The Year In Review--2011

I never finished last year’s “A Year In Pictures” blog post, so I have no idea what makes me think that I can actually finish a year-end review this year. Since I’m writing for three different audiences (family, friends, church), this will either be very simple or essentially impossible.  (NOTE: Yes, I do have friends at church, and there are friends who are like family. It’s just the way it is.)

This will not be in chronological order, nor in order of “importance”.  It’s simply alphabetical.

·         I (or rather my friend Sara) rearranged my living room; I like it.

·         I accepted (again) that just because a thing is advertised as such doesn’t mean that it is so.

·         I acquired a roommate: “the teen”, a 16-yr-old student from our school; a South Korean whose parents live in another city about 10 hours away.

·         I affirmed anew that I really, really hate to fly.

·         I became a Packers fan, thanks to Aaron Rodgers.

·         I bought a breadmaker, and learned to make cinnamon-raisin bread.

·         I celebrated when a student in my class who knew no English four months ago scored an A on a math test.

·         I cheered while our school’s basketball and volleyball teams won games, and lost games.

·         I chose to root for a former Gator, thanks to Tim Tebow.

·         I cried when others realized that God’s plan was for them to go elsewhere.

·         I discovered, via email or Facebook, life-changing events occurring stateside; most were pleasant, but surprising.

·         I had vacation time with friends who are family.

·         I helped my boss, the school’s director, to choose an updated set of curriculum standards for our school.

·         I learned to shoot a handgun. I’m not an expert at all, but it was fun to try. (Also, guns are LOUD.)

·         I made kitty-litter cake for Halloween .

·         I played in the snow for an hour and walked through the slushy mess for weeks.

·         I realized that training is important for people of all ages.

·         I rejoiced when some folks decided to return here next year.

·         I rode in a hot-air balloon.

·         I saw kids (and adults) racked with tears because friends move away at the end of the year, or mid-year, or mid-week.

·         I shopped at IKEA on opening day (in fact, we were there when the doors opened) and learned just how easy it is to spend money there when you don’t have to rush through the entire store in an hour or less.

·         I visited with my mom (and aunt) who actually came here, stayed in my apartment, visited my school, ate at my favorite local restaurant, and met the family that I have here.  

·         I walked on paths in two different countries where the Apostle Paul once walked, and stood in places where he might have stood to preach.

·         I watched a teacher’s face glow with joy as she explained how conversations in her classroom lead to students praying, believing, and accepting the love of Christ.

·         I witnessed a kid’s life change by staying the same when the “no” became a “yes”.

Lesson 1 for Leaders and Lemmings: How to Manage Money

A comment written to our leaders and lemmings in response to this at http://www.patdollard.com/.

Dear Congress, POTUS, and #OWS folks,
I bought a recliner Saturday. I bought it on sale, but that was a happy accident. To buy the recliner, I needed money. I could have used the money from my paycheck (about $30K per year), the money in my savings account, or a store credit card. Of course, I need things like food, clothing, and shelter, so I must keep money for those expenses.

The store expected me to give them money in exchange for the recliner I carried home with me. If I use credit, then the store knows that it will get the price it asked AND bonus money for allowing me to take extra time to pay money for the recliner I wanted. If I want something that I don't have money in any account, and I choose not to buy on credit, I can either wait to purchase the recliner after I've saved money, or get another job to pay for the item. It is illegal for me to simply print money and use it for the recliner, or the other bills, or for donations to church/charity.

The government should work the same way. If the government wants to give money to (insert country here), then it should check the accounts for amount of money available, check for bills coming due, consider unexpected expenses, and then decide to give or not. If the government wants to give money to a person because of children in the house, lost jobs, or medical expenses, or if the government wants to care for the soldiers here and abroad, it should take care of those commitments first before spending more. If the money to be given to (insert country here) is more important than lost-job spending, then you stop spending on lost-jobs and start spending the money for (insert country here).

Money doesn't grow on trees, dear leaders and lemmings, and once borrowed, it cannot simply be made to vanish. I don't need to borrow money from others to buy 28 recliners; one is sufficient. I don't need to give money to every charity that asks because the need is great; if I give away all my money instead of paying my rent, I will soon be in need of taking charity from others. Who will give to charity then? If I borrow money for one recliner, and decide it's the wrong color, shape and size, I either make do or sell it to a friend; I don't blame the cashier who sold me the recliner, and I don't demand that the store refund my purchase price.

I paid cash for the recliner. It's comfy and it's mine. World Vision still gets monthly support for a kid, my student loan still gets repaid, and my fridge has food for a few more weeks. I do my best not to live "paycheck to paycheck" but I for sure don't live beyond my means. The government cannot live beyond its means either. That's irresponsible. Those like the #OWS lemmings who insist the government should care for them are as irresponsible and immature as those in charge.

Sincerely,
An American citizen

What does Jesus think of this WaPo post?

Once upon a time, the question "What would Jesus do?" gained popularity in Christian life and literature. Pop culture soon took over this quote from Charles Spurgeon's In His Steps and infinite variations could soon be found: some hilarious, others sacrilegious. Lisa Miller's "On Faith" post from October 20, 2011 entitled "Jesus at Occupy Wall Street: 'I feel like I've been here before' opens with a variation on that question: What would Jesus think of Occupy Wall Street? She writes as the opening sentence of paragraph four:

The Jesus of history would love them all.

Had Miller ended her post with that statement, I would be satisfied. Unfortunately, the article continues, and it rapidly spirals downhill.

Jesus believed that God was about to right the world’s wrongs with a great upheaval – soon – and at that time, a radical reversal of the social order would occur. As he says in the gospels, “the meek will inherit the earth.”

Jesus believed no such thing. Jesus knew exactly what God was doing. Jesus came to earth for one reason: to redeem us from our sins. Galatians 4:4-5 tells us that, as does Jesus Himself in John 14:6. There was no upheaval of the social order in the works. Jesus came to those who needed Him most: the sick.

Mark 2:17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

For further support to her idea, Ms. Miller offers quotes from Dr. Bart Ehrman, who says “The people who ran things (in Jesus's time) were empowered by the evil forces of the world and his followers had to work against these powers by feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and caring for the sick.” Dr, Ehrman is a self-proclaimed agnostic who is yet a professor of religious studies at UNC; he is wrong about Jesus's followers. Jesus, His disciples, and the others (like Mary Magdalene) who walked with Jesus didn't feed the hungry or care for the sick to work against those in power. Feeding the hungry and caring for the sick was what needed to be done. Matthew 14 tells us that Jesus had compassion on the sick, and that He "looked to heaven" before beginning to share the meager fish and bread that miraculously fed 5000 or more.

Ms. Miller continues her post by explaining how "disappointed" Jesus would be with the #OWS movement.

For Jesus, the first thing – the only thing, really -- was God. His ministry was an effort to help guide people toward a kind of moral perfection before the coming of the Kingdom of God.

Again, Ms. Miller misconstrues the message of the Gospel, and the purpose of Jesus's life, death and resurrection. Jesus says of Himself in John 11:25-26 “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in Me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in Me will never die." Then He asks, "Do you believe this?”Jesus did die, but He rose again, and lives today.

Ms. Miller's final paragraph consists of a quote from someone involved in the protest.

If the Jesus of history could wander the precincts held by the occupiers, “he’d see his people,” says Marisa Egerstrom, a graduate student at Harvard who organized a posse of chaplains to volunteer at Occupy sites. “I think he would be pretty pleased.”

Jesus is well aware of the protests: the needs, the greed, the occupy-ers who mistreat others, and those who honestly hope for a better future. He is also aware of those who are watching from afar, trying and often failing to convince the occupy-ers that there is another way.

Jesus sees His creation: men and women and children that He created, that He loves, that He came to save. He sees the evil that we have in our hearts, and in some, the light that His love has brought.

Is He pleased? I will not speak to the protest itself, but I know that Jesus cannot be pleased with way He was depicted by Ms. Miller. He would be disappointed that the Gospel was distorted in such a way.

Cultural Sensitivity Used to Spread Moral Relativism in Public Schools, or Throwing Good Money After Bad

The Omaha World Herald reported that OPS buys 8,000 diversity manuals. "The authors argue that public school teachers must raise their cultural awareness to better serve minority students and improve academic achievement" and in an 11-0 decision (with one abstention), the Omaha Public Schools school board voted in April 2011 to give a copy of The Cultural Proficiency Journey to each of its employees. Employees will read chapters as assigned and then meet in small groups to discuss it. Teachers will use part of their professional development time for this study.

We encourage cultural awareness within the teaching staff at my "somewhere in Central Asia" international school. Fact: the school is filled with 240 kids from more than 40 different countries. "Cultural sensitivity" means we learn about other governments and other flags, not just America's. It means we don't allow kids to insult each other's heritage and we require everyone to speak English unless they are in an ESL class or studying HS Spanish. However, we don't buy books with a thin veneer of respectability as a springboard to discuss cultural sensitivity; such books aren't needed. Common sense and human decency have already provided 99.9% of the adults in the OPS system with all the knowledge needed to treat students and families fairly and equitably.

According to the article, in the most recent school year "African-American", "Asian-American" and "American-Indian" populations combine for a third of the district's student population. According to page 10 of http://www.ops.org/District/Portals/0/District/StudentAssignmentPlan/full-plan.pdf, for the 1998-1999 school year, students were 56% “Caucasian-American”, 10% “Hispanic-American”, 31% “African-American”, 1.6% American Indian and 1.4% “Asian-American”. Yes, the demographics have changed. Notice though that 100% of the students are “American.” Page 53 of this .pdf from 2005 states that “LEP children vary considerably with regard to the languages they speak, posing special challenges faced by the larger cities such as Omaha where LEP children speak a total of 38 languages (OPS 2003). Despite such diversity, however, the majority of LEP children in Omaha and Nebraska as a whole are Spanish speaking.”

Indeed, the 2000 census found 95% of the Omaha MSA (metropolitan statistical area) population is American-born. (Table A3, page 188 of the .pdf) found that a fourth of the foreign-born population is from Asia, and nearly half are from Latin America, yet the largest non-Caucasian OPS group is Hispanic. Seems to lend credence to the idea that Spanish is the majority foreign language in OPS schools and homes. The same table continues on page 189, indicating that 92% speak “English only” at home. In 2009, this OPS data showed an increased percentage for the Hispanic-American population: 90% of OPS district's residents are native-born Americans, and 62.5% of those foreign-born are from Hispanic-American cultures. About 86% of the residents speak only English at home, while about 10% of the OPS district residents speak Spanish as the primary/sole language at home.

With such a high Hispanic-American, Spanish-speaking population, the other 92 languages in the OPS district are represented in far smaller numbers:a total of 4.1% of the residents. I would venture that school-to-school, especially for our size, my school with students from 40+ different passport countries is MUCH more culturally diverse than any one of the OPS locations. Yet our students get along well, even as their home countries fire rockets at each other, or have arguments over import/export policies. Our students are encouraged--taught by example--to respect people of all cultures.

This summer I am participating in an 8-week online class to examine, discuss, and practice creating authentic, real-world assessment opportunities for my 7th graders. I am being exposed to websites that assist teachers in creating online assessments and activities that students can use at school or at home. I am rewriting lesson plans to meet the needs of the advanced learners and those who struggle. I am networking with other teachers from around the state. How much does this opportunity cost me out-of-pocket? A whopping $30, just a little less than the OPS paid for TWO copies of this book. The OPS teachers could have participated in a class such as mine, or put that $130,000 to many other uses, providing a much greater benefit to their students. School board members could have provided training for writing across the curriculum, or purchased graphing calculators for middle-school math classrooms, or funded a state-of-the-art science lab. Rather than teaching teachers how to use technology more wisely, the district bought a book that has garnered only 4 reviews on amazon.com in 18 months; 3 of the ratings were 1-star. (Of course, the book is also for sale directly from the publisher; the CampbellJones's website misspelled the publisher's name in the above-the-fold links to Corwin.com's site.) At least OPS received a discount of nearly 50%; www.corwin.com and www.amazon.com both offer the paperback edition at a price of $28.95 per copy. Just because something is available at a discount does not mean it is worth the purchase. Don't overlook the fact that these books were paid for with federal stimulus funds. Federal stimulus funds--our tax dollars--were spent to purchase books that may be propaganda more than anything else.

This manual with a subtitle referencing “profound school change” isn't about cultural sensitivity; it's about indoctrinating teachers and eventually students in leftlibs' inane social justice. In my opinion, the OPS purchase--which included copies for the custodial staff--was about one thing: spreading the lie of moral relativism. A few selections from the World Herald article.

The authors assert that American government and institutions create advantages that “channel wealth and power to white people,” that color-blindness will not end racism and that educators should “take action for social justice.”

                  and

The book says that teachers should acknowledge historical systemic oppression in schools, including racism, sexism, homophobia and “ableism,” defined by the authors as discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities.

                  and

The authors ask readers to reflect on several hypothetical cases, including that of a gay “teacher of the year” afraid to post family photos of his male partner for his school's Family Day, an African-American parent upset by a sixth-grade Early-American Day because African-Americans were enslaved in those days, and a principal whose attempt to reach out to Muslim students backfires when he announces over the intercom that students should welcome Muslims though they “might believe in violence.”

The authors — Franklin and Brenda CampbellJones and Randall B. Lindsey — all former teachers, write that their intent in the book is “to prepare educators to unshackle themselves from tradition and become facilitators for reconciliation of historical injustices.”

Franklin CampbellJones said in an interview that although some issues in the book are considered “challenging” and “taboo,” discussing them is important to break down barriers to educating every child.

He said the book has been well-received by other school districts using it, including San Diego and Atlanta, and districts in Maryland and Canada.

The fact that this book combines moral relativism with “reconciliation”--simultaneously discouraging American citizens of all ethnic backgrounds from believing in American exceptionalism--was a tingle-inducing bonus for the liberal authors and purchasers. Educators are asked in this book to "acknowledge the existence of white privilege in America, that 'white' is a culture in America and that race 'is a definer for social and economic status' ” in order to reach cultural proficiency. 

School Board president Sandra Jensen was quoted: “Recognition that one might have a certain perspective is critical to treating all people equally.”The article closes with a quote from Nancy Edick, dean of the College of Education at the University of Nebraska at Omaha: “The rich life experiences of a diverse classroom contribute to an excellent education. It's an education that helps prepare our kids for a world they're going to live in, an increasingly diverse world.” Both of those statements are true. Diversity is a reality: our global communications network brings news and ideas from place to place in a manner of milliseconds, not months. This book seems to do little to encourage intellectual diversity, but instead intends to foster divisiveness.

Not all historical or cultural perspectives are factual, or valid, or worthy of acceptance. People have value; their opinions and beliefs (including mine, perhaps) do not always have value. If a student in my classroom states that the shape on the board is a square because it looks like a square from his perspective, yet the measurements of all four sides are not equal, the student's perspective is incorrect. His perspective has little value beyond showing me how I can educate him to understand the correct mathematical perspective. The language the child speaks at home does not change the fact that the student's perspective was incorrect, as was the response he made based on that perspective.

The fact that the OPS district plans to "look for ways to apply some of the concepts in the classroom and workplace" should make us take notice. Moral relativism is not a concept that belongs in a federally-funded program as professional development for public school teachers; nor should American exceptionalism be discounted and discredited in that same venue.

MS 344 (NYC): How can this be?

American Thinker  @amthinker  tweeted a story today from the New York Post. The Post reports that MS344--the Academy for Collaborative Education (ACE/MS344)--a middle school in the Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan, is so chaotic that the state wants to close it. However, the United Federation of Teachers is fighting the closure. They did the same when the school was first announced for closure in 2009. A search of the UFT website finally exposed this article where the suit was explained: schools on the list (a total of 22) have not received promised help from the Dept. of Education. The DOE's "Proposed Closure Scenario" disputes that, listing nine specific means of assistance given; grants, training for teachers, and assistance for the school's principal Ms. Shaw were some of the ways the DOE tried to help the Academy.

ACE opened in the fall of 2006 full of promise. "ACE was launched just four years ago with high hopes. The Department of Education promised to give students 'intensive mathematics and technology programs' -- and to get them into the city's most competitive high schools" according to the October 2010 Post article below. This review seems to indicate the school is home to less than half the expected enrollment and mentions the decision to close as of April 2011.

Just how bad is the school? Here's today's article from the Post. The embedded video (which includes profanity) shows students refusing to go to class, followed by a classroom apparently vandalized when left empty for just a few minutes.  Things don't seem to have changed since October 2010 when this story appeared in the Post. When the student results from ACE are compared with peer schools (40 other schools with similar socioeconomic demographics, ELL and special needs populations) ACE/MS344 "has the lousiest scores." After earning a D in the 08-09 results, the school progressed to an F on the 09-10 Dept. of Education progress report, including an F in two of the three major categories of evaluation.



The Quality Review Report from the NYC Dept. of Education mentioned in February 2009 (during Principal Shaw's first year)  that "Poor student behavior is a major concern at the school that interrupts classroom
instruction." While some characteristics were listed as "underdeveloped with proficient tendencies", the school received an overall evaluation of underdeveloped--the lowest possible level.

The August 2009 "Persistently Dangerous Schools" list includes "JS344": Academy of Collaborative Education. One 7th grader is quoted by the Post as saying that the police "come almost every day."


How good is the school? Here is a school-produced video log from the school, with several videos from April of this year. A teacher apparently teaches "cooking" skills to a small group of kids, and they seem to love her. Someone (perhaps the same teacher) allows a student to interview others about the all-important state tests. One student says she wants to do well so that the school won't have to close.

The "Learning Environment Survey" from 2009-2010 shows a great deal of improvement from 08-09 to 09-10. A majority of students feel safe, inspired to learn, and believe their teachers know their names. Parents are 97% satisfied with the education their children received in that school year. Examining the data as responses to individual questions tells us that 14% of students don't feel safe in their classrooms and that 24% do not feel safe in hallways, locker rooms, and other common areas. A shocking 90% of students say that other students get into fights some of the time, most of the time, or all of the time. Perhaps most telling: only 29% of students agree that students show respect to their teachers.

In the end, though, the students deserve a safe place to learn with trained teachers who care about the students. This graphic compares ACE/MS344 with another school that has some classrooms in the same building. Democracy Prep is the city's #1 charter school. How do they compare?

Student backgrounds matter in education, yet these two schools (and the 41 schools in the peer group ACE is considered as similar to) show that ACE isn't helping its students as much as other schools are. Kids are not prepared for the elite high schools--perhaps not for any high school.

Teachers impact the quality of education, and while some good teachers may be on staff at ACE, things are not improving. The students are not respectful (by the students' own admission) and they may not have the most updated technology. However, kids can learn without fancy technology. Administrators direct the school, and manage every part of it. Is Ms. Shaw the problem? She certainly hasn't helped; the Post mentions claims Shaw hired friends and family members to work with her, and that she has mistreated her teaching staff overtly and also by failing to support them.

Is the UFT the problem? While the union has "met with the MS344 staff" this year, nothing has changed for the students or the teachers. Perhaps the blame should fall on the parents, who may have sent children to school unprepared for learning, or unwilling to be respectful. The UFT blames the government, and probably some parents share that sentiment.

Everyone can share the blame, or no one, yet the ACE children who didn't know how to read fluently in 2009 still can't read fluently. The children who struggled to learn 6th grade math last year likely struggled this year through 7th grade math. What hope do they have for success in the fall of 2011?

Their best hope at this point is another school. MS344 should never have been allowed to reach the depths it reached; having done so, the effort to bring change will cost too much. The cost of bringing change to ACE/MS344 is irreparable harm to the futures of the 50+ kids who just finished what should be the last year of the Academy for Collaborative Learning's existence.

One Nation Under God, Indivisible

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Someone at @NBC_Sports decided to create a video montage to "salute our great nation???" and present it to open NBC's broadcast one day during the PGA's U.S. Open Championship, held this year at ??? in Washington D.C. Within the first minute of the broadcast, viewers noticed something about the montage. I admittedly first learned of the montage on Twitter, which sometimes is first to broadcast breaking news for better or worse.


The first YouTube video of the U.S. Open montage--the one I watched even during the U.S. Open broadcast--has since been removed by the user. However, I captured it before that occurred.

This video includes the first half of the montage and the on-air comments offered by announcer Dan Hicks later in the broadcast.

I had a few interesting exchanges on Twitter with folks who claimed that they are offended by the inclusion of the words "under God" within the Pledge of Allegiance. I won't recount those exchanges here. During those exchanges, I collected some research on the Pledge of Allegiance to help me better explain my thoughts. With July 4th coming soon, the announced drawdown of troops in Afghanistan, and the daily efforts of those who seem to hate America and all for which she stands, I've been thinking about the Pledge of Allegiance. So here, in a semi-chronological order, is a (selected) series of articles and videos related to the Pledge of Allegiance. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list; rather, it is what is most familiar and most surprising. 

• The original pledge was written in 1892 by a socialist (or perhaps Baptist, or both) minister, Francis Bellamy. He wrote the pledge in such a way that citizens of any country could  proudly speak it: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 
• In 1923 "my Flag" became "the flag of the United States" and in 1924 the two words "of America" were added. These changes took place as part of the first and second National Flag Conferences.  
• In 1940, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) determined in MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DIST. v. GOBITIS that two children (by then teens) expelled "f"or their refusal to yield to the compulsion of a law which commands their participation in a school ceremony contrary to their religious convictions " did not experience a violation of their religious freedoms. In delivering the Court's opinion, Justice Frankfurter wrote: "The preciousness of the family relation, the authority and independence which give dignity to parenthood, indeed the enjoyment of all freedom, presuppose the kind of ordered society which is summarized by our flag. A society which is dedicated to the preservation of these ultimate values of civilization may in self-protection utilize the educational process for inculcating those almost unconscious feelings which bind men together in a comprehending loyalty, whatever may be their lesser differences and difficulties. That is to say, the process may be utilized so long as men's right to believe as they please, to win others to their way of belief, and their right to assemble in their chosen places of worship for the devotional ceremonies of their faith, are all fully respected. "
• In 1942, the US Flag Code adopted specific language about the pledge. Congress made this sentence the official national pledge:  

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

• SCOTUS in 1943 reversed the declarations of Gobitis in West Virginia St. Board of Education v. Barnette. Justice Jackson wrote for the court's opinion: " Any spark of love for country which may be generated in a child or his associates by forcing him to make what is to him an empty gesture and recite words wrung from him contrary to his religious beliefs is overshadowed by the desirability of preserving freedom of conscience to the full. It is in that freedom and the example of persuasion, not in force and compulsion, that the real unity of America lies. " 
• In 1954, Eisenhower signed into law (on Flag Day) the bill which added "under God" immediately following the words "one nation".  The site usflag.org states: "Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, 'In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.' " The Pledge of Allegiance is properly written and spoken as "...one nation under God, indivisible..." (which is the five-word phrase left out the second time in NBC's montage).
• The phrase "under God" was taken from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. (Though some written versions of Lincoln's speech at the dedication of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg, PA do not include the phrase, the phrase is included in the last sentence of the only copy Lincoln is known to have personally signed.)
• I could find very little (see "Limits on Pledge of Allegiance") about a case involving a San Diego CA school district where a teacher sent a student to the office for failing to participate in the daily routine of standing and chorally reciting the Pledge of Allegiance one spring morning in 1998. Brief unsourced sentences similar to the site above, reprinted several places, echo the resolution given in "Limits...". A search of ACLU's website for the phrase "Pledge of Allegiance" indicates that the ACLU has been involved in several incidents related to the pledge, but nothing specific about the 1998 suit.
• Dr. Pepper (and later Pepsi and Coke) faced accusations in late 2001/early 2002 of omitting "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, even though "more than 90% of the words (of the Pledge) were not included."
• In 2002 a federal appeals court ruled that the phrase "one nation under God" violated the separation of church and state. Dr. Michael Newdow filed the original suit on behalf of his elementary-aged daughter. A spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State was quoted in the article: '''They didn't strike down the Pledge of Allegiance. All they said is Congress made a mistake when they added God to the pledge.''
• In 2004, SCOTUS reversed the appellate decision, based on the fact that Newdow did not have "right to sue as next friend" (Dr. Newdow possessed no legal standing, even though he had at times been given joint physical custody of his daughter.)
• In 2010 the same federal appeals court in San Francisco who had ruled the phrase "one nation under God" to be unconstitutional ruled against a group led by Dr. Newdow. The court found recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to be patriotic, not religious.
• Florida's state law regarding student participation in the patriotic exercise of the Pledge of Allegiance was partially discounted by a circuit court ruling: students must be allowed to sit if they choose. Many local districts amended their policies to reflect the ruling. Also, see embedded memo here.  
• Illinois 2010: a debate moderator from the League of Women Voters was "forced" to say the pledge at a political debate. One week later: Pledge 2, League of Women Voters 0.
• In June 2011 Dr. Newdow (as "Freedom from Religion Foundation") again faced SCOTUS in appeal of an appellate court ruling. New Hampshire schools require time be set aside daily for students to "voluntarily recite the Pledge (of Allegiance). Dr. Newdow and another family filed suit, and appealed decisions, based on their beliefs that "atheists are the nation's 'most disenfranchised religious minority' and were deserving of the high court's protection." SCOTUS declined without comment as the appellate court had declared unanimously "The New Hampshire School Patriot Act's primary effect is not the advancement of religion, but the advancement of patriotism through a pledge to the flag as a symbol of the nation." 
• State law requires at least some students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in as many as 7 states (though students/parents may opt out in each of these states except DE and KS).This site offers similar information in text format.

 In closing, I offer this from Red Skelton, who explained the Pledge of Allegiance in the words of one of his teachers from elementary school. As the video concludes, he makes these statements: "Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our nation, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance   "under God.  " Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said,  "That's a prayer  " and that would be eliminated from schools, too?  " 

Yes, Mr. Skelton, it would indeed.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Tennessee Senate Bill 49: "Don't Say Gay" means "Don't Teach Abstinence"?

Pat Dollard brought this story to my attention earlier today. His story included a link to an identical post at azcentral.com (the story had an Associated Press byline). A Democratic state senator is mentioned as criticizing the bill for its potential to "prevent  the teaching of ethics, morality and abstinence". I wanted to know how that could be, but nowhere were there links to the particular bill in question or to the current Tennessee state law. That isn't meant to disparage the original author, or those who reposted the story. I just like knowing as much as possible about such topics. So I did a little investigating. It started with a careful reread of the story. Here are some key excerpts.

Opponents deride the measure as the "don't say gay bill." They say it's unfair to the children of gay parents and could lead to more bullying. Supporters say it is intended to give teachers clear guidance for dealing with younger children on a potentially explosive topic.

Under the proposal, any instruction or materials at a public elementary or middle school would be limited to age-appropriate lessons about the science of human reproduction.
The legislation was amended from the original version, which said no elementary or middle schools will "provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality." Republican Senate sponsor Stacey Campfield of Knoxville said some of his colleagues were uncomfortable with that language.

However, a critic said the new wording could create other problems. Sen. Roy Herron, D- Dresden, said it "may inadvertently prevent the teaching of ethics, morality and abstinence."

 

It is true that our actions can have unintended consequences. Is that the case here? Could a bill (intended for a state law) intended to "ban teaching of homosexuality" prevent any educational materials from being presented about sex to children in grades K - 8?

The bill in question (Tennessee SB 0049, crossfiled with Tennessee HB0229) was first proposed as this:

SENATE BILL 49

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49,

Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to education.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-6-1005, is amended by adding the following as new subsection (c) and by relettering the existing subsection (c) accordingly:

(c)

(1) The general assembly recognizes the sensitivity of particular subjects that are best explained and discussed in the home. Human sexuality is a complex subject with societal, scientific, psychological, and historical implications; those implications are best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp their complexity.

(2) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

Bill Summary

ON MAY 20, 2011, THE SENATE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #5 AND PASSED SENATE BILL 49, AS AMENDED.
AMENDMENT #5 rewrites the bill and requires that any instruction or materials made available or provided at or to a public elementary or middle school must be limited exclusively to natural human reproduction science. This requirement will also apply to a group or organization that provides instruction in natural human reproduction science in public elementary or middle schools.

Both the original bill and the amendment seem to have as a goal that public elementary or middle schools (K-8 is the typical range for those schools) would only be able to teach "natural human reproductive science." I am not sure I see the distinction that Mr. Campfield's colleagues noticed; after all, as he states in the original story, is not the only natural human reproduction accomplished in heterosexual relationships? The headline on the original stories seems to be true: the bill would "ban teaching of homosexuality"-- in K-8 schools in Tennessee. Notice that the language of the bill, and its amendments, don't deny the existence of homosexual relationships. The bill just prevents teachers and others who "provide instruction" in K-8 classrooms from acknowledging the existence of those relationships as part of the curriculum and the all-powerful teacher/student information conduit.

How does this compare to current Tennessee law? The 2010 Tennessee Code, Title 49 Education says this:

49-6-1005. Sex education.

(a)  It is unlawful for any person in any manner to teach courses in sex education pertaining to homo sapiens in the public, elementary, junior high or high schools in this state unless the courses are approved by the state board of education and the local school board involved, and taught by qualified instructors as determined by the local school board involved. Any such course in sex education shall, in addition to teaching facts concerning human reproduction, hygiene and health concerns, include presentations encouraging abstinence from sexual intercourse during the teen and pre-teen years. With respect to sex education courses otherwise offered in accordance with the requirements of this subsection (a), no instructor shall be construed to be in violation of this section for answering in good faith any question, or series of questions, germane and material to the course, asked of the instructor and initiated by a student or students enrolled in the course.
(b)  This section shall not apply to general high school courses in biology, physiology, health, physical education or home economics taught to classes.
(c)  A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

[Acts 1969, ch. 304, §§ 1, 2; T.C.A., § 49-1924; Acts 1987, ch. 388, § 1; 1987, ch. 427, § 1; 1989, ch. 591, § 113.]    emphasis mine

Let's look at the current law. Courses in sex education have to be approved (by the state and by the local school board; TN recognizes the need for local input and control), taught by qualified instructors, and must include presentations including abstinence. When combined with the amended bill, what I see is that courses in sex education taught in K-8 classrooms in Tennessee must:

• be approved by the state and by the local school board;
• be taught by qualified instructors;
• include presentations including abstinence; and
• be limited exclusively to natural human reproduction science.

Additionally, any materials used in K-8 schools must follow that same limitation of natural human reproductive science. Perhaps this is where the "don't say gay" moniker originated. If the only "kinds of families" discussed in K-8 classrooms are those of heterosexual parents (married or not), then the LGBT community will not have representation in the curriculum of Tennessee classrooms. To be noted is:

Stephen Smith, assistant commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Education, (who) also said he's unaware of homosexuality being taught anywhere in the state. He said there is nothing in the state's curriculum standards that allows students to be taught about homosexuality.

Regardless of the intentions of the bill, the criticism remains that teachers may be prevented from instructing their student in "ethics, morality and abstinence." Amendment 5 does not address abstinence, and neither abstinence nor the words ethics or morality were included in the original bill text. The bill as written is a new subsection (c); sections (a) and (b) would not be altered. The only way that these topics could conceivably be "prevented" by SB0049/HB0229 is if these ideas--ethics, morality and abstinence--are somehow not considered natural. That is clearly not the case. As Tennessee current state law requires abstinence to be taught, there is no reason to suppose that SB0049/HB0229 would change the law to prevent such teaching. Amendment 5 reads this way:

Comments on others' blogs

I love making comments on blog posts, or on articles posted at various sites around the internet. I post comments on "the BIGs"--Big Hollywood, Big Journalism, and BreitbartTV mostly. I check out other sites now and then: http://www.chrisisright.net/ and http://www.therightscoop.com/, plus FOX, MSNBC; mostly, what I view is conservative, religious, and / or sites that are disparaging the conservative or religious viewpoints I hold dear. One recent example was the "wonkette" fiasco and the subsequent takedown by #TrigsCrew. I would not have visited that site without learning of the atrocities posted there. The advertisers who dropped wonkette as a client need not fear loss of revenue; I never saw their ads before, and am more likely to support those advertisers now than ever.

I once posted a comment on a blog authored by a person I "knew" only from viewing tweets on Twitter. I am not sure that I ever interacted with the author other than through the comments on this blog, though it is possible that I did so and have forgotten. The author of the blog made a statement about a friend,  questioning if my friend was a journalist and perhaps implying that my friend had not written for the Associated Press. My comment was polite and thoughtful, and offered evidence refuting the blog's content. The comment did not remain viewable for long, and eventually the post itself was deleted.

I decided to post my comment here, because I thought it a nice example of persuasive writing (if I do say so myself) and I wanted it to be available for anyone who might want to read it. This comment was posted on or about November 19, 2010. It is given in its entirety, in italics. The only edits I have done to post it here are to

• activate the links and
• place the entire comment in a different color.

The "quotation" you offer: Updated: November 18, 2010

"If she doesn't take down that blog entry, she will be sued for libel. I have a lawyer and I can prove that I worked for the AP as a staff member for 4 years, and I will absolutely sue her."

is almost entirely NOT what I personally posted to the original version of your blog on November 17, 2010, at approximately 2:18 PM EST.

However, that's not today's topic. Today I'd like to discuss "freelance writer" not 'journalist'. If you would like to agree that working for the Associated Press (www.ap.org) and publishing written work on a variety of topics, in a variety of publications, over a period of time, qualifies one as a 'journalist', then we will be in agreement.

Here are some additional "sources" for you. Each identifies Heidi Russell in the byline along with her employer "Associated Press." Several different publications, variety of topics, period of time: these sources demonstrate that Heidi Russell, now Heidi Russell Rafferty, meets those qualifications.

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/aug/13/business/fi-12715

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/oct/04/news/mn-29119

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-19555592.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-19726177.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-19533951.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23419119.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19960925/ai_n10094333/?tag=content;col1

I suppose that once one no longer works for AP, one might do freelance writing. That does not disqualify the person as a journalist.

MerriamWebster.com offers this definition of JOURNALIST

1a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium 1b : a writer who aims at a mass audience

Gee, I guess any of us with works published in "news medium" or a substantial number of followers as a "mass audience" on Twitter qualify as journalists.

Can I prove 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that the journalist Heidi who aims at a mass audience on Twitter and at http://christiansafehouse.blogspot.com/ is the same journalist Heidi who wrote all those AP articles? Of course I cannot.

I'm not Heidi. If you'd like to meet me, come find me @bteacher99 on Twitter.

I will close with this:

As I said, I cannot prove that these articles belong to my friend. However, she says (in many places) that she once wrote for AP, and I believe her. She has earned my trust, and I have faith in her. Do I know all the words and ideas that Heidi has exchanged with you or anyone in the "BratPack"? Of course not; remember, I'm not Heidi. I'm her friend. I have faith in her, and I believe absolutely that she is who she claims to be.

This will be crossposted to @bteacher99's twitter feed about 15 minutes from now. Hopefully that will provide any readers with some proof of my identity.

I have a screenshot available of the posting I made to the original blog. I have covered in black part of the url where the blog was posted, part of the name of the blogpost and the nickname of the author. I do not wish to cause trouble for the author of the post to which I responded. I just wanted to be certain that evidence of my original comment was available for any who would wish to read it.

The Best Kids in the World (or at least my corner of it)

Public (and private) schools around the world often have students from a variety of cultures and countries. In the USA, the dominant nationality in those schools would be "American"--students born with all the rights and responsibilities of a US passport holder and resident. In Germany, I imagine the dominant nationality would be...German. "International schools" are the exception, and I teach in such a school. We have well over 200 students who hold passports for more than 40 different countries. We have students from every continent except Antarctica. (Someday, maybe :)  )

Tonight was the night of the long-awaited Modern Classics concert. Except for a 6th grader who played a Bach prelude to open the evening, the entire performance belonged to the 18-member concert band. They played six pieces, from grade 2.5 to 4. (If you direct an amateur band or orchestra, those numbers have meaning for you.)

Membership in the concert band begins at grade 8. Tonight's band featured kids from the USA, Pakistan, South Korea, and our host country. Because our school has limited space, concert band is an after-school activity rather than a course for a grade. With sports teams, a spring drama, a choir, and several other after-school options, the concert band is limited to one 90-minute practice per week. There are only four seniors in the band. Musical instruments here are tremendously expensive; a "beginner" flute is about double the price one pays in the US, and renting an instrument is unheard of here. The school owns a few instruments, but many concert band members must share (everything except mouthpieces) with the 7th grade beginner band. Practice schedules are fun.

Many of our students are here for just a few years. Their parents have jobs with one of the giant aerospace companies, or have been sent by a government as diplomats and staff (with families) for a brief stint. Other students will probably be here until they graduate. Perhaps their parents teach at our school (1st trumpet, 2nd trombone and 2nd clarinet). Perhaps they were born to a family of hyphenated citizenship (1st baritone, the FIRST ever student from this country to be accepted into the AMIS International Honor Band). Perhaps their families have invested years living in this country to bring hope to a barren land.

Our school doesn't have a swimming pool. We don't have an auditorium for concerts, or a gym for basketball practice. We have hot lunches delivered every day (including McDonald's once every two weeks) and we just this week got our first lettermen jackets and official school t-shirts. Our teachers are qualified teachers who love to teach and who genuinely care about their students.

The reality is, though, that our students--the concert band kids, the drama kids, the soccer stars, the juggling-club kids, and the 4-year-olds who took a field trip to the dentist today--our students are the best kids in the world. They are from all over the world, will leave us to live all over the world, and if statistics are true, will probably spend some part of their adult lives in residence far away from their home countries. The best part of a school with the best kids in the world is that "home" for these kids is whatever place they are right now. No one's country is better than another's; no one fights with a classmate because their nations' armies can't get along. English is our common language (which the teachers appreciate) and the kids use it faithfully to communicate: in class, at lunch, and for hours each evening on Facebook.

A concert band is a collection of individuals, each playing an instrument. The rhythms are usually different from section to section. Percussion notation is very different from the melodies played on flute; the also sax music is transcribed in a different key from the music played on trombone. Once everyone is seated, the conductor raises the baton, and it all fits together. Some whole notes, played fortissimo; some staccato drum beats; a boom from the gong and a fanfare from the trumpets.

The best kids in the world are just like that. Some stay with us for years, resonating in our hearts. Others have our attention for just a short time before they fade away into memory. Together, they fill our school with laughter and learning and life. These kids may make the world a better place someday, and I'm thankful to be part of the audience.

Message or messenger? (aka "The Attack of the Killer Comment")

Within a half-hour's time, I received two different links in my Twitter timeline. One dealt particularly with the concept of Creation vs. Evolution as it appears in a US state's public-school curriculum. The other offered a rather science-intensive look at a possible flaw in "Neo-Darwinism". The juxtaposition of the two ideas intrigued me, and I began to contemplate a blog post on the subject.

I wasn't sure which direction to take: simply reporting on the information, discussing the concepts of creationism and evolution in school classrooms, the science of creationism. I remembered a tweet  I had favorited a few days ago about legislation involving the teaching of evolution in US public schools:

9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom

Then I read the comments on the that article. I knew after reading just a few comments that I had my blog post.

First, to summarize the article in my own words:

Even though our country has money troubles, it's the perfect time to force schools to teach creationism. Texas, Kentucky, Florida, New Mexico, and Missouri each had a bill presented this year (2011); Tennessee and Oklahoma had two. Some of these pieces of legislation passed; others died in committee. Speaking of the bills in process in Tennessee, Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education states: (this legislation will) "allow teachers to bring this culture war into the classroom in a way that is going to leave students very confused about what science is and isn't."

If you have not yet heard of the "National Center for Science Education", it is a "not for profit" 501(c)(3) organization with a ".com" internet prefix. Organized in 1981, it boasts 4,000 members "with diverse religious affliations." In the "disclaimer" section, the mission is stated: NCSE is "devoted to promoting and enhancing the teaching of science, especially the evolutionary sciences, in K-12 public schools." (emphasis mine)

This post is not intended to be about the NCSE; I offer that information simply as a means of explaining the position taken by the author of the "9 Bills" post. The tone of the article, from the opening lede to Steven Newton's quote, indicates nothing but contempt for the idea of creationism. As I read the comments, I realized that the intended audience was expected to agree with that contempt.
There was very little clear, factual explanation of the theory of evolution and its educational value. (Kudos to the few commenters who tried.) There were a few "anti-evolution creationists" who tried to offer clear, factual explanations of their ideas. However, the overwhelming use of comment space was personal attack of those creationists. Appeal to Ridicule, mis-direction, ad hominem attacks abound. Why?


As the article is a few days old, I don't expect that my comment at the MotherJones site will be read by those who frequent the site, so I've reproduced the comment here. I replied to a comment that began with this sentence:

If you wish to understand why the cliche of "Dumb Americans" gets kicked about so much over here in Europe.... look no further than this article.

From bteacher99: Having lived outside of the US for several years, I can assure you that "dumb Americans" has less to do with the beliefs of Creationists and more to do with the behavior of American tourists and expats who give every impression that what they want is the most important concern, and that the only thing worth thinking about is the latest claptrap on TV or the web.

Any Creationist who dared to comment on this thread was immediately shot down with "facts" accompanied by insults. Are some of you unable to have a coherent conversation with someone that disagrees with you without calling names like kids on the playground? That's not the impression you are leaving for the reader.

If this is such a serious and important issue to you, shouldn't you be about the business of converting the opposition with reasoned arguments and replies? There is some of that, to be fair, but what I saw more than anything is appeal to ridicule, and perhaps some personal attack. So what if I disagree with you? Does that mean you should explain your views step by step, or just take the easy road claim those with whom you disagree are uneducated, "special", "dumb" or perhaps even in need of re-education.

Creation or evolution? Anti-creation and anti-evolution? The original topic, a very important discussion in today's America, is lost (at least in this comment stream) in the flood of an attack. This flood, I suspect, will last much longer than did the flood in Noah's day. A note of caution to those who wish to defend their faith, regardless of Who or what is the recipient of that faith: if you disagree with the message, don't shoot the messenger. Your readers will appreciate it, and you may actually accomplish what you set out to do: share your ideas with others.

How would you know?

I was working late the other day. The boss was still in the office. The nature of our jobs sometimes requires that. The particular place where we work requires something else of us as well: he and I are both believers. We are Christians. We chose to become Christians long before we took our respective jobs here, but we would not have chosen this location in which to work if we had not already chosen to follow Christ.



My boss had collected his briefcase, coat, and the remains of his lunch. I heard him say, "Good night, see you tomorrow" or something equally innocuous. I realized that it was nearly dark outside and that the workday should have ended more than an hour ago. I busied myself with collecting papers, shutting down the computer, and exiting my office. As I locked my office door, I noticed the boss's office was still open. As I walked through the lobby, I saw that his coat, briefcase and lunch were sitting on the desk. The light was on. The boss was nowhere to be found.



It had been a few minutes since his goodbye, but I presumed he had stepped into the restroom before his brief walk home. I collected my lunch from the office fridge, signed out, and put on my coat, rather more slowly than normal. The boss was simply not in the office, but neither had he left for home.



As I exited the front gate of the campus, I thought, "Heh. Maybe the rapture happened."
(Briefly: I Thessalonians 4:16 - 17 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. The rapture is the time when Christians--those who are saved by the grace of Christ's death on the cross--are taken from the earth to live forever in heaven. The time when this will happen is not known, nor is the timing known: what must happen first. One thing that will take place: wars and rumors of wars.)



As I mentioned in the beginning, I am a Christian. If the rapture had actually happened, I would not have been Left Behind. I wasn't really worried...then a much more sobering thought occurred to me.



How would I know?



I live in a part of the world where the Muslim call to prayer sounds five times each day. The number of Christian churches in this part of the world are numbered in the single-digits per major city (if one is even available for local citizens).  In some lands, Christians can choose to be identified as such on their government identification, and officially should fear no reprisal. The reality is, though, that Christians who are natives of this region often keep their faith from their family and friends for a little while. If those closest to them do not know of their faith, how likely is it that I will know, as I see them only at the grocery store or on the bus to the mall?



Had the Christians in this region...in my city...suddenly been "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air", the effect on daily life would have been minimal. A wife missing from this building; a husband missing from the office; perhaps an entire family might be gone here and there. Governments would still have their personnel in place. Stores could still open; transportation would run without a hitch. Teachers would be in their classrooms to greet the children that arrived that morning. What would those teachers tell the children about the disappearances?



Never figured out where the boss went that day, but the feelings remain a week later: feelings of despair—so few believers here in this region of the world; feelings of hope—that while the time grows short, time still remains; feelings of longing—how would they know, unless someone tells them?

Who is the bully? Who is the victim?

On March 14, a video link appeared in my Twitter feed with an appeal to teachers and school administrators to explain their response to the video. A few versions have been pulled from YouTube already, but this link seems stable.


The words are often difficult to understand, but the premise is this. Small boy insults bigger boy, takes a few swings, and waits for something to happen. Someone was obviously prepared to film the incident. I am not sure, though, that anyone was prepared for what the bigger boy chose to do.


The bigger boy has been publically identified as "Casey" (you can find his last name if you search diligently). Casey is a Year 10 (US grade 9) student at Chifley College Dunheved Campus in New South Wales. The smaller boy is a Year 7 (US grade 6) student. According to a friend of Casey's who is quoted in the Daily Telegraph, the two boys do not attend the same school.


Casey's father stated that Casey "had been the victim of bullying for several years and feared for his safety if he spoke about the fight." Both Casey and the smaller boy have been suspended (for four days, with long-term suspension or even expulsion mentioned as a possibility).  A spokesperson for the NSW Department of Education and Training said that "the only injury sustained was a grazed knee."


Who is the bully? Who is the victim?


The Student Information Handbook (page 10) for Chifley College (as part of the NSW government school/preschool system) states that there are eight "behaviours (that) are not acceptable at school. They are stated here so that there can be no misunderstandings about what is expected as appropriate behaviour at school." Those eight behaviors are:

Fighting	Vandalism	Retaliation	Violence
Bullying	Racism	Harassment	Stealing

Drugs, weapons, items used as weapons, and replicas of weapons are also forbidden.


How many of these eight actions occurred during the brief video? I observed five. Of these, bullying is the most obvious, and most important.


Bullying is defined by Chifley as "intentional, repeated behaviour by an individual or group of individuals that causes distress, hurt or undue pressure." The smaller boy definitely bullied Casey. The smaller boy  did harass--(1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct his schoolmate Casey. Casey is a victim.


A question that was voiced repeatedly is, "Where are the teachers/administrators/adults?" That is a question I cannot answer. Teachers and administration should be in the hallways monitoring students during class changes, at lunch, and before/after school. Sheer numbers, though, dictate that students will be able to find places that adults are not. If adult supervision always occurs at set times and places and does not occur elsewhere on campus, trouble will arise in those unsupervised areas.


I know this because I am a school administrator for a private international school in Asia. My school is a little smaller than Chifley's 364 students, but like Chifley we serve a diverse student body. Chifley is home to students from 15 different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. As a public school, designed to meet a specific need (it "supports the Dharug language revitalisation program") it still has a 25% annual turnover in students. That is a mobile, often-changing student body, just like what is found at my school. It takes a great deal of work to help students from so many different regions and languages form one cohesive "family." As an administrator, and teacher, there are several observations that I can make about this particular situation, based on the video.

1. The incident was planned: no teachers were present, a student had a camera (or camera phone) on and ready, and supportive friends were near for the bully's routine.
2. Chifley asks that students "actively work together to resolve incidents of bullying behaviour when they occur." The female student who stops the second, potential bully from interacting with Casey acted just as her school would ask.
3. The cameraman and the potential bully should be punished. They did not act appropriately, but instead exacerbated the problem.
4. There were no weapons in sight. Therefore Casey was not yet in severe physical danger. (NOTE: responsible authority should investigate this incident thoroughly. It is possible that weapons or threats involving weapons were made at other times. I cannot determine that from this video.)
5. Casey, not in severe physical danger, reacted with excessive force. His actions were a brief moment of passion, but he could have brought serious harm to the smaller, younger boy who bullied him. 
6. The bully (and his friends) did not expect Casey to react as he did, giving evidence to Casey's father's claim that Casey is not a violent kid.
7. If the claims made in news articles and on Facebook are true, Chifley has a much bigger problem than two boys starring in a YouTube video.

The video caused some small debate among folks I know on Twitter. Many posited that Casey was an innocent victim and should not be punished. Some thought that "boys will be boys" and that the behavior, while unfortunate, was just not that significant.

I disagree with both those views. Casey is a victim, but he did use excessive (violent) force against a smaller, younger boy in retaliation for the action taken against him. The boys were fighting, even if the only injury was a scraped knee. According to Chifley's own guidelines, both boys acted improperly, and therefore should both face consequences.

As a schol administrator, I am often called upon to make decisions. Based solely on this video, was Casey bullied by the younger boy? Yes. Did Casey retaliate? Yes. Do the boys deserve consequences? Yes.

Do the two boys deserve the same consequences? No.

Here is what they do deserve. The teachers and administrators at Chifley College need to investigate on YouTube and on Facebook. They need to talk to students--privately and publically--to learn just what is happening on their campus. Casey is a victim, but so are the other students at Chifley, if they are indeed attending a school with an atmosphere where students bully and mistreat students. Staff and administration need to be doubly vigilant to monitor hallways and gathering places, particularly when the boys involved return to school. Perhaps trusted parent volunteers can help with this.


I hope that the investigation brings needed changes to Chifley. I hope that Casey is not faced with another situation like the one in the video. I hope that the younger, smaller boy who has been bullying others will be counseled by a mentor who can teach him how to treat others with respect. I also hope that other schools who hear about the problem Chifley is facing will consider their own student community. Could such a thing happen at any school? Of course. How we handle the situation as adults will have a lasting impact on the lives of our students. We cannot wait until something goes wrong to make our choices. Else, like Casey, we may react passionately, but inappropriately.