The Undecided Blog

The name of this place elicits loud laughter, if not confusion, amongst those not in the know.  The rubber rooms are places where the NYC Department of Education (NYCDOE) sends teachers who have been accused of misconduct in the classroom.  The rubber room is where these teachers go to while away their days waiting for the verdict in their investigation.  The complaints of many taxpayers aided by the fury of the local press (NY Daily News and NY Post) had stimulated conversations between the NYC teachers union, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and the NYCDOE.  In what is considered to be a historic move and concession by the UFT, an agreement has been made to eliminate the use of the Rubber Room .

Why is the closing of the rubber rooms important?  In the Bloomberg and Klein era of NYC public school education, the battles to maintain control over the schools have been and continue to be fought between the media, the UFT, and NYCDOE.  On the one hand, there is a mayor and school chancellor who want to prove that control of the city school systems should rest with City Hall.  On the other hand, there is a very powerful union that would like to remain powerful by flexing their political muscles.   Over the course of his reign, Bloomberg through Klein, have wrestled hard with the UFT to remove incompetent teachers and to reform the way that teachers are evaluated and the way that schools are rated.  The elimination of the rubber rooms allow Bloomberg and Klein to make progress toward removing teachers whom they deem incompetent.

As Chancellor of the NYCDOE, one of Klein’s major focus was to change the way that teachers are evaluated, specifically as it pertains to tenure and seniority.  There have been many discussions and contract negotiations which center around this point.  One of the reasons why tenure and seniority are important to reform is the existence of the rubber rooms.  The rubber rooms may seem to be removed from the evaluation process of teachers. However, upon closer examination, I have found that that is not the case.  The rubber rooms exist because teachers who have seniority and tenure in the school system cannot easily be fired as new, untenured teachers.  While their cases are pending investigations, the teachers are forced to sit in these rooms and wait, but still be paid. In a time when the school system is losing money, Klein and Bloomberg want to eliminate the extra expense of paying teachers who are not teaching.  This is a sound opinion, and as a taxpayer, I wholeheartedly agree.  However, as a professional and as a teacher, I am not as quick to concur.

Teachers work with a very delicate population: children.  Teachers are held to more restrictive behavior and accountability because of the population with whom they work.  When accusations are made against a teacher, the teacher is guilty until proven innocent.  As a society, we do not want to make a mistake that would put any child at risk, so we make decisions that err on the side of the child.  And so the rubber rooms were created to house those teachers who may or may not be guilty of any crime.

I do believe that the agreement between the UFT and NYCDOE is a compromise that works for both parties.  Under this reform, teachers who have been removed from the schools are no longer able to sit in boredom in the rubber rooms, but will be utilized in the duties of office work.  At the same time, this pushes the NYCDOE to expedite their investigations. This does mean that the city will spend more money in attorney fees, but in the long run, the city will save millions of dollars in rubber room pay.  The NYCDOE still laments that it takes too long to fire incompetent teachers.  It can take a couple of years of investigations and observations to permanently remove a teacher.  However, to strip someone of his or her license to continue in this career, I would hope that time and due process is followed so as to avoid unwarranted decertifications.

I wait to see how quickly the NYCDOE can investigate future charges so that the new complaints will not be that there are too many teachers out of the classroom performing menial, office work.

I watched a recent Q&A webcast Arne Duncan gave with Organizing for America.  Despite my criticism of where education reform is headed in our country, I am impressed by the many facets of education he needs to address as Secretary.  Due in part to this webcast, but mostly by conversations I’ve had recently with others who are not in the educational realm, I’ve realized that people really do expect answers and solutions from Duncan in terms of education reform.

I’ve made no secret of my opinions of standardized testing, particularly as it relates to teacher evaluations.  I am not arguing against standardized tests; I am questioning the use of standardized tests as a valid assessment of schools and teachers.

I feel that there are several questions that need to be addressed here:

1.  What kind of achievements do standardized tests measure?

2. What do standardized tests say about the teachers and schools?

3. How does the importance of one standardized test affect the teaching and learning in a school?

In the webcast, when questioned about the validity of standardized test scores, Duncan stated that he wanted to use these test scores to measure student growth, the “gains” students have achieved from year to year.  His example was that of a 6th grade student who had tested on a reading level three years  below standards. After a year with the 6th grade teacher, the student tested at only one year below standards.  Duncan said that under the old NCLB, the school and teacher would still be given a failing mark, whereas under the new NCLB, the teacher would be praised for the gains that the student had made.  This example was awesome.  Except that it doesn’t really prove that the student had made progress from one year to the next.  It just showed that the student tested better.

What kind of achievement are we assessing? When high school students begin to prepare for the SATs, many of them sign up for prep courses.  Why?  Because test scores can be improved with practice and familiarity with the structure of the test and the different types of questions asked.  What standardized tests measure, particularly in the elementary grades, is how well the students have learned to take the test.  I don’t discount the grades that students receive from these tests.  On some level, they do measure how well students can read and follow directions.  To a limited extent, I’m sure that they also measure some kind of content knowledge.  However, if the hope is to determine the growth that the student has made in one year, the standardized test is not an accurate tool. Most standardized tests are composed of multiple choice questions that, if lucky, students may correctly guess the answer.

Because the standardized tests do not give an accurate picture of any one student, it is difficult to use it as a key component of a school’s or teacher’s evaluation.  When the students’ test scores become the primary factor in school and administrative evaluations, the tide of education has shifted.  It is difficult for any administrator, whose job is so closely tied to the students’ performance on these tests, to not lose sight of the bigger picture which is student learning.  From my experience and through discussions with teachers in many schools,  there is a stronger emphasis on test prep and on student “growth” based on test scores.  Believe it or not, this behavior is contagious.  Parents begin to stress the importance of the standardized test,  focusing only on how their children will score on them.  I have even had parents dismiss the lack of work and progress their children have made during the school year because their children only need to pass the standardized tests to be promoted.  Student promotion from one grade to the next does not necessarily mean that the students have accomplished or learned much.  The promotion of test scores to rate schools have become so pervasive that it is the only thing people think of when they judge a school.  There needs to be other criteria to determine whether or not a school is succeeding.

The change in attitudes and mindsets of the school administration and parents trickles down to the classroom in the form of curriculum modifications.  In New York City public schools, test prep has been integrated into the curriculum.  In my school, we spend two consecutive months and many days from the beginning of the year on test prep.  This is in addition to the test prep academy that we have on Saturdays.  The inclusion of a testing unit was decided by the administration for the sole purpose of improving students’ test scores. As a teacher, these two months are tedious and unnecessary.  The time can be better used by teaching a unit on grammar or punctuation or literature or history or current events or climate change or animals of Africa, the list goes on.  Ultimately, I believe that the students lose out because there is so much stress on the outcome of the test and not on the learning itself.

I question the value of these tests not to take away from any teachers or schools whose students have scored well on the tests.  I have had my share of students who did tremendously well.  However, I do not look at those results as a reflection of my teaching.  The tests do not measure the work that we have done in my class, nor does it measure the level of critical thinking the students are able to do on their own.

December 16, 2009

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Arne Duncan sharing your thoughts on the methods used to evaluate teachers.  Your letter was referred to the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education for review and I am pleased to respond.

The Department understands the critical role that high quality teachers play when it comes to ensuring that all students have the skills that they need to be successful.  Teacher quality is one of the most important factors in improving student achievement.  As you know, the Department encourages the use of student achievement data to help educators make informed decisions that can improve our education system – used properly  data can identify and support teachers who are struggling and reward those with a record of success.  Student achievement results are an important factor in evaluating teacher and principal effectiveness, and these data should be one element of rigorous evaluation systems.  I understand the concerns about using a single test score, and I agree that test scores should not be the sole factor in compensation determinations.  However, I believe that discussions regarding teacher quality are more informative when we factor in student achievement.

As you may know, during Secretary Duncan’s time as Chief Executive Officer of Chicago Public Schools he worked with teachers to design a compensation system based on classroom observation, whole-school performance, and individual classroom performance measure in part by growth in student learning.  I look forward to working with education leaders across the country to support effective programs that recognize and reward effective teachers and principals and help support struggling teachers and principals.  You can be assured that the issues you raised will be part of our discussions.

Thank you for your commitment to improving public education and your service to our nation’s students.

Sincerely,

Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, Ph.D.

The Assistant Secretary

November 18, 2009

U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
(LBJ Education Building, 7W311)

Washington, D.C. 20202

Dear Secretary Arne Duncan -

What defines a good teacher?  The designation of “good” is a moving target and an obscure term, though it may be possible to observe “good” behaviors: preparing every night for class the next day; creating new lessons every year to keep the curriculum innovative and fresh; continually working to develop themselves professionally. Really good teachers realize that by taking a personal day off, the children’s learning suffers. These behaviors do not necessitate the ascription–and trying to define the term “good teacher” may be an exercise in futility–but they are usually present. Bad teachers do exist and are the antithesis of the aforementioned ideal teacher.  Understandably, they are the bane of the system and there must be some way to separate the “good” from the “bad.” I feel I am a really good teacher. Last year, my school validated my work by honoring me with the “Teacher of the Year” award.  I love what I do.  I love working with my students.  My aim is not to boast, but to lend credence to my concerns.  In light of the recent political attention (or lack of in many past years), I am beginning to wonder if my job makes any difference at all in the education system, and whether or not my job is worth the time that I have devoted to it. My concerns in recent years have revolved around three main issues: teacher evaluation, parental involvement, and nationalized standards.

There has been a lot of talk about teacher evaluation.  One of the ideas that seem to be on the forefront of this reform is tying teacher’s ratings to test scores.  As one of many teachers who work extremely hard to develop and implement our curriculums and lessons, it is disheartening to hear that you are a proponent of this idea.  I do understand the need to have a standard to which teachers need to be held; however, in linking the evaluations directly with test scores, we are creating curriculums that are test-driven.  Students lose out on a lot of other knowledge, including civic studies, global studies, and even spelling & vocabulary.  Whether or not you mean to, curriculums will include (if they don’t already), testing genres, which skews the goal of education.  We will prepare students to become better test takers, not necessarily to become more knowledgeable.  When colleges and universities around the country are questioning the importance of standardized tests like the SATs or the ACTs, why are the public schools going in the opposite direction to place the value of students’ progress and growth on the scores of standardized tests?  A student’s progress needs to be measured in many ways to fully assess his/her growth. I don’t know the answer to teacher evaluation, yet; I just know that test scores are not the answer.

On Meet the Press (Sunday, November 15th), one concern that was brought up was parental involvement.  I can’t begin to express to you how important that is.  In some cases, what the parents do or don’t do can undermine what we as teachers are doing in the classroom.  There is a lot of discussion to allow parents to choose the best schools and to allow parents to hold schools & teachers accountable.  However, there is very little to be said about parent accountability.  As much as I try, there is little that I can do about the lack of parental involvement  or interest in the students’ lives.  In my years of teaching, I have encountered parents who fight to allow their children to stay at home, who make excuses for why work cannot be completed, and who do not believe in disciplining their children for any misconduct.  These hinderances play a large part of what I (or any teacher) may accomplish in the classroom with the students.  Yet, their lack of progress may be tied to my evaluation.  At what point are parents accountable for any part of their children’s education?

On the issue of Nationalized Standards: I believe in one standard for all students in this country.  Nationalized standards insure that all students in our country are held to the same expectations.  Students in Detroit should expect to be taught what the students in Scarsdale are taught.  At no point should we “dumb down” our expectations or curriculums for the students in our community.   If we want to accurately measure the progress of the students in this country, we need to be able to assess students using the same rubric.  I am not saying that lessons and curriculums needs to be exactly the same; I’m saying that the information that students are taught and the skills that they learn should be equal.  There is no reason why students who pass a New York State test shouldn’t also be able to pass a California state test.

Finally, I’d like to close with one thought for your tenure as Education Secretary.  You need to include teachers in the forming of education policy and standards.  As a country, we seek and expect changes to the education system because we expect and want our students to be successful.  However, many people who make these policies are out of touch with the day-to-day teachings in a classroom. Visiting a school for one hour or for one day to meet with teachers, students, and administrators does not provide an accurate or true picture of what goes on in the school.  Whether or not you realize this, there is a level of performance that is staged for you.  To have a well-rounded discussion of where to direct our schools, teachers, parents, and students, we need fair and accurate representation from those directly involved.

I have high hopes for what you can accomplish as our new Secretary of Education, particularly under the Obama administration.

Thank you for your time.

* I am an atheist.  I’ve always been; my 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 religions. 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.