Four Hundred Years of History

For the first time ever, I taught Shakespeare this year. Oh, I've read Shakespeare, both in and out of classes. (Yes, that's right, I've read Shakespeare just FOR FUN, what about it?) But teaching it was a new thing entirely. I couldn't just read it, I had to be prepared to explain it, and, gulp make it INTERESTING.

Believe it or not, some people, actually lots of people, don't find literature just inherently wonderful or read just for reading's sake. They have to be encouraged. Enter the English teacher.

I think the others in my department didn't quite know what to make of me this year. I would sit in our preliminary meetings discussing literature and lesson plans and ideas with them, while all the time they are thinking I'm a science teacher. And some days, when the English classes are really going great, I think, "I can't believe I'm paid to do this!"

But toward Hamlet I didn't feel quite so confident . . . Shakespeare is the holy grail of English teaching, and Hamlet is the holy grail of Shakespeare. I didn't want to do what Mrs. Forsberg did to Romeo and Juliet when I was in the ninth grade (can you say butchered?); I wanted to bring all the subtlety and complexity and beauty to it that Mrs. Reed did with Othello. I read and studied and forced my husband to watch varying versions on Friday nights for movie night. I agonized.

For four-hundred years these plays have been taught because they are just so good. So many other plots are based on Shakespeare stories; indeed, there are few original stories left. Shakespeare is foundational to our culture and to refining your language and understanding. We celebrate this man because he was, truly, a genius. Oh, how I agonized.

And then I got some good advice.

That I actually listened to.

A wise English teacher (I hesitate to say "old" as she might be younger than I am) shrugged at my dilemma and said, "Don't get caught up in the symbolism and the imagery and the making it GREAT LITERATURE, just let the kids play with it. It is a performance piece, after all. Just engage them in the greatest revenge story of all time with a protagonist that is just an emo teenager." Prince Hamlet is actually 30, but like, whatever, he seems more like an angsty 17 year-old. Believe me, I know what angsty 17 looks like.

And it worked. The kids, not all of them, but by in large, they understood it and connected with it. They grumbled at Ophelia's brother and father who thought it was their business to tell her whom to love and could see that it was their interference that set certain events in motion. They argued about whether revenge and justice were the same thing and which Hamlet was really seeking. They empathized with his actions, even as they didn't condone them. They saw that truly dark path that revenge takes you on. They discussed mental illness and suicidal thoughts and how sometimes really hard things happen in your life that make you wish you didn't have to deal with them. They laughed at Polonius' famous advice and brilliantly translated it into modern English. The played the final scene for laughs, even as they recognized the waste and irony of it all.

It wasn't glorious. But it worked . . . and they connected in some small measure as so many English students have before. And, I hope, as they will for generations to come.

Science fascinates me because it explains the how of life. But literature . . . literature gets us closer to the why.

Yeah. It is a Rant.

A few years ago in the state of Oregon, a law was passed that essentially said that school grades had to be tied to actually learning skills and demonstrating knowledge. The bill, in part, reads as follows:

The bill said, "Each district shall adopt a grading system ... that shall ... be based on the student's progress toward becoming proficient in a continuum of knowledge and skills."

The purpose was to a) help encourage districts to stop allowing teachers to give grades based on things like: extra credit that was totally unrelated to the class; allowing students to still pass grades (and even earn A's) without ever having to pass a test, when many of those point heavy class projects and homework assignments were completed by somebody else; never missing class all semester and getting 100 bonus points, etc. 

The second purpose was to allow districts already strictly adopting a proficiency-style grade system (in other words, you have to really prove what you know) the leeway and backing to do so without people raising a stink.

The bill was meant to be interpreted very narrowly.

Then it was sent to the Oregon Department of Education, where it was interpreted very broadly.

The ODE handed down new rules to the district three years ago regarding grading practices. Teachers were forbidden for giving points related to behavior. Oh, and homework was regarded as behavior. In fact, no more than 10% of any students grade could be related to anything that was considered "proof" of learning. Daily assignments became called "practice" and lumped into that 10%. Quizzes generally too. Some lab work. All homework. If the work is not done independently (by, by group work for points), in class and after sufficient practice, it cannot be given points. In addition, students may continue to retake-rewrite-redo this scored work indefinitely with an eye to continually improving their learning and therefore their scores.

I am all for a high school diploma meaning something. Absolutely. I think it is ludicrous for a teacher-coach to award 50 bonus points in a math class to students who come help at games. I think students should get second chances to demonstrate learning, particularly on things like writing assignments. I think schools should be more demonstrated-skills based than rote memorization. Absolutely.

But there are realities, too. And students see points as currency in the classroom. If you can't "pay" students, then there are very few (particularly among young teenagers) that are motivated to do the work required to pass the tests. By not awarding the process, you inadvertently downplay it as well. I may take hours to carefully craft a test that adequately reflects all that we learned in class . . . students doing retakes need a test that is different. And so I might spend hours writing that one too.

In the first year after implementation, teachers balked at all these things: the time commitment (so much of which is never paid for); the pounds of re-grading; our inability to reward the process as a valuable part of learning; the scorn for any question that isn't a written answer or a hands-on type of task despite what those types of tests mean for grading load; the very expensive administrative position added to our district staff to oversee implementation; the edicts coming time and again from people who have never had boots on the ground in a classroom.

Proficiency practice expectations have coincided with huge increases in class sizes. I teach five classes. Twenty years ago, this meant 100 students. A decade ago it meant 150. In 2014 it means 180 . . . though I'm supposed to bite my tongue and be grateful it isn't 200. Proficiency practice has also coincided with the adoption of the Common Core which will result in vast changes to our classes, much of which is good, but all of which is very, very new. This year it also coinciding with new professional standards that are causing lots and lots of extra work, but cannot possibly set out to prove what they think they can.

After tens of millions to implement these proficiency rules--money from the districts, not the state-- not to mention tens of thousands of frustrated parents and teachers, the Oregonian released this report last spring:

Oregon Schools' Big Switch is Kaput

The politician who passed the bill, and the nearly 100% majority who agreed with, realized what the ODE was doing and said, "WAIT!! THAT ISN'T WHAT WE MEANT!!!"

And yet, in spite of everything, our district decided to go ahead because they are so ridiculously invested at this point. And they aren't just going ahead, they are expanding--even to the point of introducing an even more rigorous grading standard that puts everything on a 5-point scale. This whole post is the result of, six weeks into the school year, is that my middle school-er has a C in history based on one assignment that he got 3/5 on. He has no math grade, just a test tomorrow that will also be worth 5 points. His English grade is a B based on the fact that he seems to be earning more 4's than 5's on his assignments. At the high school our heads exploded over the 5-point scale when we pointed out that our grading program will ONLY do total points; that a 3/5 cannot in any way be a C, but only a D-. On a five point scale, in fact, there is no way to earn a C at all. 

They have also taken alignment (horizontal and vertical) so far that they are not only going to specify what should be taught in each grade, but mandate that we teach it on nearly precisely the same schedule. In other words, not only do I need to be teaching the same things that the teacher next door to me teachers, but we need to be within two days of one another when we do it. This is nearly impossible, and it looks a helluva lot like Texas: the place I left teaching in order to get more freedom.

I love kids. I have moments of perfect clarity when I love my job and know I'm in exactly the right place. But I will say it, flat out, the expectations and paperwork and the constant changing of systems and approaches and on and on and on is sucking the joy out of what I do. And, there is no way around it, it is hindering my ability to do it well and to focus on my students' needs. At this fledgling end of my career I can honestly say that I don't see how I could survive 20 or 30 years as a classroom teacher.

Education is a trendy field. Today's proficiency is tomorrow's debunked idea. Legislators pass laws and throw money around like it is no big deal. But everything they do affects my job in real ways that are painful. All of this legislated and mandated pain is happily coinciding with our district digging in its heels over a modest raise despite running a huge surplus this year. Not only are we expected to do a better job under worse conditions than ever, they expect us to do it on a food stamp budget. 

So while I hate the big government stupidity that handed down these enormous problems, I'm still going to gladly march with my union. How is that for being a conflicted democrat with five weeks until election day?

Common Core

Some years back I was hired to teach 7th grade science at a school frustrated by its low test scores in the arena. Despite it perfect-community-school demographic, the school was scoring dead-last city- wide in its end-of-level science scores. I was hired for a number of reasons, but I think two really stand out. I'd been accustomed to teaching science on a full-year schedule; the school was on a semester rotation with all the kids filtering through one teacher in large classes. They needed somebody with the background to expand their program out curriculum-wise. The second reason for their decision to hire me, I think, was that I was coming from Texas. I knew a LOT about standardized testing.

Within one year, our school went from last to first in the rankings.

It wasn't just me, of course. The school made many good choices that year. They offered more sections of science, making the classes smaller. The expanded year teaching ensured that each child had science education up until the time of the test. Science became less about study guides and more about hands-on experiences and labs as we expanded our curriculum. So yes, smaller classes and more seat time, what the teachers always tout as the magic elixirs of education absolutely worked. However, I would also submit that my colleague and I became committed to teaching the standards to which the kids would be tested. We pored over them exhaustively and adapted our curriculum accordingly, hitting each vocabulary word and concept with renewed vigor. Our renewed commitment to the best pedagogical practices we knew, in the end, were largely driven by a need for improved test scores.

If this sounds like I'm of two minds for testing then you are reading this correctly. The parents are right, more local control is needed--in that classroom teachers need more autonomy, not that school boards should guide classroom content. The teachers are right. We need classrooms of no larger than 24 students and the resources necessary to make student learning up-to-date, relevant and dynamic. The politicians are right. All of this money spent should MEAN something measurable.

I do think that when a child graduates from high school, the diploma should mean something. An "A" should not be handed out because a student did enough extra credit by taking stats for the track team when the coach/teacher was in a bind. Teachers have traditionally allowed for a lot of crazy stuff totally unrelated to an understanding of the subject to count for "points." In the end, you have an arbitrary bundle of meaningless grades, kids teacher-shopping for the most grade-friendly instructors, and diplomas that aren't worth the paper on which they are printed.

Standards keep teachers focused. Good assessments keep them honest. And by honest, I don't necessarily mean truthful. I mean honest with how their class time (read: taxpayer dollars) is spent. There must be a system of accountability in place for both teachers and students.

Having said that, however (you all know me well enough by now to know there is nearly always a however coming), the idea that education can pour in children as culturally, mentally, ethnically, and economically diverse as any you will find in the world into a machine and churn out the an ideal learner with the same set of skills is not only unreasonable, but it might not even be desirable.

When we insist that each child be tested to an identical set of standards with no wiggle room then we are stifling creativity, individuality, joy, curiosity. Many of our important innovators, thinkers, writers and artists have had very unconventional paths to greatness. To attempt to put every child on some kind of standardized or "normal" path is to shoot ourselves in the proverbial foot as far as the future is concerned. And to quote Princess Leia (or paraphrase), the tighter we grip, the more students will slip through our fingers.

As for Common Core.

Each state has developed curriculum standards for all levels of education. In some states these are very good. In some states these are just terrible. A curriculum standard is harder than you think to write--it must be sufficiently vague that you aren't just giving lists of facts and vocabulary for students to memorize and regurgitate, but also sufficiently specific that it can be measured. The Common Core grew out of an effort to try and align the states in some kind of cohesive standard. This part of it is not so bad.

For example, it is ludicrous that a group of highly conservative people in one part of a state can mandate through lobbying money or floor votes that certain scientific concepts (thinking most immediately of global warming and evolution) not be taught. Or that history be taught properly--from the viewpoint of the vanquished as well as the conquerors with a critical and thoughtful eye to our own not-always-gloried past. Common Core is, in part, an attempt to stop local school boards from willfully keeping children ignorant of the larger world and the facts that help organize and define it.

This is one reason why conservatives are becoming increasingly vocal about Common Core. They fear that the standards (actually fairly vague; everyone should read these before freaking out) are an attempt to brainwash their children into skepticism and liberal thinking. In truth, Common Core standards are an effort to help children learn to think. Period. If their faith traditions cannot stand up to all this "thinking" and "choice" then what possible good are those traditions, anyway? The more adversarial conservatives make school (vs. religion too often) the more children will be lost either to critical thinking or to religion. This false dichotomy, I am convinced, is a trick of Satan. The idea that deep intelligence and faith are mutually exclusive denies the very nature of God.

Ahem. Back on track.

So while I think Common Core standards that states adopt or at least align their own standards to is a good thing; I have a much harder time with Common Core assessments. Two examples to help explain this.

At my current school we are supposed to be aligning our assessments with one another. There are five of us teaching the class I'm teaching, three of us with fairly strong opinions. While we have all agreed on the standards, each of us are teaching them in slightly different ways based on our own personalities, interests and gifts. As a result, we feel to emphasize different things in our testing, as well as the nature of our tests. One of the teachers has a standard that I would say is much higher, but he gets frustrated when the kids don't already come to his class with a skill set he thinks they should have. However, my teaching philosophy is much more geared to meeting the kids where they are at and then scaffolding them to greater learning, understanding, interest. Is my class a little easier? At least initially, probably yes. But in the end, I think my students may stand a better chance of actually meeting the burden of proof regarding our standards. I don't know; I can't say at this point.

In other words, five teachers cannot even agree entirely on a common assessment to give our kids; Common Core assessments work from the idea that thousands of teachers will get on board with what is being taught and tested.

Second anecdote--back to the same school I began this piece with. My colleague and I prepared our kids very carefully according to curriculum standards with particular attention to vocabulary so that the students would know how to "speak" the language on the test. The curriculum standard regarding heredity was quite thorough, but also left off the term "DNA" in regards to heritability. You can actually teach a lot about genetics without ever talking about the specific biochemistry of your cells. And for 7th graders, this is quite appropriate. You can save the technical stuff for high school biology. We carefully avoided any mention of DNA so as to not confuse the kids and to save a week's worth of time when we could be focused on the core.

Test time rolled around. Sure enough, one of the heritability questions used the terminology "DNA" in one of the questions. I was deeply frustrated. The question, if reworded to reflect what was actually in the standard, could have been answered by nearly every one of my students and still shown a very thorough grasp of heritability. As it is, I bet many of my kids saw that unfamiliar acronym and just guessed on the question.

In other words, the danger of common assessment is that it will still be a small group of people writing the assessment. There is no way for me to teach to a test (not a horrible thing by the way--I'll end on that note in a moment), that I have never seen before and which may or may not align to the curriculum standards the way I'm reading them. In addition, to assume that this test written by somebody else is the BEST possible measurement of the learning taking place in my classroom is to discount my own learning and expertise.

When I structure a class from the ground up, I look at objectives provided by the state (Common Core based in Oregon) and then I "unpack" them--extrapolating my own course objectives (in student friendly language) based on these standards with a vocabulary list for each standard. Then I write a test. What do I want the kids to know? do? understand? explain? analyze? calculate? etc. etc. Then I build my content around helping them meet these goals. Parents and too many teachers are becoming increasingly critical of "teaching to the test" but I prefer to look at it like teaching to the objectives . . . students should look at it like learning to meet their goals.

Teachers should be allowed the autonomy in their classrooms, if not to design their own learning targets (there should be some consistency across schools, after all), then at the very least to build their own assessments (at least in part) and certainly design their own assignments. If there is only one right way to teach, assess and learn, then we should just plug them all into headphones and show them videos of master teachers all day with tests afterward.

In short, I think that states should align their standards with some kind of common core, but I am very much against nationalized, standardized testing for individual courses or subjects. I think that the Department of Education should function like the National Science Foundations--as a granting agency that provides money for schools and districts (not even states) that show innovative ways to teach; the efficacy of which are yes, measurable by some local or even state standard. Each state has their own way of training and retaining teachers, as well as conferences and standards for teaching. The structures already in place allow for better dovetailing of standards and assessment. Schools were given to the states; they should be allowed to stay there. 

Now I've covered everything. Almost quite literally. See what you get after a long silence? I'll stick to pictures for the next few months. Then we'll talk about how much good could be done for education in my state if the army chose to build ONE less plan next year to the tune of 500 million dollars. What if it built fifty fewer planes? How much good might we do in a single generation if we truly started funding schools in a way that matches our rhetoric for how important education is?

Elizabeth Smart is Super Smart

Ms. Smart has been getting a lot of press this week for some remarks she made at Johns Hopkins regarding human trafficking. I read many comments and summaries in various places about her remarks which left me feeling a little bit confused about what her actual message was. I was grateful to finally listen to the bulk of her speech this morning and get some clarification.

Before listening I was under the impression that Ms. Smart was fiercely advocating against abstinence education, and that she had cited a particular and terrible incident at church (the gum chewing chastity analogy) as her reason for not running from her captors when she had the chance. She felt worthless and dirty and to blame and therefore did not want to go home. This left me sad and confused.

However, just as the Internet will give you a thousand opinions on even seemingly mundane events, it will also allow you to go to the source. In her speech, Ms. Smart was blunt about what had happened to her. These are facts I have heard before, but coming from her in measured, soft-spoken and perfect diction, her story became very real. She speaks without emotion about her experience, but it is clear that what happened to her for those terrible nine months has given her vast stores of strength.

Here are my take-aways, for what it is worth. Again, my opinion here, though I'm hoping I'm more fairly representing what she was really trying to say rather than cherry-pick what I wanted her to say.

1.  She is advocating for a more balanced approach to sex education. She thinks that we should be more blunt with people at an earlier age about the very real dangers in life. She also indicates that at least some of this training should take place in school. At age 14 she had some skewed idea that sex only happened between people who loved one another; she didn't really understand the ugly side. She is advocating that children should be appropriately educated about dangers that exist.

2.  I don't have any impression that she has rejected the importance of chastity as a law of God. She spoke respectfully of the beliefs she was raised with, and has made the choice to stay active in the Church and even marry in the temple. Rejecting abstinence-only sex education is not the same as rejecting your belief system.

3. The chewing gum analogy was given to her as young teenager; however, she indicated that this teaching came from a teacher at school during abstinence-only sex education. It was Salt Lake City so the odds of that teacher being LDS were probably pretty good, but she did not say the incident happened at church. Yes, you might have had this taught to you at church (I'm sorry), but Ms. Smart seems more critical of the push to water-down school curriculum than values teaching at church. Because of this type of teaching, she did feel like garbage when she was raped; she wondered at times if she would ever be worthy of being loved again. However, even to girls who have not heard the chewing gum analogy, these feelings are often prevalent after being raped, or even being manipulated into having sex. The rapist's whole point is to degrade and assume power; rape is only marginally about sex.

4. Ms. Smart said firmly that her primary reason for not running was fear. After all, her captors had managed to do all this stuff to her, it seemed perfectly logical that they could make good on their threats to further harm her family. She loved her family. She made a decision from the very beginning that she would do whatever they told her if it meant she might one day get away and return to the family she so dearly missed. Fighting them continually or trying to escape might have just gotten her killed, and the world would have lost a very, very bright light. Elizabeth's decision took courage; perhaps even inspiration to make. It was only when a police officer had the idea to interview her alone that she would admit to who she was; she never openly defied her captors in front of them for fear of further harm to those she loved.

5.  My final impression from her remarks is that people should be made to feel valuable regardless of their sexuality or virginity or however you want to term this. Perhaps, just perhaps, if she had felt more confidence in people's willingness to look beyond what had happened to her, she might have had more courage to speak up when she first had a chance.

JoAnna Brooks wrote a piece for Religion Dispatch in which she indicated that the primary reason for Elizabeth not running is that she felt like trash because of what she'd been taught at Church about the importance of chastity. That somehow all LDS people (women) collectively held their breath when others asked why Elizabeth didn't run because we really understood that is was all the fault of our culture. I think this is a rather gross misrepresentation of Ms. Smart's actual remarks, and Brooks opened the forum for plenty of angry people to dismiss God's laws as ridiculous, as if such feeling would somehow have prevented Ms. Smart from ending up in the situation she did. One Internet comment-er indicated that Elizabeth's religious training had forced her to feel like she had sinned and needed to repent. This person trashed religion (and specifically the atonement) for turning victims into sinners. This frustrated me deeply. LDS doctrine on the atonement is clear--it is for everyone. While Ms. Smart was clearly not in need of repentance related to her time in captivity, she was then and now in need of the strengthening and enabling power of Christ to move forward with her life. She is a perfect example of how the atonement heals even the most innocent.

I like Ms. Smart's actual comments very much, and I hope they give many teachers of youth (in and out of the Church) something to think about. I think our children need to be smart; they don't really live in world anymore where we can extol naivete. Innocence is lovely and good; ignorance is not. We should teach our values, but also teach children about their own inherent value. Nemesis, Desmama and I had a conversation not long ago about the problematic use of a scripture found in Mormon. It is used because it indicates "virtue" (one of only a few places that particular word is even found in relation to chastity) is the most precious thing; however, it does so in the context of talking about male warriors raping the women of the opposing side. The wording of the scripture clearly states that the rapists took the virtue of their victims.

We have concluded that we sort of hate this scripture. What the rapists take is their victim's innocence and their virginity. They don't take their virtue. Virtue is a less tangible quality than, in Nem's words, "an intact hymen." Virtue is something that is your own to give away through deliberate acts . . . only one of which might be sex. I am not sorry that the 8th value has been added; but I do wish that it was more clearly defined. This difficult scripture, again as one of very few places "virtue" is used in relation to sexuality, comes up time and time again in talks and in the study YW are meant to do for a virtue value experience. By this scripture's direct reading, it does indicate that Ms. Smart was less than virtuous when she was stripped and thrown down on the floor of a dirty tent, less than five miles from her girlhood bed and treated like garbage. That is a load of hooey. We need to be very careful what we teach our kids.

Her real take home message is that while schools need to work harder to educate, it is familial love and proper teaching about a person's true worth that can save.

Agony and Ecstasy

Ideas in education abound, and I've learned a few over the last few years. There is one that especially resonates with me, however. The idea is generally referred to as "situated cognition." To people outside educational theory, however, this doesn't carry much meaning. The term I prefer is "enculturation," which makes much more sense with a little bit of explanation.

You see, the things we learn best are things in which we are immersed. Each of us exists as a part of a culture, and sometimes cultures. For example, I would say that my world view is most shaped by the fact that I'm a Mormon and an American. My order choice is deliberate. Smaller cultures within these exist--my background is as a Utah Mormon, and my upbringing is in the American west. In addition, the family in which I grew up has a distinct culture, and I still identify myself as an "Aggie" or a "Warrior" (school mascots), depending on the context. The cultures with which we identify, both help to shape us, but they also help to inform and color how we take in new information.

I see the major problem in modern schools being that they only equip us to attend more school. I became a teacher because I love the school environment; it is one of the cultures where I feel the most secure and competent. The disconnect, too often, is that school is totally divorced from the "real world." For students who don't connect to a school culture of knowledge for the sake of knowledge as a worthy pursuit, this is maddening. This is the kid in the front row who says, "But Miss, when will I ever use this??" The question is worthwhile, and too long unanswered by teachers and schools alike.

Obviously everything learned in school isn't later applicable to later life, and, just as obviously, it doesn't make this knowledge worthless. However, on balance, children at school should be acquiring both information and skills that can be transferred to other contexts. Motivation increases when people view the knowledge as important. When motivation increases, behavior problems decrease, and even more authentic learning can take place. Just as this positive feedback loop is the law of any well-run classroom, the opposite, negative feedback loop is the norm in poorly run classes.

For example, if scientists in the real world design and conduct experiments; collect and interpret data; publish and defend their findings; and view unexpected results as a starting place (instead of failure), then students in a science classroom should be doing the same thing. Children should be designing and carrying out experiments of varying complexity; they should publish on blogs and their own websites and in class wikis; they should prepare presentations and share their findings with the class, prepared to factually defend what they learned; when experiments go awry they should feel contemplative about their failures and determined to move forward. Otherwise children are stuck with the same kind of science education that I generally had--read the book, answer questions, listen to lecture. I learned a lot, and was highly engaged in that knowledge, but I never viewed myself as a scientist, and feel vastly more comfortable in front of the room teaching about science than in a laboratory doing science. How can we grow a generation of scientists if we only teach facts?

My blog post title is the same as the current book I've spent snatched moments engrossed in this week. Many of my friends read it in high school; I happened to have the other teacher. It is a historical novel based on Michelangelo.  I see why they loved it so much, and I can see why many people developing schools and ideas about education are going back to the old Renaissance masters to try and understand how such people came into being. What kind of education did they have?

In Michelangelo's case the answer is plain: once he began really showing an interest in art, he did little else. He spent all of his non-sleeping hours beginning as a young teenager in an art studio where he quickly began working on sketches and painting for commissions that went to his master. While living with the Medici family in Florence, they supported him and gave him an allowance, but his time was his own to draw, sculpt, paint and carve. Just after leaving the Medicis he prepared to carve his first three-dimensional figure by traveling throughout the countryside painting (and illegally dissecting because of his obsessive interest in the human body and its workings). He also spent time studying and discussing the classics with the great scholars of the day. He was only 17.

This book has me deeply wondering if education can inspire genius, or, at best, cultivate it. Michelangelo seems to have something inside of him driving him to create. Is he unique? Or is this seed in all of us? What if proper education, based on principles about how people really learn, could truly help each person reach his or her potential. What could society look like in 10 years? 20 years? I don't think I discount God's influence when I push for this kind of reform . . . the scriptures tell us that the glory of God is intelligence. Not many years ago Elder Uchtdorf gave a talk about creativity, and how as gods-in-embryo it was the natural inclination of the human spirit to lean toward creation. I want to know what kind of education can unearth this seed that must reside in each of us.

I know . . . I know. . . for every Michelangelo churned out of Florence during the late Renaissance there were millions of nameless others for whom life was a daily drudge. I know. I've made the argument myself among other MEd students who pull out the examples of the great masters. But it is significant that some of the world's greatest art and most valuable early thinking emerged out of this time. The world had a printing press, some modern (for the time) advances that allowed for longer lives, a political system friendly to the expansion of ideas, etc. etc. We could be at the cusp of this time ourselves. We have an explosion in technology and access to it that rivals the press; our medical advances give people longevity for discovery unparalleled in the Renaissance world. Our political system? I don't know. I'm appalled by the number of voices who disdain learning, intellectualism and reasoned thought regarding any number of issues. Recent reports say that we spend more than 50% of our budget on the military (including pensions) and less than 5% on ALL public education (including colleges), federally. All other civilized countries spend just about equally on military and education--both numbers being in the teens. How can this great educational re-awakening happen without a concentrated commitment to make it better? The only way forward is to fund education at levels never seen before. In a single generation, just 20 to 30 years, we would reap the benefits.

My thoughts are heavy all around this week. Our three local districts here have graduation rates that clocked in at 62, 64 and 66%. Our district is the lowest. Classes are so crowded that high school students, unable to find a spot in required classes, are dropping out in droves. This is an epidemic of ignorance. An epidemic of apathy. We overlook the very real needs of schools at the peril to our whole society.

Dreaming Redux

It might have been helpful if I had first said WHY I want to start a school.

I had a great education. I think part of the reason it was so good, however, is that school was interesting to me. I took full advantage of the opportunities that were given to me. I was able to study sciences, history and literature at the highest level offered in my school. In addition I was able to do drama and debate. I participated in mock trial and learned a lot about government. I traveled with various teams and groups both to compete and to watch. I learned much about community from being part of the strong culture in our school.

I have spent many years pondering why I enjoyed school so much, but I've also realized something that every school must come to face sooner or later: my education primarily prepared me to be a successful student, and by extension, a teacher. I'm not certain that it prepared me all that well for other things. I've come to believe over the years that school should prepare students for more than just more school. It should prepare them for what the culture of their chosen fields of study will look like. In other words, they should spend less time in science reading textbooks and more time experimenting, collaborating, publishing and crunching numbers. History students should also spend less time in books (unless they are primary sources) and more time relating current events to older ones. History should have a heavy component of geography driven by cultural studies to achieve true understanding. Math needs to be studied in the context of real-world engineering problems so that students see how it is practical, useful and lucrative. You get my drift. And always, always, in every single course, students should be writing, writing, writing all the time.

We need to enculturate children to be citizens of the world and not just into school, or even just into the United States.

My other gripe with school is that it is too compartmentalized. English. History. Biology. And so on. The problem with that approach is that students miss completely the connections that make the world exciting, wonderful and functional. For example, how awesome to study evolution as a unifying theory of biology while simultaneously studying the naturalistic literature that rose out of the time, or the political and religious forces that came into play while society turned more to science than faith. How truly fantastic to overlay all of this with the era of colonialism and discuss exactly what was going on in the western psyche that made this colonialism okay. Did increasing secularism make this better or worse? Are we so different now? Is the US ideal of democratic governments in the middle east just another way to gain resources we don't have? To spread Christianity? Is it different?

I want students to leave school learning to ask questions, not just to answer them. And I want them to know how to search and search until they find answers, or at least better questions. I want them to know how to think critically and engineer solutions to complex problems. I want them to be able to speak in front of a group, write a paper that is truly professional in whatever subject is given them, to present their findings and hold a smart discussion, to write a resume any young person would be proud to hand off.

Schools need to be structured in ways that tailor a child's education to their needs: Smaller schools. Technology. Teachers more often as tutors instead of "sages on the stage." A cohort of student-colleagues and teachers. A cohesive framework in which to work. Teachers paid like professionals who are paid full time to work full time.

Stay tuned . . .

Progressivism Redux

One more thing to say on the subject.

Today I read this talk by Bruce Hafen, given in the late 1970's at BYU. I'm so glad I stumbled across it. It was just what I needed to hear.

In the talk, he quotes an English writer who laments the uselessness of both pessimists and optimists. Yet, he doesn't say that the third group are the standard "realists." He calls them the improvers. In other words, these are the people that see both the good and the bad--unwilling to either whitewash what they can't deal with or dwell on all that is wrong and relish being critical--but they choose to make the most of the world as it is. Improvers aren't naive, nor are they cynical, Hafen explains that they are those who have moved past each of these places into a category where they might actually do some good in the world.

It will take some time to go through the talk. It isn't short. But it is so wonderfully illuminating.

Cause I'm a WOMAN!

Let's see how well you remember this old commercial:

I can bring home the bacon . . . .
Fry it up in a pan . . . .

And now the last part?

And never let you forget you're a man
'Cause I'm a WO-man!

I wanted to start with this retrospective today because of a provocative article my brother sent me late last week. With my return to school this month, the article, a New York Times OpEd titled, "Don't Quit This Day Job" has caused me to stop and think about a lot of things.

But let's analyze the commercial first. If you are somewhere near my age, even if you had very limited access to television like we did, then you probably knew not only the lyrics, but the brassy, bluesy music that goes with it. These simple lyrics are the ultimate woman-message of the 80's. Our moms, the first generation of mainstream feminists, were home (often part-time) with young kids.

"I can bring home the bacon . . . " Implies that women, now working, could do just as good a job at providing for their families as their husbands.

"And fry it up in a pan . . ." Woman can also still be good at all those domestic tasks that are traditionally hers. Our mothers, who largely bought into feminism without even realizing it, (and were beneficiaries in many ways whether they supported it or not) really had a raw deal. They believed in equality a generation ahead of the men. My mother, who worked anywhere from 8 to 40 hours throughout all my growing up years, also worked full-time at home. I've never seen my dad iron or vacuum or change a diaper or dust or mend or start a load of laundry. The extent of his domestic ability is to grill and make pancakes on Saturday morning.

Now, before going to the next part, who remembers what this commercial was actually about? That's right. PERFUME. A now-defunct brand called "Enjoli."

The last couplet implies that not only can woman be the breadwinner and run the household, but she can be ready for an intense sexual experience at any given time. The question she puts to her man is, "Are YOU ready?" (Stupid question, really.) I also think it is funny how she must remind him that he is a man: I guess because modern woman does everything the emasculated modern man needs more reassurance.

My brother, the doctor, forwarded the above-referenced OpEd to me from another doctor--male--who was quick to point out that "he was not in agreement with the article." I suppose that a sensitive, new-age guy (SNAG) must say such a thing. But I am under no such constraints and may say whatever I like to the three or four of you still following Science Teacher Mommy. I am LARGELY in agreement with the sentiments expressed by Dr. Sibert in her OpEd.

For those of you that didn't link to the article I will summarize. Dr. Sibert expresses deep frustration at the vast numbers of women who go into medicine without the intention of practicing full time. She sees a disturbing trend as more and more medical schools are giving spots to individuals who intend to pursue medicine as a part-time career, citing that 48% of all medical school diplomas last year were given to women. She is frustrated by current attitudes that view doctor-ing as a great part-time option for women.

Wait . . . wait. . . haven't I been a part time worker for many years? Putting my teaching on hold for a family?

In a word, yes.

But we aren't talking about teaching, we are talking about medicine. And the good doctor points out that there are other considerations here. Medical school tuition is astronomical, but it still doesn't cover the costs of operating a medical school. The federal government subsidizes them. (In other words, you and I do. Sort of--45% of Americans don't actually pay federal taxes, but that is another discussion for another time.) Even more heavily subsidized are residency programs, with resident salaries coming almost entirely from the Medicaid budget. Dr. Sibert is angry with young doctors who don't recognize the investment poured into them, and maintains that doctors who don't practice full time are not as effective (they don't have as much practice) for their patients. Patients who are the very public who subsidized their education, and now hold all the promissory notes on their student loans too.

She is taking a bold stand by saying, "Newsflash: women CANNOT have it all!" And I agree. The notion that we can be all things to every person and still gain broad personal satisfaction is the biggest fallacy to come out of the Women's Movement of the 1960's and 1970's. I know, I've said it before, but we are at something like 425 posts here, and some things bear repeating.

When it comes to medicine, Dr. Sibert maintains, personal decisions (like the fact that 40% of female doctors in their childbearing years only work part time) have huge consequences for the public. Within just 15 years, this country will be short 150,000 doctors, especially General Practice doctors (the area where more of the residents are women). The Health Care legislation insures more people, and our population is aging. There is a terrible bottleneck in doctor training, with many times more people turned away then actually get into school. And when it comes to women in these professions, they are increasingly choosing them because of the options for part time work.

In addition, funding is becoming increasingly tight for residencies as the government cuts more and more from those areas in an attempt to balance the budget. What a kick in the pants to get through medical school only to learn there is no way for you to actually get the hands-on training needed to become a full doctor . . . perhaps it is a bigger kick in the pants to realize that you didn't get a spot ahead of a woman with excellent test scores whose ambition is to primarily be a stay at home mom.

Now, obviously, my brother's area of concern is the best medical care to the most patients, and his interest in this article is of that nature. I think there are things that could be done: states with a terrible mortality rate (relative) and a lack of doctors where they need to be, could subsidize tuition or even forgive student loans in exchange for a certain number of full-time years as a GP in rural and minority communities or in clinics that service areas with terrible poverty. I think you'd see a lot of people take advantage of that. Dr. Sibert offers few suggestions, though her tone implies that she would not like to see spots given at all without firm commitments about the work people will put back into the system that demands a lot but also gives a lot. She is right on the money in trying to address this difficult issue, and suggests that young female doctor-candidates need to be spoken to more candidly about the detriments of part time work.

For me, however, the article raises broader questions that can be applied to women everywhere, and maybe most particularly to LDS women who feel intense pressure to stay home (and whose husbands feel intense pressure to keep them there), but also near-constant encouragement to get all the education they can and excel at all they do. The feminist movement has finally produced the generation of young women it intended to--women with liberal ideas toward sex, who don't necessarily associate childbearing with sexual experience; women who believe that any career is open to them; women who see having children and/or marriage as one path in many toward self-actualization; women who are ambitious and driven and don't give a fig if they out-compete the men.

But I feel deeply conflicted about it. When Plantboy graduated from his master's program, nearly HALF of the graduates at the campus-wide commencement that day were in the college of education. As secondary teachers actually graduate from the college that was their major focus, this means that all of those COE graduates were either elementary teachers or psychology majors. Most of them were women. The rest of that half was rounded out by those in the college of Family Life--including interior design, social work and family human development. Again, nearly all women. I would have been fascinated, on that campus of mostly LDS people, to learn how many of those women ever worked. Ever intended to work.

Granted, their college experience was still valuable to them and their families, but it was a public college, heavily subsidized by taxpayers. In addition, most students attend college on some mixture of scholarships, grants and loans--all backed by common funds. Governments INVEST in education in the hopes of getting some kind of broad return on society.

Please don't misunderstand. I primarily identify myself as a stay at home mom, and I have done so for the last ten years. I believe that in most circumstances, kids get a better start in life if they have their mothers home with them during the first few years. I think if people are going to have children then they should also make the commitment to raise them.

But I also think that the Women's Movement not only deluded us into thinking that we could have it all, but that we were somehow lesser women if we didn't. So we are a generation of guilt-ridden women, unsure where we belong. We sacrifice career for family, but when the career calls we sacrifice family for that. Years of self-sacrifice can leave us worn down and bitter if we aren't careful.

I feel like every year in my life I have had to re-negotiate the balance between my own wishes and the wishes of the four men who depend on me for nearly everything. I try to be prayerful. I try to listen to the Holy Ghost. And then I act and try not to look back. I try not to feel deeply sad as the novel is shelved for who knows how long because I ran out of time to reach my own deadline. I try to get enthusiastic about another game of Apples to Apples Junior. I try to remember that doing the laundry is my version of clothing the naked, that making dinner is how I feed the hungry. I try to be cheerful about the three a.m. daily alarm knowing that the paper route is a means to an end. I try not to think about how I will possibly balance school, and eventually a full time job with a busy, needy family. I try not to be envious when my husband receives accolades at work. I try to desire motherhood above everything else even when it feels foreign to my nature. I try not to resent that I put my husband through school twice, but that this time around I must largely put myself through.

That last paragraph is pretty raw and honest . . . maybe nobody made it quite this far. But if you did, then maybe you or someone you love feels as conflicted as I do sometimes. People will often remark on how confident I am, and I feel like kind of a poser. Sometimes that outward display of confidence is the way I blow smoke over all the conflicting forces inside of me. Maybe this is the true essence of modern woman. Bottle that, Enjoli.

What Have I Done????

My first class starts on Monday. I'm sort of having a panic attack.

Remind why I'm doing this again?

Looking Forward to the Next Parenting Crisis

Alternately Titled: What I Would Do With the $100 Million Jackpot

Jedi Knight has been taking karate since September. I chose this particular dojo, out of several choices, because its flexibility is awesome. He can go any day of the week because the general beginners' class is offered at the same time each day. He can go four times monthly, and if I up my monthly payment, he could go as often as he wanted. It has been good for him. He has learned some discipline and focus. He is getting better all the time. Some of the instructors I like better than others, though admittedly I don't get to stay and watch him as often as I like, so I'm not always sure how his classes go down.

What I had not counted on was the karate being quite as . . . well. . . self-important as the folks running the dojo make it seem. I appreciate that it is serious to them. That it is not a game or a costume party. But what I'm not crazy about is the secretary who makes me feel like a pariah when I ask questions about the way things work regarding advancement, etc. I sometimes feel like every other parent in the place kind of gets what is going on and I don't. My questions are often met with a combination of incredulity-condescension-and "well, duh!" I'm still trying to get a read on the place because JK likes it. Quite a lot.

A bit more background and then we'll address my current situation at karate. I am a hyper-modest girl. I'm not sure how this happened. My mom didn't necessarily really push this, although there was a pretty strong level of embarrassment regarding anything related to body stuff. For whatever reason, I entered puberty very reluctantly and slowly. I was angry when my friends threw over books, Barbies and school for boys, clothes and hair. By age 10 I was practically barricading myself in the bathroom when it came time for bathing or showering. If I took too long, somebody would always bang on the door threatening to use the butter knife to break in if I didn't hurry. Bra-shopping (at least six months too late) and menarche (at least a year too early) were nightmares of mortification, in which I never wanted to look my mother in the eye again.

Enter seventh grade gym class.

Until we toured the school, it had never occurred to me that we might be required to shower in a group. I was shocked and horrified. My public pool experience was pretty limited and the before pool showering we did was always in the little outside showers. Which word is stronger than mortification? Like you probably did, I learned to change my clothes without ever actually taking my other clothes off. I learned to shower wearing underwear and just wrapping myself in a towel. My feet were always very clean. . . .

I observed a couple of things. First of all, the only girls comfortable wandering the locker room in bra and panties were the cute/popular/boyfriended girls. I was not one of these. Unfortunately, most of my friends were, and it is safe to say that the girls in my locker aisle (which we could choose) were probably the most with-it group of our class start to finish. It is a group I somehow always managed to be on the fringe of and would end up rooming with at college some years later. Some of these women are still my close friends and I love them dearly, though I'm never really quite sure how they were my group to begin with. (Oh, man, this is a whole new set of hang-ups today. I need a new label called "Living in 1987.")

Ah hem. Back to the topic. My second observation from my locker room days is that the only girls comfortable showering uninhibited in front of everyone were the girls who already carried very bad reputations before we turned 13. I still remember this one girl . . . .

Okay, let's not go there.

Our gym teacher complained that somebody stunk. I thought it was a stupid accusation: I didn't smell anyone, and none of us were working hard enough to actually sweat. Still, she stood with the clipboard to watch each of us shower. For a grade. She later uncloseted as a lesbian.

Really.

College was awkward with the same pretty friends and their low inhibitions. Why is it easier to put on makeup in just a bra then it is just to put on a shirt, for crying out loud?? Now I live with four men, but my modesty principles have not loosened up much. Even when my kids were babies I didn't let them in the shower, or even the bathroom with me. I would lock them into the bouncy seat just outside the door and jealously guard my private time. My modesty. When my midwife and I went over the birth plan for my first baby, I mentioned my modesty hang ups and, bless dear Happy Barnes (my midwife's actual name), she was so careful while I labored. At the public pool we regularly attend now I always use the family restroom, even when I only have my three year-old with me. The sight of women changing in front of one another and their daughters and their young sons is really pretty horrible to me. Nursing was perpetually awkward for me and I was never really comfortable doing so in front of other people.

Out in public we cover, cover, cover. Why is it that the moment we step into a changing room it is okay to . . . . and I don't think I'll ever quite get over going to early morning water aerobics with my 70ish grandmother and her friends. I wish I had gone out into the 20 degree morning in my damp hair and clothes rather than be haunted by the elephantine memories of that public dressing room experience.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this is necessarily right or normal and certainly not any kind of an LDS requirement for virtuous living. It is just me.

And because parents do, I have transmitted some of this to my kids. Jedi Knight showers with the door shut and often locked. He is bothered when people enter his room while he is changing. I have urged bathroom privacy for each child. We have decided to be a non-sleepover family and have spoken with all the kids at length about when and for whom it is appropriate to change your clothing.

Back to karate. When we started karate in the summer, they were meeting in a small and temporary dojo while construction was completed on another. Each child wore their "gi" (the white outfit) to karate. We were careful with it--ONLY to and from karate and kept clean and folded. In mid-October, the new dojo opened and we began going there. I noticed that a lot of kids in the class after JK changed at karate. Maybe even a majority. There is some kind of a group changing area with lockers in one area. Because the next class is comprised of teenagers and adults, I assumed they changed at the dojo because they came from school or work and it was convenient.

Not necessarily so, as I was firmly told on Monday. You see, everyone at the dojo is required to wear street clothes, and change there. Everyone. I was told that there are some lingering kids still making the mistake of changing at home because they allowed it over the summer. Not only is JK my modesty-boy, but he is also very resistant to change. I could see him shutting down as strict-secretary-girl was laying down the law. She explained her reasoning--the Gi is not a costume, they stay cleaner, the kids take greater responsibility, etc. etc. She confirmed that even the four and five year olds at his class are changing their clothes, in the group room, prior to class.

I explained to her that he and I had spoken a lot about modesty and that he had been instructed never to change clothes in front of other people. That it was a thing our family valued. She emphasized that she monitored the room carefully while kids were in there and listened for any talk that wasn't related to changing, and that it was a RULE for crying out loud. Seeing my discomfort, the dojo owner remarked that it would be appropriate for him to change in one of the stalls in the men's bathroom. I conceded that this would work.

Now if I can just convince Jedi "I'm-not-really-comfortable-with-this" Knight that he can go for the compromise.

On my way home from the encounter, all of my horrible junior high PE emotions came back to me. I went to college the year of the huge Skyview High scandal that brought hazing in high school sports into the national spotlight and began a discussion about where does "boys will be boys" cross the line into brutalizing sexual harassment. In a classic case of blame the victim, the young man was told that unless he apologized to the team for having sought police involvement in the case, then he was off the team. The perpetrators didn't even get a slap on the wrist.

Recent studies and practices at some high performing middle schools demonstrate that doing PE in the morning (actual PE, not avoid-the-dodge-ball-and-gossip-for-25-minutes) increases academic performance. I'm a believer in this. The dream school I design in my head all of the time is a 6-12. PE and Health would be a major part of the required curriculum. Every year. Equipment. Classes. Martial Arts. Nutrition. Disease. etc. . . . but if something couldn't be done about completely re-envisioning locker rooms, I could never really get behind it. Individual showers. Stalled changing rooms. Gym teachers with more important tasks to fill their time than watching young kids shower to earn points.

We may have averted the karate crisis. I think by the time our next lesson rolls around I will have him talked into a compromise that works for the dojo and for our family.

But what will I do in middle school? When my quirky, smart, small boys who haven't been weaned onto a diet of team sports are confronted with a locker room dilemma which I find pretty offensive? A place that, almost by design, strives to separate the kids into a social stratification that persists for years and erodes self-esteem. Kids can be so cruel, and I've been around teenage kids more than a little bit. I know the kind on which some of them prey. They are the little men I love more than I love my own life. The system, as it stands, forces kids to be at their most vulnerable around one another just when they are getting smart enough to learn exactly whom they should never "strip" in front of.

Oh! I know we can't take away their hurts, but I don't want to throw them to the lions' den either!

Evilution

Some weeks back, a former student sent me a message on Facebook, expressing conflict over the way her high school teacher was presenting evolution in her science class. My previous school was in a predominately LDS small town in Utah. Knowing that she is a very religious person, she didn't need to say very much for me to understand precisely what her conflict is.

Over the years, as I've worked with young teenage women in the LDS Church (and heck, their mothers and grandmothers too!) I am often discouraged by what a bad rap science gets. Too many religious women view science as something for men to glom onto, or as something whose purpose is to undermine faith. For the uber-religious, science is too often synonymous with atheism. Because I usually am in the context of a church setting when working with these kids, it is not always appropriate for me to challenge their thinking when it comes to secular knowledge.

My young friend gave me a perfect opportunity to both share my faith, and my own seemingly contradictory journey to marry science with religion. It also caused me to do some careful research. A generation before the years that had a strong bearing on my adult self--both religiously and intellectually--the Church also underwent a time of growing pains. When Dallin H. Oaks (now an apostle of the LDS Church) was the president of Brigham Young University, there were deep divisions in Church administration regarding whether or not the subject of evolution should be presented at BYU. Though the Scopes Monkey Trial had been fifty years earlier, there were statements by general authorities in place--both official and unofficial--that were problematic for determining a mainstream course of action at the Church University.

Oaks settled the question by offering his professional opinion to those who made such decisions for BYU (including President Hinckley) by making the following statement, "If we stopped teaching this theory, within a few years students from BYU would not be admitted to…graduate schools. At that point we would cease to function as a recognized university and would, in the eyes of the world (especially the world of higher education), be little more than a seminary with added courses in the humanities. I have no doubt whatever that our accreditation as an institution of higher education would be lost."

He then added, though I must say he hardly needed to, "The issue is just loaded."

For further information, there are a couple of really great websites I found. The first contains any statement the author could EVER find on evolution put out by the Church. It is important to point out, however, that only four of these statements are deemed "official." The most recent of these official statements was actually given in the 1930's, and though each builds on a First Presidency Statement made in the very early part of the 1900's, over the years, each statement becomes more and more general, in the end merely emphasizing that God created the earth and that Adam was the "first man" and prophet. The eternal progression of man in the world to come is also reiterated (talk about evolving). This softening of language is indicative of a view of science at odds with those who would use the Bible as a scientific manual to teach Creationism.

The second website emphasizes the official statements, quotes from faithful LDS people and scientists regarding knowledge and the attainment of it, and a wonderful talk from Hugh B. Brown under the "LDS Articles" link. There is enough here to keep you busy for days if you are interested. If you are not, well, you've probably already quit and I'm already over it.

Years before going to bat for evolution, Elder Oaks issued statements to the faculty at BYU strongly condemning those who would make assumptions about their colleagues' commitment to the Church based on their training in the sciences. As your read excerpts from the letter I sent to my former student, I would ask you to do the same for me.

Enjoy.

"Dear K,

"My intention is not to convince you of a certain way of thinking: as always I want my students to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions, but sharing my story might help you to see that any worthwhile journey of faith and knowledge takes time, and that some answers and conclusions don’t immediately reveal themselves.

“My first good life science class was my AP Biology class. It was a bit intimidating—I was a young sophomore and my teacher was the head football coach. He was loud and disorganized and sometimes lazy. But I loved him. His perspective was unique. He had arrived at an interest in science only later in life when he realized that if he wanted to coach high school ball, he was going to have to actually get a major in something besides PE. Though in his early 40’s when I first knew him, he had only been a member of the Church a few years.

“When he taught the chapter on evolution (he called it “evilution” just to nettle us), he presented the information in the book and I found myself very conflicted. Though it seemed to contradict everything I’d been taught at church, the theory deeply appealed to my sense of logic. Furthermore, that appeal was disturbing to me—wasn’t my faith already weak enough to be wondering about such things?

“Then, on the last day of the unit he gave us time to express our opinions and discuss discrepancies between the stories of creation we had been taught and evolutionary theory. Most of us, though not all, were LDS, but most of the other kids were Christians of some variety and the conversation was lively and fascinating. Though I’m pretty sure neither our science or our religion was very factual that morning, it was wonderful to have such a discussion in an atmosphere where we didn’t feel chided for our questions about God, or unsophisticated for our belief in something beyond biological chemicals. It was because of his class I became a science teacher.

“Fast-forward to college, where I spent much of my first year spinning my wheels both spiritually and intellectually. Gone were the days of Christian science teachers helping you navigate your way through tough concepts—evolution wasn’t merely a subject you studied in biology, this theory and its huge body of supporting evidence provided the entire foundation for most of my biology classes. There was no question of it being ‘just’ a theory, this was THE theory. (If you look at the word theory from a scientific standpoint, you know that 'just' doesn’t really apply anyway.)

“. . . . I spent a lot of time questioning. I didn’t think it was at all possible for religious doctrine to reconcile with scientific teaching. Some people are given the gift of faith. My mother is one of these, and so is my sister. I am not. In fact, quite the opposite. My own gifts of intellect, practicality, logic and curiosity sometimes seem to work in direct opposition to having faith.

“Then, halfway through my freshman year until about halfway through my sophomore year, I was faced with a series of unexpected and very serious challenges. The details here would fill pages, so I will spare you, but suffice it to say, I had to really find out for myself if the Church was true, or if all this eternal-families-stuff was just a nice fairy tale to make us feel better about death and trials.

“It took some time, but I’m glad I didn’t give up. I came to know for myself that the Lord had a hand in my life, that the Atonement was real and personal . . . once I was finally at peace with my own beliefs, I was able to compartmentalize the science. It wasn’t easy, but I was determined not to let my perceived inconsistencies between faith and science either deter me from my religion or from the subject I loved.

“Time passed, and as my spiritual faith and secular knowledge both deepened, I came to realize that I no longer had to compartmentalize the two. My study of science had given me a greater appreciation for God and His magnificent creation. My study of religion had given me the influence of the Holy Ghost which helped me to separate truth from error, or to be settled with the questions that weren’t answerable. I eventually became a missionary and recognized how simple the core message of the gospel is, how simple salvation is. The more questions I asked and more curious I became, the more I also realized how few of the questions really NEED to be answered in order for you to live a good, righteous life. . . .

"Deseret Book published a collection of essays some years ago called “Reflections of a Scientist” by Henry Eyring (the current apostle’s father) that says some amazing things about faith and religion. (Excerpts here.) I will not quote it directly—I loaned the book out and it seems I didn’t get it back. But I remember him saying that true science and true religion would never be in conflict with one another. That if they seemed to contradict, it was because we didn’t have enough knowledge. As a member of the General Sunday School board, he of course asserted the truthfulness of the Church, but readily acknowledged how little had been revealed to us by God about the majestic workings of the universe, and that human curiosity should be boundless in trying to figure things out. . . .

“When my husband took his core biology classes, he was taught the evolution portion by a wonderful professor named Dr. Frank Messina. (I’d had Messina for graduate level evolution years earlier—one of the best classes I ever took . . .) In the upper level class, Messina dove right in on day one with micro-evolution content, assuming that if we had made it to that level then we were all on board. In the basic biology class (my husband’s) he spent the first several days reassuring the students that his goal was not to undermine their faith in any way. . . though not religious himself . . . he understood the culture of the area and had no wish to be seen as a destroyer. . . .

“Dr. Messina came to the conclusion . . . that both religion and science were ways of knowing. Religion uses the 'evidence of things NOT seen' (Hebrews 11:1) and science uses evidence we can observe through our five senses. Interestingly enough, at the same time I attended a Utah State Science Teachers conference and one of our break-out groups was facilitated by a BYU professor who broached the subject of teaching evolution in a conservative community. Many of his conclusions were identical to Dr. Messina—who are we to say how God created life on our planet? It is enough for salvation to know that He did. For me, my own life would be incomplete if I had not learned to use both the seen and the unseen to help guide my decisions and stimulate my mind and spirit.

“As for specifics? I’ve come to some of my own (very un-doctrinal!) conclusions there, and won’t share them. In time, if the reconciliation seems important to you, the Spirit will guide you into your own truth. Or it will help you to know that NOT knowing (at least for now) is okay too. What I will say very specifically is I . . . believe whole-heartedly that Adam was the first prophet—the first man who in body and mind was created in God’s image and with potential to become like our Father in Heaven. I believe that same potential lies in each one of us as well. I know that having faith makes life richer, fuller and better. . . ."

I told you in my last post that I was bundle of contradictions.

Change We Can Believe In?

I have mostly stayed a-political for some time now, fully believing that you were all very patient while getting and earful for a good six months last year. Then this week happened. I think I'm anxious to start another conversation here, remembering that discussions should attack ideas and not each other. Four points for discussion:

1. Wednesday, on my Facebook page, I posted the following, "STM is wondering if a thin majority of Massachusetts voters will derail healthcare overhaul, and if Ted Kennedy is doing the proverbial "turning over in his grave" for the potential loss of legislation he spent three decades advocating. Where is a great deal-maker when we so desperately need reasonable consensus?"

My attempt at "reasonable consensus" turned into 31 comments (including my own) mostly from decidedly opposing camps, though not everyone seemed to be arguing against the plan as it is actually written. There were also six "likes" which I can only assume means that those folks were somewhere in the middle.

I think the thread beat the topic as much as necessary for a gray Wednesday afternoon, but I would love to add one point that didn't get broached on Facebook. Each individual votes as they wish, and so making broad statements about why the election in Massachusetts went the way it did is educated guesswork at best. However, it is probably reasonable to say that Tuesday's election was at least partially a referendum on national health care. But before Conservatives get to feel all smug about how this means that "most" people don't want this bill, it is important to note that everybody in Massachusetts who voted FOR the Republican and/or AGAINST national health insurance reform ALREADY HAS HEALTH INSURANCE BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS. The great irony in all of this is that one of the leading advocates for the elected candidate was Mitt Romney. The same (Republican) governor who signed the state-wide health insurance mandate into law earlier this decade.

The truth is, if you are from Massachusetts, you would have been crazy to vote for a candidate who would pass federal laws about health care--all it would do is potentially raise your taxes and not change your quality of life. This result has already caused the Democrats to speak about backing down from the extent of the legislation regarding health care. What the (thin-ish) majority of Massachusetts voters told the rest of the country is, "Make your state legislatures figure it out. Just like we did."

Hm . . . . maybe this isn't such a bad idea. Unless, of course, you are one of the 30 million working but still uninsured Americans and you live in a state that consistently elects a very conservative state legislature. Do you know anybody like this?

2. The Supreme Court yesterday (in another partisan vote--shocker) overturned a campaign finance law that has been in place for a hundred years. The law basically imposed limits on contributions from corporations and unions, and the Supreme Court voted 5-4 for its unconstitutionality. Interestingly enough, though intended to benefit unions as well, the type of justices typically accused of being in the union's pocket voted against overturning.

Corporations already find ways to donate plenty, usually through political action committees, but now they won't have quite so many hoops to jump through in their attempts to grease the palms of Washington politicians. Do we really need MORE money in politics? Red money or blue money is all the same to me when it comes to buying broad influence, and there is no doubt that this overturning will have an enormous benefit for Republican candidates. And yes, while they aren't in power now, they have enjoyed plenty of it in times past. Public sentiment will ebb and flow without Wall Street money pushing it along.

And yet, the thing that disturbs me as much as the overturning is the reasoning behind it. Free speech is the Constitutional issue the attorneys for the corporations hung their case on. Basically, corporations have been granted equivalent rights to individuals under our Constitution. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Is there a slippery slope of unintended consequences here?

3. The Obama administration, trying to fight "wars" on all fronts, issued a statement this week that they were going to be moving on banking regulation. Stocks immediately plummeted for nearly all of the country's major banks. Okay, not Black Friday plummeted, but dipped across the board under threat of new regulation. Shareholders don't like rules that prevent their investments from taking risk, because the greater the risk, the greater potential return.

Free enterprise and capitalism and market economies are certainly a necessary part of a functioning democracy, though to the degree these factors are unfettered varies across democracies world-wide. However, I feel very strongly about the banks' (and their shareholders) audacity to complain about the regulation. First of all, most of these major banks were beneficiaries in some measure of the bank bailouts that so dominated the news in late 2007 and early 2008. And secondly, all of these banks are FDIC insured. In other words, if you bank with Wells Fargo and they go under, the federal government backs the first $100,000 you have in that bank; you would recover every single dime. The government did this long ago in order to allow the banks to assume a certain level of risk, but the dismantling of regulations over the last 15 years simultaneously eliminated all need for banks to be cautious. Bad investments and bad loans in the relentless pursuit of higher and higher profits (and unsustainable economic growth) crashed the economy.

Americans need to start working and innovating to make more products instead of just shuffling paper to make more money. An on that note . . . .

4. Mr. Obama unveiled the generalities of his education plan at a school in the DC area this week. The philosophy behind these latest education grants (5 billion federal dollars) is based on something that has been working in Chicago in recent years: failing public schools are closed or shrunk, students are redistributed to much smaller charter schools where accountability is very high and the waiting lists are long. In Chicago, with its widespread inner-city type school difficulties has found a way to do something that welfare-type programs always find problematic. By targeting the very worst schools, they have identified both those in need of help; but by moving to the exclusive charters with very high standards and low tolerance for deviant behavior, they have identified the "deserving" poor. In other words, those with low incomes with true desire to change their situation.

These smaller schools have expanded both the length of the school day and the school year. Uniforms are the norm and most extra-curricular type activities have been eliminated. Class sizes are dramatically reduced from the mainstream public schools. And test scores are through the roof. This latest round of grants, if carefully and systematically applied, will do very well in some places as receipt of the money requires failing schools to close or shrink and charters to open.

They also require that teacher pay be linked to testing.

I shared some (okay a LOT of very specific) thoughts on this topic over a year ago. My fear is that the teacher money will only be tied to the testing, and leave too many effective teachers out in the cold because of their core populations.

Anyway, it is has been a busy week for American policy. What do you think of some of this stuff. Or, if you don't think of it at all, just drop in to say hi. Such connections might keep my own thoughts from driving me completely crazy.

Let's Talk About Sex

Education that is.


This topic was brought up, rather inadvertently, in my book group the other night. The group is affiliated with RS Enrichment, so we mostly do a good job of sticking to the topics in the book. As when I'm with (most) any group of LDS women, I've learned to just bite my tongue when snide comments are made about the global warming "hoax", Barack Obama being a commu-muslo-terrorist and the latest blog news from Glenn Beck. As much as I hate it when people assume I agree with them about politics because we have the same religion, in person I'm much less confrontational than my writing suggests and I don't like the argument that political discourse often engenders. Discussion yes, but argument, no. Besides, in our group there is a woman who is Canadian, a former social worker, and was a rabid Hilary supporter. She isn't afraid to have a little go-time.


But back to the subject. I only said the other to give a little bit of background into our group and its dynamic. One of our younger sisters was very angry about some diversity posters that were going to be hung at her son's elementary school. Coming into the conversation a moment late, I thought that she was perhaps over-reacting, but then she was specific about the content of some of the posters. A couple of them were about transgender and homosexual individuals with blunt vocabulary. I think some kinds of information, particularly presented in such a sound-byte fashion, merely give children more tools for mocking one another. Also, since homosexual and transgender lifestyles are so wrapped up in sexual behavior and not just inherent identity (like race), the teaching of such should be handled the way sex education is at schools, not the way mulit-cultural education is.

My friend, incensed, wrote a letter to the school. A second mother in the group, who has some older children, also indicated that she has had trouble with the sex education programs at area schools. I kind of cornered mother #2 later and tried to get specifics about her issues with the programs, but she wasn't really able to say. Only that when given the choice, she opted her child out and was promised he'd have other work to do at his seat. He did not, and ended up doing most of the worksheets the rest of the class was doing. Again, no idea about the age of the child in question or the content that was so disturbing to her.

Before I hit you all with my barrage of questions, let me give you a bit of my own history. My first knowledge of sex came from two sources: I was staying with a friend for a few days when I was about 8 years old while my parents went on a trip. While bathing together one night, she told me how babies were made. I was shocked, horrified and disgusted. She told me that it was true and if I didn't believe her I should ask my mother. How could I say ANYTHING like that to my mom!? I'd be in so much trouble. Looking back, I can see that this experience has turned me into a mother that is pretty much anti-sleepover. Don't even get me started on why her mother put two eight year old girls in the tub at the same time.

The second source was a cousin, my age, who loved to entertain us with dirty jokes while all of the cousins stayed up late in the huge tent set up on Grandma's lawn every Labor Day. When I first heard his naughty potty mouth, and his awful jokes were pretty much confirming in their perverse way what bathtub-girl had said, there was no possible way for me to talk to my mother. It was too embarrassing and too gross. Years later I would learn that she was waiting for me to ask, just as my older brother had asked questions while she was pregnant with my youngest sibling.

Then mom forgot to come of the second of our two maturation films at school. She was the only absent mother in the entire sixth grade class. Okay, like I can really know that. But it sure seemed that way. This has been a running family joke for years, but at the time it probably really affected my willingness to approach my mom about girl stuff. I was embarrassed beyond belief when I had to tell her I had started my period, and for years I wanted to die whenever I had to ask her to buy pads. And tampons! Let's not even go there.

Fast forward to junior high health. Our sex education unit took a whopping 45 minutes. Our lame-o health teacher showed a movie about the miracle of childbirth while the boy behind me made snide comments the entire time. I tried desperately not to keep my head on my desk so that I could pass the quiz later. I willed myself to disappear, but not having any magical powers, it was no good. When the movie was done--10 seconds before the bell rang--our teacher said, "If you have an questions, go home and ask your parents."

I did not.

Being a nurse, conversations about sex and even sexuality should have been doable for my mom, but she just kept waiting. It's crazy, really, we talk about all kinds of things now and have a really positive and wonderful friendship. But I was the oldest girl and my mom's own family had been fairly dysfunctional; it seemed like everything I did was uncharted water. Well, about the time I turned 16 and was taking AP biology, Mom figured that she'd just missed the boat. After all, she reasoned, I was exceptionally bright--I'd certainly put two and two together. (Or, in this case, one and one; though my experience was all cerebral and the thought of even kissing a boy terrified me.) As for the chastity stuff, well, I was getting plenty of teaching in church; my dad did give me some kind of object lesson about a boiling frog. But you had to be dating anybody more than once, and they had to be marginally attracted to you, to get anywhere near boiling. Chastity was not a problem.

When I was a senior in high school, my youngest brother went to the maturation film for boys. My mother did not forget to attend with him. I took him on a long walk that night and told him all about the girls' movie. I told him that he wouldn't get this talk from mom but that he was mature enough and smart enough to understand some things, and that I didn't want him to be one of those idiot boys who teased girls about things they didn't understand. I think I knew that afternoon that he would eventually be a doctor.

On to college. I learned a lot, again all academic knowledge, about the mechanisms of sex and birth control and anatomy and physiology and vocabulary and . . . . well, you get the gist. Biology girl, remember? My older brother and his sweet fiance gave me a ride back to school one weekend and in a conversation that must have required him to swallow a lot of pride and mortified her, he asked ME about birth control options. I was 19. I was very blunt. I still wonder if her reticence towards me stems from that single conversation.

I was nearly legal age before I really kissed a boy. We won't go into the depths to which I was naive and stupid about what certain kinds of kissing can do to a man, or how cruel it is when a girl ignorantly starts the launch sequence. The early days of marriage were a long, slow learning curve; and yes, for all my book learning, I was pretty embarrassed about nearly every aspect of intimacy.

My own views of what the schools should or should not include in their sex education curriculum has no doubt been heavily influenced by things I've seen as a teacher. I was 23 and a single student teacher when a gorgeous Hispanic senior came to me and asked me about fifty questions about pregnancy; she was a few months along and I was the first adult that she'd told. I was 24 and teaching 7th grade when some foster parents told me the girl that had guardian-ship for was dealing with the aftermath of a sexually abusive stepfather and an abortion the previous summer. As for my eye-opening experiences at my inner-city school in Texas, well, let's just say that I'm a big advocate of giving people some kind of a license or test before they engage in sexual activity, let alone pro-create! ;)

Permanently damaged by my convoluted sex education? No, of course not. But I would like to do better for my own kidlets. And don't go saying "Get your spouse's support" because we'd been married about twenty minutes when Plantboy said, in no uncertain terms, "you are talking to the kids about sex; you're the science teacher." He has a point, from my painfully bashful beginnings, I never miss a beat when I say sperm or egg or sex or mating or reproducing or penis or vagina or whatever in front of a group of 13 year-olds. It's just science.

But with my own (and my oldest is just five months away from that magic age of accountability), it doesn't feel like science. It feels like how they will normalize themselves to the opposite sex, especially because they don't have sisters. It feels like their understanding of sacred principles. It feels like their future chance at an eternal marriage. The facts are the same, but what my little ones DO with these facts will literally make or break their lives and spirits.

My cornered friend from book group talked about how she opens up the conversation by talking about stranger touch, private parts, etc. The rest kind of evolves from there, over time, as you children are ready for it and ask questions. This is the approach advocated by the Cub Scout Manual. But I remember how poor I was at asking questions, even in an atmosphere of love and trust that my mom always inspired. And my boys are such boys--so mechanical and busy and practical--I don't know if they ever even think about babies, let alone where they come from. I also wonder if by jumping right to the molesting conversation, we rule out any possibility for such touch to be good and wonderful and necessary? Of course, all that affirmation stuff is not really appropriate or desirable for quite a number of years still . . .

What are your thoughts here? Things your parents did well? Things that have worked with your older kids? Didn't work? And most all, funny stories; sex is serious and sacred, but it isn't ALL bad. ;)