." He saw this etched on a stone in front of a small church while traveling through Scotland in the late 1800s. It doesn't matter what you do for a living, just do it to the best of your ability. What a wonderful concept to pass along to our students. You won't be temporally judged by what you were, i.e. lawyer, doctor, retail clerk. Rather, your peers will judge you on how well you did that job, on the effort you put it into it. Talk about a teachable moment.

Every school year, a school district somewhere goes on strike. While the reasons and justifications may differ, the underlying cause is always the same: more money and more benefits.

Please understand, I believe that teachers are underpaid and overworked. I will start my teaching career in 2006, and as a new Idaho teacher, I will earn $27,500. In a year. Really. I haven't earned $27,500 a year since the mid 1980s. The way that educators are treated by many state legislatures and school districts is borderline abuse. But a strike?

No one currently studying to be a teacher believes that they are entering a profession that pays well. No one believes the old axiom about teachers working 'bankers hours.' So why do veteran teachers support and participate in strikes - often illegal - for more pay and better benefits? I have never taught. I have yet to deal with persnickety administrators and angry parents. I haven't graded papers through a movie night at home with my wife. These teachers have. They are tired and angry, and I understand. But a strike?

Over the years, when I grew weary of an employer, or could not get the pay package I thought fair, I simply walked away and found another place to work, sometimes in the same field, sometimes not. But some teachers, through their unions, have decided to bring their school districts to its knees rather than shop their services elsewhere.

Being a teacher isn't like being a pipefitter or iron-worker. When employees at Ford's assembly plants go on strike, the production of cars and trucks are simply delayed. But a school year is finite, and lost days cannot be pushed into the next school year. Knowledge is halted, and children are harmed.

Some call teaching a 'calling.' The priesthood is a calling is well. This term denotes an acknowledgement that these occupations are difficult and harsh, but are for the betterment of others. Does teaching then stop becoming a 'calling' when we've taught a few years and become worn and weary? No. It remains a calling especially when we've become worn and weary. By doing our best, by being the best teachers we can be, we make it difficult for school districts to restrict our income and benefits. Regardless of the fairness to ourselves, the needs of the young ones come first. That is what callings are all about.

James Garfield 

I was doing some research on James Garfield this morning (I know, not much of a life) and came across a quote of his that is reflective of the kind of teacher I want to be:

"I love agitation and investigation and glory in defending unpopular truth against popular error."

Many classrooms are ruled today not by historical fact, but rather by political correctness. We as teachers must be willing to stand up to "popular errors" and teach not what we think happened, or what we wish happened, but rather simply what did happen. For example:

Less than 24% of Southern families owned slaves In 1860. 75% of those who did have slaves owned less than nine. Yet many history books depict a 'Roots' environment where slaves were regularly beaten and starved by ruthless corporate farmers. Would a farmer today slash the tires and cut the spark plug wires of a tractor that wouldn't start one morning? Of course not. So why would a farmer in 1860 beat his slave -- keeping him out of the fields for days or even weeks, leaving the slave-owner to do the hard work. It most certainly did happen, but not to the extent that are texts would suggest.

Students deserve the whole truth, and not just a slice of it

Bias in the classroom is the largest problem facing our educational system today. Teachers, especially in the social studies curriculum, and predominately in the more liberal east and west coasts of the United States, have taken to teaching their political ideology as the gospel truth. What is most vexing is not why they do this, but rather why the school districts and parents allow it to happen.

Idaho, where I live, is not immune to this phenomenon. Over the decade, my children have brought home some of the most factually inaccurate information I have ever heard. When I ask where they got this 'information' from, they would always say, 'from my history teacher' or 'from my government teacher.' Here are just some of the things my children told me during some of our dinner discussions:

1) Theodore Roosevelt was a racist and anti-women because there were no women or people of color in his cabinet (the government teacher somehow failed to mention that women and minorities didn't appear regularly in a president's cabinet until almost seventy years later)
2) One of the main reasons Roosevelt supported the Spanish-American war was because of the 'dark skin' of our enemy (never mentioned was Spains horrific treatment of the Cubans)
3) In history class last fall, one of my daughter's history teachers said, 'Those of you who are old enough to vote better vote for John Kerry. George Bush has a plan to reinstitution the draft in January.' (this was taken directly from the democratic talking points from the DNC website)
4) That same teacher told his class last month that they wouldn't have social security to fall back on because 'George Bush was going to privatize and destroy it.' (again, never mentioned was the fact [and this is a fact acknowledged by everyone] that without changes, Social Security will cease to function in thirty or so years unless drastic changes are made to the system)

At no time did these teachers tell the students that these were subjective observations, leading them to believe that the teacher's observations were based on fact. They were not. I have no problem having liberals and Democrats teach my children. I have a problem with liberals and Democrats indoctrinating my children.

Our children are our future, and should be given objective facts and then be allowed to make their own decisions, regardless of whether it matches our own political ideology. I, as a conservative Republican, should never interweave my politics with history. Although the Republican in me may have trouble speaking positively about Bill Clinton, the teacher in me had darn well better portray his accomplishments right along with his mistakes.

I voiced a concern to a teacher friend recently, saying that I was concerned as to how to bring up 'hot' topics such as abortion fairly. She told me that she always framed the discussion about abortion as how the individual students would work to keep abortion 'safe and available' to women, as the Supreme Court ruled that it was a right supported in the Constitution.

It is teachers such as this that concern me the most. Using this thought process, then she would also have had to teach in 1950 that 'separate but equal' was a just law because the Supreme Court agreed with it in 'Plessy vs Ferguson' in 1896. She further would have to tell her students that 'Brown vs Board of Education' was an attempt to undermine states rights, and should therefore be voted down by the Court.

I am in no way suggesting that abortion is or isn't a right contained within the Constitution. I am simply saying that an educated teacher should understand that a Supreme Court decision simply means that today, now, a particular law is or isn't constitutional.

In no way is this a slam against the profession. I will be a teacher in a little more than a year, and believe there is no greater calling that being a teacher. But in accepting this calling, all of us must check our personal beliefs at the door. The children deserve no less.

My, we teachers have a difficult job.

This is the College of Education at Idaho State University in Pocatello. While brick and mortar hold no sentimental value, the people within this building are very dear to me. I am not the same person that I was the first day I stepped into this building. I have those within it to thank.

Hi Everyone. I look forward to posting in-depth opinions and information about our educational system soon