The Undecided Blog

* I am an atheist.  I’ve always been; may parents are not religious, and I was not raised with any particular religion.  However, I have participated in many religious events.  I have many friends, some very close, who are Christians, Catholics, Jewish, Hindu, & Buddhist (although, I feel that the latter two are more a way of life or philosophy).

Ronald Reagan decided that the first Thursday in May would be National Prayer Day (NPD), so today is National Prayer Day.  The question that so needs to be answered in light of this day is: Why does the United States of America even have a National Prayer Day? Isn’t there supposed to be a separation between state and church?  Isn’t that one reason why the First Amendment is so important?  Thomas Jefferson wrote that the government had no direct authority over the religious practices of the American people.  So why has our government created a National Prayer Day?!

In today’s Washington Times, President Obama was criticized by several Christian organizations for not publicly observing or celebrating NPD.  Instead, he chose to observe the day in private, as religion is a private issue.  The  Concerned Women for America  said that the president should “put aside his own lack of faith, and live up to the office.”  Someone tell her that he IS doing that!  He is keeping his personal beliefs separate from what he needs to do as president.

It is also ridiculous that Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Prayer Day Committee, should object to Obama’s personal decisions when she would not allow Mormons to hold religious services on NPD in 2004.  It seems that what Dobson truly objects to is the missed opportunity to hang with the president.  If Dobson, and other religious organizations, are so gung-ho about celebrating this day of prayer, then all people of all religions should be able to pray as they wish.  No one religion should determine who gets to participate and who does not.  Additionally, no one should have to pray either.  No religion or person should condemn nor direct any individual’s or group’s religious activities.

I have serious issues with these Christians who object to Oabama’s statement that the US is not a Christian nation.  In my opinion, we are not.  He was absolutely correct in stating that the United States is not a Christian nation because we DO NOT have a national religion.    We are a nation of different cultures, languages, and religion.Rather, he is stating what is true; we are a nation of many religions.  Why is that wrong?  Why can’t we acknowledge that  there are  other religions?  What is wrong with these Christians who say stupid things in public that reflect on their religion?  Do they realize that it is the stupid sqaubbles that cause wars?!

I also take issue with these leaders of the Christian Churches who decide who may or may not attend service, receive communion, etc.  Since when did they become dictators?  Is Christianity a religion that excludes people who don’t follow their “rules” to the t?  If so, then most people are not truly Christians, and this is truly not a Christian nation.  Also, these leaders need to look within their own organizations, and deny all religious services to their own priests and archibishops.  Hypocrites.

There have been many developments in the world of education recently, particularly in New York City.  However, there is one issue that is very personal and most pressing for me, as decisions which will affect the life of one child will be made tomorrow.

Several months ago, in November, one student was brought up as a concern because she was making very little academic progress.  According to observations, there seemed to be a delay in comprehension, oral and written.  A request was submitted for the child to be evaluated (in November).  The school social worker filed the request - in her filing cabinet.  Subsequent inquiries were met with the response: it takes a few weeks to process the paper work.  In January, after more than several weeks, the issue was finally looked into, and it was discovered that the case was never really opened.  However, that is neither here nor there at this point.

The child was evaluated and found to be functioning at or above average in all but three areas, which pertained to reading comprehension.  A recommendation was made by the administration to place the child in a self-contained special education classroom.  However, this particular child’s learning disability is not so severe as to warrant a self-contained room with students who have severe behavior problems.  There will be a recommendation, and a decision, tomorrow to move the child into a cooperative teaching (CTT) classroom where there is a mix of special ed and general ed students.  I do not believe that moving the child into the CTT room is the right decision for several reasons.

Ideally, in a CTT classroom, the two teachers work in tandem to provide instruction and services to ALL the students in the room.  When you walk into a CTT room, there should be no visible differentiation between the general ed kids and the special ed kids.  In this CTT room, the special ed students are separated from the general ed students, and it is clear that one teacher works with special ed and one with general ed.  This observation has been made by many teachers who frequent the CTT room. This child needs extra time and help in her reading.  She does not need lowered standards, as the special ed kids in the CTT room, need. Additionally, she does not need to be separated from other children to complete her work; she does everything that is asked of her.

The other reason is that there are only three months of school left.  Why move a child at this point in the school year?  She is making progress, albeit slowly, but progress, nonetheless.  To move her now would be psychologically and emotionally detrimental to her.  The child is cognizant of the fact that she is not performing on standard, but she is trying.  She would understand that  her move to a CTT room is reflective of her work now.  What she needs is reinforcement, not a new environment.  She is also being removed from her friends and the environment that she has adapted to over the year.

When concerns were brought to the administration, their response was that a seat needed to be filled.  If the seat in the CTT room is not filled, then the school is open to receiving an outside student.  Essentially, the belief is “the evil we know is better than the evil we don’t”, except that the “evil we know” is not really so bad.  There would be more damage done to the child in this move.  However, the concern here is not the child; it is the prevention of any new special ed student coming into the school.  The damage done to one child is worth the unknown behavior problems that we might have.

I brought this child up as a concern, and to determine whether there was a learning disability that I didn’t understand.  There are other teachers and I who want to provide the child with more support and help.  However, what we are “providing” for the child now seems more like a punishment.

After reading an interview in U.S. News, I am cautiously excited about Arne Duncan.  I had hoped that President Obama would nominate someone in higher education to become the Education Secretary rather than a current school superintendent or chancellor.  I worried and still do worry that the new Education Secretary would attempt to issue one solution for all schools, students, and teachers.  While I do not know, yet, what Duncan has planned for the country’s schools, I am glad that he believes that  No Child Left Behind needs to be reworked.  Equally important is the idea that there should be better standards set for all states, and not fifty different standards. I am hopeful.

I just read an article in TIME magazine, “Wanted: A New Miracle“, written by Bill Powell about how the economic slump is impacting China.  Powell’s point is that China is not immune to the worldwide economic problems, and while some Chinese companies are faring well, there are many people who have lost their jobs and are returning home from the cities to their villages.  Obviously, this is a plight faced by many around the world, even in the United States.  While most people do not migrate home as the Chinese do,many people are losing their homes.

Powell goes on to opine about the ways in which China may work towards “fixing” their economy.  I am not an economist, nor do I work in the financial industry.  However, one of Powell’s suggestions really irk me in its ridiculousness.  In addition to stating that the Chinese economy should be more like the U.S’, he says that, “Chinese consumers can [spend] more and [reduce] their stratospherically high national household savings rate, which stands at more than 25%, compared with a savings rate in the U.S. that hovers near zero.”  He goes on to claim that “The Chinese save much of what they earn because the government has yet to provide the web of social services available in other countries.  China’s national social-security system and government health-insurance schemes are drastically underfunded; moreover, they don’t cover the millions of migrant workers who helped power the country to high growth but are now being laid off.”  I nearly choked on my Chinese food. For real?

Powell has been a writer for TIME, CNN, and Fortune magazines, so I am sure that he does have much more knowledge than I do about the economies of the world, among other things.  However, I really took issue with what he says.

#1 - Why SHOULDN’T people save their money?  It’s not just the Chinese people in China; the question applies to everyone in the world.  The U.S. is a country that lives on debt.  Americans borrow money from banks and credit card companies to maintain the often frivolous lifestyles that we want.  We continuously pay down the interest that we owe, and not the principal.  We expect our parents or Uncle Sam to bail us out when we can’t make those payments.  And when worse comes to worse, we stiff those institutions that lent us the money to begin with.  We will never truly own anything of value because we will always owe someone else money.  So really, why would you want to save? Why wouldn’t anyone want to live a life of debt?  For whatever the reason the Chinese people save, I think it is THEIR model that the Americans should model. Powell also states that Chinese people accumulate large nest eggs because  they only have one child who can take care of them when they are older.  It is a cultural tradition that the children care for the parents.  In the U.S., there isn’t such a demand or expectation, which means that parents are pretty much living on their own savings (or lack of) and their $500/month social security checks.  Which is MORE reason why people should save.  Who can survive on $500/month without supplemental income?

#2 - It is true that the Chinese government does not have the social securities in place for its people. They don’t have adequate health care for all the workers in the force.  But neither does the United States.  How many times have we been told that Social Security will not be around when we are old enough to retire?  We need to put our money in other types of private investments or savings for our future.  If we are doing that, then we are *gasp* saving!  The government can say we have social security, but it means nothing if you cannot truly protect these securities for your citizens.  Additionally, there are millions of Americans who are uninsured, as there are in China.  While China has a national health-care system, the U.S. has none.  Neither is truly effective as so many people remain uncovered.  For many people in the U.S., healthcare is an out-of-pocket expense.  If there is no savings, the cost of an emergency visit to the hospital could bankrupt you.

My point is that Powell is making more of a judgement on the way of life of a group of people, more than providing any real or meaningful solution to an economic problems in China.

I just read an article about Proposition 8, where 52% of the voters decided to ban gay-marriage. The Mormons worked really hard to raise money and send people door-to-door in California to pass this measure.  The leader of this campaign said that he was doing this to protect God’s intent of marriage.

First of all… it always makes me angry when people assume that there is only one god, and it is their god.  If you can have a god, so can I and every one else on this planet.  You are entitled to your belief, but don’t impose your religious beliefs onto the rest of society.  I know the argument has already been made, but why would your god or any other god create gay people if they did not want them to exist, be happy, etc. (assuming that any of these gods even exist).  The leader of this campaign, Frank Shubert, has a sister who is a lesbian.  So in his own defense, he says that he is not against gay people, he just wants to protect the idea of marriage as god intended.  Apparently, God speaks through him, and tells him what His intentions are, even though He created all people.

Let’s get down to the idea of marriage here… the argument against gay marriage, for the sake of protecting the sanctity of marriage, is that it is a union between a man and a woman.  Did Shubert, the Mormons, and the Church of Latter Day Saints misread that to be woMEN?

The irony of this campaign is killing me!

When the media’s attention was focused on the Mormons in Texas earlier this year, one Mormon family went on Oprah to discuss and defend their lifestyles.  They had said that they do lead an alternative lifestyle. We should be tolerant, if not accepting, of different lifestyles that are different from our own.  Just because it is different doesn’t mean it is bad.  At the time, I totally agreed.  Whatever our judgments about plural marriage, they are our own judgments.  If people want to be in plural marriages and families, and it makes them happy, then they have every right to it; what is the real harm to society?

My stance on that has not changed.  It just bothers me terribly that the same group of people, the Mormons, are now condemning the lifestyle of another group of people.  How can you ask society to be accepting of your alternative lifestyle if you cannot do the same for others?  Mormons obviously do not lead lives according to our norms; many people do not.  It is outrageous to me that they should put forth so much energy and money to campaign against another group of people.

Additionally, they misled the public by implying that same sex marriage would be taught to children in school.  Are you CRAZY?  Teachers have a hard enough time trying to teach BASIC sex ed to kids; why would we even want to talk about anything beyond what we must?  Besides that, Mormons teach their children that men can have many wives! Is THAT okay, but the idea of a same-sex couple is not?!  Such hypocrites!  We just shouldn’t tolerate anything that is different from what we expect.

One of my colleagues told me about a Howard Stern segment about the lack of knowledge Obama’s supporters had when they voted for  him.  She referenced this interview and mentioned that when the black people voted for Obama, they didn’t even know what his policies were; they just voted for him because he is black.  This was met with disgust by another teacher who voted for McCain. [Full disclosure: I am an Obama supporter, and I happily cast my vote for him.]  They asked me who I had voted for, and I told them.  But I felt the need to defend my decision because I didn’t want to be an ignorant voter; I wanted them to know that I DO know many of the policies and stances of both candidates.  However, I’ve had some time to think about this…

The teachers were appalled that black people would vote for a man because he is black.  To one, the idea of voting for someone based  purely on race is laughable, completely ridiculous.  What struck me, after I had listened to Howard Stern, is that the teacher did not mention that McCain’s supporters are just as ignorant.  They interviewed one black man who supported McCain, but did not know any of his policies or who his vice presidential candidate was.  I feel that the point Howard Stern was trying to make was very different than the one my colleague was trying to make.  Howard Stern was saying that there are many ignorant voters out there; people are unqualified to make decisions because they are not informed.  My colleague was saying that Obama’s supporters voted purely on race.

I do believe, without a doubt, that many black people did vote for Obama because he is black.  Is that the only reason why they should have voted for him? No, of course not.  However, there are just as many people who voted for McCain because they could not vote for a black man, or an “Arab”, or a “Muslim”.  Are these valid reasons not to vote for a person?  No, again.  Are these cases of racism? Of course they are; by determining that one race is superior or inferior to another, it is racism.

Unfortunately, we’ve all seen racism play out publicly with McCain’s supporters, who are ignorant of the facts, and chose to remain ignorant.  We have also seen the McCain people/ Republicans try to diminish accomplishments of Obama by also claiming racism with the voters.  But the reality is: black people have not always been racist against white people.  Black people have voted for many white presidents because the white males are the only ones, until this year, who have been able to make it past the primaries.  I think that there is a sense of pride that exists within a race/ group of people.  For a group of people who has been ostracized for years, it is quite an accomplishment to overcome odds, to perform better than expected or thought of possible; it is a huge reason to be proud.

Many people claim that the margin of victory for Obama is very small.  I have heard from several people that he only won because the black voters came out.  I actually heard this from a FOX commentator on election night, after the winner was declared.  When people say these things, I feel that they have refused to acknowledge all the other voters in our country.  We are not a country of black and white people.  There are so many races and mixed races, and it’s ridiculous to even try to make things so black and white, literally. Why haven’t people given the percentage of Asians, Latino/ Hispanics, and Whites who voted for Obama or McCain? According to one poll, 81% of Indian Americans support Obama; many polls showed that Asian Americans in general were more supportive of Obama than McCain; as well, Latino/ Hispanic voters were 2 to 1 for Obama.  Obama may have received many votes from African Americans, but he also received many votes from OTHER Americans.  For that reason, he will be the President of the United States.

What truly bothers me about this exchange with my colleague is the implied message in her comments.  It bothers me to no end that there are teachers and educators who view the world through very narrow lenses.  I worry about the impressions that are left on the children that they teach.

I have so much work to do,  but I feel that this is worth addressing.  Several issues at school today really trouble me; they make me nauseous.

IGNORANCE, BIGOTRY

It disturbs me to great ends when a teacher is a racist, a bigot, or an ignorant person.  I find ignorance to be unacceptable when we have access to the internet and millions of references and news outlets.  I find ignorance to be unacceptable when teachers need to teach their students about our country and our government.

It scares me when teachers perpetaute a misconception or untruth about a presidential candidate.  There are teachers in my school who will not vote for Obama because he is a Muslim or he is a terrorist.  I am an Obama supporter, and if you choose to vote for McCain because you don’t agree with Obama’s positions or policies, then by all means.  However, to say that you can’t vote for someone because he is Muslim is just unacceptable. Besides the point that Obama has been raised a Christian his whole life, who cares what his religion is?  Have we made so much “progress” as a country that we’ve moved from blatant racism to blatant bigotry?  Does it matter what religion any politician is?  What happened to the separation of State and Church?  What if the Muslim Americans WANT a Muslim president? What if Jewish Americans want a Jewish president?  WHO CARES?!  Why don’t we vote for someone who is competent, whose political ideals correspond with ours?  Americans, the politicians, people, and media, condemn the people of the Middle East for their religious zealots.  How different are Americans who cannot vote for someone because his/her religion is not their own religion.

One teacher went on to comment that should Obama become president, he will be assassinated.  Welcome to the United States of America, where we have our own religious fanatics.  We are the land of many closed-minded individuals who are intolerant of people who may be seen (inaccurrately) as different.

JUST MATH

There are teachers in my school who are as mature and as intelligent as the first graders that they teach.  One of these teachers exclaimed, “I just don’t understand [X] grade’s math!” when she is teaching X grade.  #1 - Someone tell her to shut her mouth and don’t say things like that in public.  #2- Where are the watchdogs from NCLB?  Why is this teacher allowed to teach math in X grade if she doesn’t understand it?  There is a lot of damage that one teacher can do to one student by not teaching him/her properly, much less a whole class.  Now imagine that this teacher loops with her class, that means spends 2 years (not)teaching math to the same students… the kids are now 2 years behind every one else.  Now, imagine a worse scenario where this teacher is allowed to remain in the classroom for the duration of her career… it is a terrifying thought that she is teaching thousands of students throughout her career.  So why is this teacher still at the school, in the classroom, (not)teaching math?  Like everything in education, it’s all politics. Just ask her daddy.

Fordham University has recently come under fire from the good Catholics of the world, and specifically Cardinal Egan for honoring Justice Breyer with an award from the school.  The reason cited by the Cardinal, who is the leader of pedophiles and sex-addicts, is that Justice Breyer voted to overturn a Nebraska ban on late-term abortions because it did not take into consideration the health risks to the mother.

PART 1 - Government & Abortion

Let me get this straight here… we should not abort a baby because it is a “living thing”;let the mother die if she can deliver the baby.  Even though she is ALREADY a living, breathing, functioning human being, she doesn’t really matter.  I see… that is perfectly illogically!!!  This is not a discussion on what God/ gods think(s); it is not even a discussion on when life officially begins.  This is determination by the church/ Church on whose life is more important: the egg, embryo, fetus, or the mother.  Who is the church to decide that the baby’s potential life is more important than the mother’s existing life? Who is the church to tell any family that the life of the mother is less important than the fetus she is carrying? Who is the church, period! To delve into the beliefs of different churches would take more time than I have right now, so here’s the point: since Egan, church of pedophiles & co., doesn’t share my beliefs or those of my church’s, of the flying spaghetti monsters, then let’s just stick with what we each believe.  Egan - you don’t ever have to have an abortion if you don’t want to.  I will just do what my church tells me to do.

The conservative right, among others, propogates an illogical argument, which may be done in the name of religion or in the name of Sarah Palin.  Whatever the reason, it is incorrect for any pro-life person to accuse a pro-choice person of “being for abortion”.  McCain repeated this line several times in the debates.  He accused Obama of being “for abortion”.  Apparently, the word “pro” meaning “for” and the word “choice” meaning “right to choose” equal “for abortion”. Oh wait, I see… again, illogical! [side thought: where did these people go to school!? did they not learn math, vocabulary, or LOGIC?!?!]  Pro-choice people do not push pregnant women to have abortions; pro-choice people are not promoting abortion as a means of birth-control. They just believe in the right for every person to think for him/herself.

Pro-choice is simply the right for every person to choose what to do with your own body.  Every man and woman should be able to decide that they want to tattoo their entire body, that they want to have a vasectomy, that they want to donate a kidney, or that they want to have an abortion.  This is a personal matter, much like whom you decide to marry or vote for, that the government should not and cannot regulate.  For a party that believes in less government interference and regulation, they sure like to stick their noses into other people’s business.

PART 2 - Church & Education

A university may be founded by certain people of certain religions, and may regularly hold services in these religions.  However, a university is also a place of learning where students, faculty, and staff and work with the changing social climates and curriculum improvements.  Universities are places that recognize the work of others who have made tremendous impact on our lives.  Universities are places where people learn about other people and other cultures.  The staff, faculty, and students at Fordham University are not all Catholics or Chrisitans or of any one religion.  It is a diverse institution that values thoughts and opinions of all people as to not be closed to change and advancements. If the university’s faculty or board bestows an award on an individual, who is the church to demand that it be rescinded?  Since when has a jesuit university told the Pope who he should promote to cardinal?

In Egan’s defense, Fordham University is a Jesuit university, and one can obviously understand why he thinks that he can dictate what they do.  The same concept applies to all Catholic church-goers.  A big “SURPIRSE” to all Catholic church-goers who did not know or understand that Egan actually dictates your every move.

What matters more to me in this situation is that the church, any church, should not dictate the actions of universities or the path of education.  It is through a free & unfiltered education that people are able to explore and discover innovative ideas.  Education promotes free-thinking, debates, and questions that allow people to  continuously seek answers, paths, and even religions.

The presentation of the award to Justice Breyer by Fordham University would be a great opportunity for the church, Egan, or any other person to discuss the accomplishments of Breyer.  In this discussion, one may debate Breyer’s decision on the Nebraska case, the selection of Breyer for this particular award, or the issue of abortion in general.  Whereever the discussion leads, it is understood that this is a decision made by the University faculty, who chose Breyer not just for his decision on one Supreme Court Case, but for the many choices he has made over a long career.

PART 3 - Friends

One friend cannot tell another friend that you cannot respect and be friends with Joe, the Judge because he and I do not agree.  That would be childish.  No friend of mine would make such a demand, because as my friend, you would also respect my decisions and my opinion.

Many people believe that Sarah Palin is a champion of students and families with special educational needs.

I think it’s just another issue that Palin needs to “address” as part of the campaign.  Palin states that if parents of special education students decide to send their children to private schools, the government should foot the bill.  What Palin is promising to do in a McCain administration is not realistic, nor is it in the best interest of any tax-paying American.

Funding for the special education programs in our nation’s schools have always been lacking, (as funding for general programs have been).

How is education funded in this country? By the tax-payers.  Districts or towns use the money collected from the property tax to pay for their departments of education.  This is why in wealthier districts, the property taxes are higher, and schools and students generally perform better than areas of poorer populations. In many areas, particularly rural and less populated districts, there are not enough tax-paying citizens to financially support the needs of the schools.  In these instances, the state subsidizes the cost of the schools. (This is not to say that states don’t give districts additional monies for their expenses.)

How do schools pay for the special education programs that the students in their community need?   Schools are allocated a certain amount of money for the number of students that they have.  In NYC, special education students are given extra money to pay for the services that they need.  Fortunately, for the many students of special needs in NYC, we have the funding and ability  to provide for most special ed students.   However, smaller areas, towns, villages, etc. do not have the same funding available.

Which brings us back to what Palin is proposing… that all families are given the choice to send their child to public or private schools for students of special needs.  All expenses will be incurred by the tax-payers.  The question is: if tax-payers’ monies cannot even pay for the needs of schools NOW, how will they be able to pay for the needs of the potential thousands of students who will choose to attend a private school?  There are schools in VT that have had to close because they could not afford the gas prices to bus children to the school.  Where does Palin propose to find the money to support her outrageous promise?

Given the choice between a private and public program, many parents of special ed students will choose the private programs.  It is not that parents shouldn’t be given a private school option IF their school districts are unable to provide for the students.  If school districts are able to provide comparable programs, services, and education to special ed students, then the school districts should not have to pay for the private school tuition.   In these instances, if parents choose to send their children to private school, then the parents need to pay the costs of the education themselves.

Case in point:  in the late 1980s, a VP of Virgin Records who lived in NYC, decided to send his son to a special education boarding school in Massachusetts.  Even though the city had programs and schools that were able to meet the needs of his son, the VP chose to send his son to a private institution.  While his son was in Massachusetts, the VP and his wife filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the city.  They believed that the city was responsible for paying for the education of their child.  A few of years ago, the suit was finally won by the VP and his wife, and the city had to pay millions of dollars to this family.  They donated the money to an after school agency, but that is not the point.  The point isn’t even that the city had to spend millions and time in fighting this lawsuit.  It is that these parents CHOSE to send their child to a private school DESPITE the fact that the city had programs that were comparable to the private school.  Why should the city have had to pay this family anything if they chose not to send their son to a public school?

The fact is, if parents of special education students are given the option to choose private or public education for their children, then the same privilege should be extended to all families of all students.  Why shouldn’t any other parent get to decide what type of education they prefer for their child? Why shouldn’t the government pay for the private education of ANY child?

Oh, what the hell!  In the name of McCain and Palin, let’s just shut down public schools, and give vouchers to every family.

I am overwhelmed!  There is no other way to describe my current state of being.  I’ve taken on many extras this year at school, and am starting to rethink some of them, not that it’s possible to back out of any of them now…

I’ve been thinking about several questions: what makes a great teacher? is it better to do many things well or to do a few things great?

Within my own classroom, I am trying to find room for projects with my kids.  I really want to have more fun with the curriculum than what is planned or allowed for.  The projects deal with both academic and civic duties.  However, in trying to find time for these things, I find that I’ve rushed through some topics.  In Social Studies, there have been days where I’ve just presented the kids with information to know so that we have time to work on our Social Studies project.  In this instance, I can argue that the time is equally traded as students can apply what they’ve learned to the project.

In word study though… we are looking at grammar, spelling, patterns, vocabulary, big words, etc.  There is a lot to get through each day, and we don’t spend a great deal of time focused on one type of word study lesson.  I’ve been debating this one… on one hand, I really want the kids to know that all of these topics in word study is important and relevant to their academic and lifelong careers.  Other the other hand, how much information is retained if not focused?  I ask these questions not for my top functioning students, and not even for my middle of the road students.  I ask them for the struggling students.  I wonder how much they are actually taking in?

Back to my main questions… I am running several projects at school, along with after and before school work, and learning a brand new curriculum.  While I am not yet failing at them, I feel like that day will come.  Every second of my school day is accounted for.  I am either planning for my kids, or I am working on a project that my principal has assigned me to…

Perhaps the better question is: is it more important that the kids think I’m a great teacher, or that the administration thinks that I’m a great teacher?