Having been a mechanic in an ideal setting with the Air National Guard for 20 years, I know the value of sharing your thoughts, working with partners, and having that constant feedback. My current boss there is fond of saying, “it never hurts to get a second pair of eyes on something.” The availability of a second opinion does wonders for your confidence, growth and learning curve. When it comes to a safety issue like brakes or steering, a second opinion should be required.
Having spent the last month and a half as a mechanic at a commercial dealership with a very similarly effective atmosphere, I wonder how typical that is. I know that in many dealerships where flat rate is the norm, a mechanic is almost encouraged to look out for himself, perhaps even at the expense of the dealership, the other mechanics, and the customer. I was thinking about this on the way home from work the other night. I was thinking how lucky I was to have learned what I have as a mechanic in a far more nurturing, tolerable, even fun environment.
For some reason this got me thinking about my most recent job interview where I got this same feeling from my future co-workers. It’s one of the things that impressed me about the position. What I thought most about was how being a teacher had prepared me for every situation they asked about in their “performance based interview.” Every situation they asked me to relate to them led to a time in a classroom or an extracurricular activity. Management decisions were made. Budgets were balanced. Funds were raised. Tough choices, difficult customers or colleagues... you name it, I dealt with it as a teacher. But what really stood out among this new position, my positions as a mechanic and what separated them from teaching was the availability of that second opinion – some informed feedback.
This, for me, is what explained the constant stress I felt, even in the summer, as a teacher. I mentioned previously that on the weekend before my first day as an official mechanic, I felt like a weight had been lifted off of me. Instead of the routine Sunday night dread that used to set in, I was actually excited about going to work. It has remained that way for six weeks now. At first I thought this was because I just didn’t care about my job, but I do care about it. It may not be what I intend to do for the rest of my life, but I enjoy it, want to do well at it, respect my bosses and co-workers and just plain do care. Our customers could get hurt if I didn’t. And I enjoy seeing them get excited about what we do for them. Our products help people retain their independence and mobility. It’s a good feeling and I do care about it.
Then I thought the stress was gone because I’d only been doing the job for 6 weeks, but the guys I work with have all been there at least six years, some for 26 years. They don’t seem to show the signs of the kind of stress I felt as a teacher. So I felt like I’d really zeroed in on why teaching took so much out of me. When I first started teaching, I thought this stress came with the job simply because it was the first job I really cared about enough to be stressed. I figured it was the same way for everybody who had a job they cared about. I thought it was just part of the deal of “getting a haircut and getting a real job” if you will. But now I’m starting to question that. I mean, after a week at my current job I began questioning whether I’d ever go back to the stress of teaching for the money it paid when I could make that same money without the stress. I wondered if any other teachers knew that was possible. It’s not like teaching was going to send my kids to Harvard any more than being a mechanic would. I began to seriously question whether it was worth it to live under that pressure and I used to constantly wonder what was wrong with me that I couldn’t manage it better. After all, I used to think, everyone feels stress at work, right? I should just suck it up and deal with it.
But between the interview, my current job, and these strange thoughts that pop into my head during the evening commute, I’ve realized it’s that stress of not knowing how you’re doing that is so inherent to teaching. That’s what eats teachers up. Not having another adult around to run something by. Not having some informed feedback. Always having to guess whether or not this will work and then only hearing about it when it doesn’t. That’s the weight I felt being lifted. I now work with adults who tell me if I’m screwing up before it becomes an issue. In fact, I’ve been luckier than just that. I’ve worked with adults who actually take the time to help me out, who don’t mind if I ask lots of questions, and who kind of expect that it will work like that because that’s the kind of team we try to make it.
I’d experienced this in the guard for so long I suppose I took it for granted. It never occurred to me that work should be like this outside of the guard. Until that interview and a subsequent drive home from work one night, it never occurred to me just how opposed to this concept teaching can be. One adult is alone during the planning stage, during the execution stage and during the evaluation and revisions stage. The only real time feedback comes from teenagers who don’t want to be there in the first place and so it is almost exclusively negative no matter how well planned, creative or innovative the project. Sure, you hear from a principal once or twice a year during formal evaluation times in order to see if your contract will be renewed, but even that provides little in the way of useful input. Evaluations are kind of like extreme sports – there’s no in between, no margin of error. You’re either successful and you live, or you’re unsuccessful and you die.
Where I work now, I can always get someone to take a look at what I’m doing, ask about a better way to solve a problem, or ask if they’ve ever done this before. As a teacher, you can never leave a classroom full of kids to do that. You can never go across the hall and say, “hey Jim, can you abandon your class to come over and watch me teach this unit on revising for clarification and tell me what you think... it should only take three days for me to present all of the material.” One of the reasons I’m so excited about my new job is that this is the very impression they gave me about it. Collaboration is how they do their work. It’s expected. As a teacher not only was that not expected, it was nearly impossible.
Now don’t take this the wrong way – I loved teaching. I just can’t get over the weight of that stress and how little of it I feel now. I guess I just assumed that it worked that way for everyone. I thought it must just be part of growing up. Whenever I’d think about that expression, “find a job you love and you’ll never work a day in your life,” I figured it was just more idealistic crap that could never really happen, but I’m starting to change my mind now.
Between realizing that one’s job is not necessarily one’s identity and this startling realization about different kinds of stress, I’m starting to think maybe that adage is true... or at least that there is some truth to it. There are certainly different kinds of stress in the world. Getting used to weekly rocket attacks is one kind. (turned out to be easier than I ever thought) Doing hard, physical labor is another. Having no adult interaction in a job that you feel really should have some is one that snuck up on me and became heavier than I ever realized until now.
I guess what I’m really trying to say is, be nice to your kids’ teachers. You may be the first adult they’ve been able to talk to in a while. Start with acknowledging that 90% of what they do is probably pretty good, then go into the one thing that bothered you enough to take the time to approach them. (cuz you know that's the only reason you've bothered approaching them)
OK, enough preaching for now. I’ve got a week off before the new job starts and I’ve got at least 6 weeks worth of projects planned for that week. Can you tell I'm stalling?
Later dudes.
Luth
Monday, May 21, 2007
Monday, May 07, 2007
Hi Kendra
At guard duty this weekend, I was informed that a friend's wife informed him that I got a new job. She'd read it here in this very forum. (thanks for reading, Kendra) So I figured I'd better update those of you keeping score. I got another new job.
What's really fun about the whole thing is, while I was telling my wife how fun my semi-old job was, what with the no homework, no grad classes, no plans to write, about 3% of the stress and all for about the same money, she'd say, "yeah, but you're still going to apply for teaching jobs, right?"
In the short run I thought Hell No! Not for a while anyway. It was a futile effort anyway. Besides, why would anyone in their right mind go back to that punishment for that money. But in the long run, I suspected I would if only because it was where my training and experience led me. (that sense of obligation and pride in the service I provided faded much more quickly than I would have guessed - apparently the zen thing about not "being" your job works in many ways)
So where was I? Oh yeah, another job. It's one that came about largely because of my education and experience, but it's with a federal agency instead of a school district. The federal agency, oddly enough, felt that my education and experience were worth about twice what public schools thought. My future co-workers interviewed me and they and the description of their mission got me even more excited about this opportunity. Not only will the work be challenging, suited to my strengths, but it will also fill the public service hole I know is developing as I ponder retiring from the Air National Guard. At this job, I can do the public service and make a living helping serve fellow veterans all while I'm at work. I'll no longer have to give up weekends to fill that requirement!
After the interview I convinced myself it was all too good to be true and that the rejection letter would soon follow. I'd been through this before. I told myself the worst case scenario would be that I continue to enjoy my current job, friendly co-workers, and little money. Then I'd eventually head back to grad school for my principal license and wander back into a school somewhere where I could then weasel my way back into a classroom. I could handle it. I'd been doing it for years. Then they called back in two days to offer me the spot.
My first week as a mechanic at the begining of April was like a re-birth. Rather than dread what lay waiting for me, I was excited about going to work on Monday mornings for the first time in about 10 years. I truly felt like a weight had been lifted from my shoulders. I enjoyed helping out at my daughter's soccer practice rather than worrying about the work I had waiting for me when we got home at 8. I tackled more of the Spring cleaning and yard work even after doing physical work all day than I've had the energy for in a long time. It was great even if I knew it wouldn't satisfy me forever. Then they called back to offer me the spot. I've been floating ever since. April was great. May is looking even better.
My wife doesn't ask if I'll apply for teaching jobs anymore.
In addition to this happy news, we closed on the old house and got the check in the mail. I sold my old mower on ebay and got the check in the mail. My buddy Bob found a tractor to replace the mower for a lot less than I was prepared to spend on a new one. My oldest daughter's soccer team remains undefeated and the youngest has scored her second goal this season (after six scoreless SEASONS!) And even my wife seems a little more cheerful.
For a while I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. Then I remembered that sort of attitude can be a self fulfilling prophecy, and that perhaps the last ten years had been the other shoe. It was time for this one.
So I start the new job around Memorial Day. That'll give me some time to make my current co-workers, whom I will truly miss, hate me so the goodbye won't be so difficult. If anyone out there is looking for a job as a mechanic/fabricator/installer in a very friendly, laid back, teamwork environment for very decent pay (in that field), let me know. It's really a great place to work in a rapidly expanding but thoroughly established business. In fact, I turned down a comparable position with the FBI (another government agency) because I liked it there so much. The pay and bennies were actually pretty close.
OK, I must get some sleep tonight. I've been so energized for the past month that I've kind of been avoiding sleep, but I know that will catch up with me soon.
Tell the folks I said hello. I'll type at ya'll later.
Luth.
What's really fun about the whole thing is, while I was telling my wife how fun my semi-old job was, what with the no homework, no grad classes, no plans to write, about 3% of the stress and all for about the same money, she'd say, "yeah, but you're still going to apply for teaching jobs, right?"
In the short run I thought Hell No! Not for a while anyway. It was a futile effort anyway. Besides, why would anyone in their right mind go back to that punishment for that money. But in the long run, I suspected I would if only because it was where my training and experience led me. (that sense of obligation and pride in the service I provided faded much more quickly than I would have guessed - apparently the zen thing about not "being" your job works in many ways)
So where was I? Oh yeah, another job. It's one that came about largely because of my education and experience, but it's with a federal agency instead of a school district. The federal agency, oddly enough, felt that my education and experience were worth about twice what public schools thought. My future co-workers interviewed me and they and the description of their mission got me even more excited about this opportunity. Not only will the work be challenging, suited to my strengths, but it will also fill the public service hole I know is developing as I ponder retiring from the Air National Guard. At this job, I can do the public service and make a living helping serve fellow veterans all while I'm at work. I'll no longer have to give up weekends to fill that requirement!
After the interview I convinced myself it was all too good to be true and that the rejection letter would soon follow. I'd been through this before. I told myself the worst case scenario would be that I continue to enjoy my current job, friendly co-workers, and little money. Then I'd eventually head back to grad school for my principal license and wander back into a school somewhere where I could then weasel my way back into a classroom. I could handle it. I'd been doing it for years. Then they called back in two days to offer me the spot.
My first week as a mechanic at the begining of April was like a re-birth. Rather than dread what lay waiting for me, I was excited about going to work on Monday mornings for the first time in about 10 years. I truly felt like a weight had been lifted from my shoulders. I enjoyed helping out at my daughter's soccer practice rather than worrying about the work I had waiting for me when we got home at 8. I tackled more of the Spring cleaning and yard work even after doing physical work all day than I've had the energy for in a long time. It was great even if I knew it wouldn't satisfy me forever. Then they called back to offer me the spot. I've been floating ever since. April was great. May is looking even better.
My wife doesn't ask if I'll apply for teaching jobs anymore.
In addition to this happy news, we closed on the old house and got the check in the mail. I sold my old mower on ebay and got the check in the mail. My buddy Bob found a tractor to replace the mower for a lot less than I was prepared to spend on a new one. My oldest daughter's soccer team remains undefeated and the youngest has scored her second goal this season (after six scoreless SEASONS!) And even my wife seems a little more cheerful.
For a while I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. Then I remembered that sort of attitude can be a self fulfilling prophecy, and that perhaps the last ten years had been the other shoe. It was time for this one.
So I start the new job around Memorial Day. That'll give me some time to make my current co-workers, whom I will truly miss, hate me so the goodbye won't be so difficult. If anyone out there is looking for a job as a mechanic/fabricator/installer in a very friendly, laid back, teamwork environment for very decent pay (in that field), let me know. It's really a great place to work in a rapidly expanding but thoroughly established business. In fact, I turned down a comparable position with the FBI (another government agency) because I liked it there so much. The pay and bennies were actually pretty close.
OK, I must get some sleep tonight. I've been so energized for the past month that I've kind of been avoiding sleep, but I know that will catch up with me soon.
Tell the folks I said hello. I'll type at ya'll later.
Luth.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Lessons in Diplomacy, Professor: Dick Cheney
Dick Cheney says Nancy Pelosi shouldn't be out playing the diplomat with foreign heads of state whom the Bush administration has cut off.
Maybe he's got a point. After all, when Clinton struck a multi-lateral, internationally recognized deal with North Korea, the Bush administration cut them off rather than touch anything with Clinton's name on it that may eventually become a peaceful, successful legacy. Kim Jong Il, then, desperate for any attention from the U.S. violated the terms of the internationally sanctioned deal he'd made, and proceeded with his nuclear ambition until Bush finally had no choice but to acknowledge North Korea's existence. Guess he showed them! I suppose our success with North Korea should have been a sign that Bush knew what he was doing, but my Republican friends tell me I'm not always quick to pick up signs of success like that.
Then there's the diplomacy Cheney himself has sown. I recall seeing pictures of Dick Cheney and Saddam Hussein back in the good old days when we armed the dictator who eventually became so dangerous we had to invade his country to stop him. Cheney the diplomat must've really straightened that guy out. His diplomatic efforts there were such that three years after the capture of Hussein, we still need to win this war in his country in order to... to uh... well, anyway, Cheney proved his diplomatic prowess there by ensuring we'd always be partners with the Iraqis.
Did you know, that as Secretary of Defense, Cheney sent the first U.S. troops to Somalia? And Colonel Buzz Patterson said that was all Clinton's fault! How about Noriega? Cheney always had his eyes on that guy. So during a coup aftermath, just short of civil war, Cheney's attention led us to invade that country too and bring back Manuel Noriega to face racketeering and drug charges in Miami. (We convicted the bastard, by the way, thus ending the influx of illegal narcotics to the U.S. and ending forever the "War on Drugs!") Cheney's diplomacy there, as you may recall, involved blaring rock music from loud speakers toward Noriega's hideout/mansion. The guy's a freaking genius! Then there's Bosnia... but that's an ugly civil war that resulted from a vacuum of leadership. Cheney was smart there - he didn't touch that one. Wanted the U.S. to just stay out of other nation's affairs. Well, that and he wasn't re-elected. Or should I say the puppet he mastered wasn't re-elected.
Speaking of pictures, there are a whole bunch of pictures with Cheney and various Saudi Arabian diplomats from the same time period. He must have made some great progress with those guys. After all, they kicked us out of the air base we built for them just prior to Operation Enduring Freedom. Now, keep in mind, the whole reason to build that air base was to maintain a stabilizing presence in the middle east while making friends and spreading democracy after Desert Storm. Protecting U.S. interests and all, y'know. Of course, having a base from which to stage operations in the area never hurt, but we'd only ever use that to spread peace (ie Operation Enduring Freedom). Anyhoo, the base thing didn't work out too well while we tried to spread peace prior to 2001, so we had to perform the rest of Operation Enduring Freedom from other countries where we hadn't been building air bases and spreading democracy. Now initially, I figured this might be the result of Cheney's efforts all going for naught, but then 15 or so Saudi Arabian nationals were directly involved in flying planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11, so I guess I just misunderstood Cheney's diplomatic intentions there in the first place. Most of my Republican friends point out this flaw in my judgement to me all the time anyway. I just don't understand how real diplomacy works.
So the point is, when Cheney tells Pelosi she should stop messing with U.S. diplomatic efforts by trying her own hand in the diplomatic arena, maybe he's right. After all, we wouldn't want her screwing up everything he's been able to accomplish.
Luth,
Out
Maybe he's got a point. After all, when Clinton struck a multi-lateral, internationally recognized deal with North Korea, the Bush administration cut them off rather than touch anything with Clinton's name on it that may eventually become a peaceful, successful legacy. Kim Jong Il, then, desperate for any attention from the U.S. violated the terms of the internationally sanctioned deal he'd made, and proceeded with his nuclear ambition until Bush finally had no choice but to acknowledge North Korea's existence. Guess he showed them! I suppose our success with North Korea should have been a sign that Bush knew what he was doing, but my Republican friends tell me I'm not always quick to pick up signs of success like that.
Then there's the diplomacy Cheney himself has sown. I recall seeing pictures of Dick Cheney and Saddam Hussein back in the good old days when we armed the dictator who eventually became so dangerous we had to invade his country to stop him. Cheney the diplomat must've really straightened that guy out. His diplomatic efforts there were such that three years after the capture of Hussein, we still need to win this war in his country in order to... to uh... well, anyway, Cheney proved his diplomatic prowess there by ensuring we'd always be partners with the Iraqis.
Did you know, that as Secretary of Defense, Cheney sent the first U.S. troops to Somalia? And Colonel Buzz Patterson said that was all Clinton's fault! How about Noriega? Cheney always had his eyes on that guy. So during a coup aftermath, just short of civil war, Cheney's attention led us to invade that country too and bring back Manuel Noriega to face racketeering and drug charges in Miami. (We convicted the bastard, by the way, thus ending the influx of illegal narcotics to the U.S. and ending forever the "War on Drugs!") Cheney's diplomacy there, as you may recall, involved blaring rock music from loud speakers toward Noriega's hideout/mansion. The guy's a freaking genius! Then there's Bosnia... but that's an ugly civil war that resulted from a vacuum of leadership. Cheney was smart there - he didn't touch that one. Wanted the U.S. to just stay out of other nation's affairs. Well, that and he wasn't re-elected. Or should I say the puppet he mastered wasn't re-elected.
Speaking of pictures, there are a whole bunch of pictures with Cheney and various Saudi Arabian diplomats from the same time period. He must have made some great progress with those guys. After all, they kicked us out of the air base we built for them just prior to Operation Enduring Freedom. Now, keep in mind, the whole reason to build that air base was to maintain a stabilizing presence in the middle east while making friends and spreading democracy after Desert Storm. Protecting U.S. interests and all, y'know. Of course, having a base from which to stage operations in the area never hurt, but we'd only ever use that to spread peace (ie Operation Enduring Freedom). Anyhoo, the base thing didn't work out too well while we tried to spread peace prior to 2001, so we had to perform the rest of Operation Enduring Freedom from other countries where we hadn't been building air bases and spreading democracy. Now initially, I figured this might be the result of Cheney's efforts all going for naught, but then 15 or so Saudi Arabian nationals were directly involved in flying planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11, so I guess I just misunderstood Cheney's diplomatic intentions there in the first place. Most of my Republican friends point out this flaw in my judgement to me all the time anyway. I just don't understand how real diplomacy works.
So the point is, when Cheney tells Pelosi she should stop messing with U.S. diplomatic efforts by trying her own hand in the diplomatic arena, maybe he's right. After all, we wouldn't want her screwing up everything he's been able to accomplish.
Luth,
Out
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Career Track
I officially accepted a position as a mechanic last week and gave my notice to the school where I've been working. I was only a substitute at the school, so the giving of notice was either a) overly-dramatic, or b) a little too formal, or maybe 3)both, but since I have a conscience and they treated me nicely, I felt sort of obligated to give them a heads up. The decision was made all the more complex by purely practical, financial reasons because on Friday I had passed the step that put me at regular teacher pay on their pay schedule. (I'm speaking only in terms that business folk will understand here - viewing my profession as an industry and focusing on the bottom line has greatly helped me ignore any sense of obligation to my students)
In most districts, if you teach in the same position for 20 straight school days, you jump up to first-year teacher pay, which is somewhere around $90-120 per day. I made $120. And, like most districts, if you end up in a long-term substitute spot for 60 straight days, you actually get paid for your experience. In my case that meant on day 61, as long as I didn't have a break in service, I jumped to $220 per day.
That was Friday for me. That's what a 9-year veteran teacher (actually 8.7 years according to the State Teacher's Retirement System) who doesn't pay for any benefits, and who doesn't spread their pay out over 12 months makes per day. (That's just under 40k annually for those of you following the math) I never actually grossed that much in my last permanent job even though I was a coach and an advisor of a year long activity, but that's how the numbers shake out when you're a temp who doesn't pay for anything else.
So anyway, my point was that just as I start earning the pay I was earning before I moved back home, I'm faced with the decision of permanent employment for a little less money, or temporary employment for a little more. The difference in money, sadly, isn't that much. As a mechanic for this particular company I'd start at about a grand less per year than I made as an 8-year veteran teacher with 8 lesson plans to write and 120 students to chase around. This particular company, for whom I would be converting regular vans into handicap accessible and controllable vans, has a 401k plan that rivals the current teacher retirement system in Ohio. Benefits for me are comparable, and only a little more pricey for my family, but the real clincher is, this company values my experience.
I've been told, explicitly by some administrators, implicitly by most in their refusal to even interview me, that traditional public schools can't afford to value experience. They have little interest in filling vacancies with experienced teachers. Strike that. It's not that they aren't interested, it's that they can't afford it. In some places the unspoken cutoff is 3 years. In others, where budgets are tighter, it's rookies only, with a few exceptions for those who will coach the sport in need. The official line is usually around 7 years, but that's only to hire coaches who have had 5-7 winning years at a previous school. The unfunded mandates of NCLB have forced schools to meet the standards that "hold teachers accountable" by doing away with experienced staff and replacing them with rookies, who then become somewhat indentured to the districts where they start because once they rack up 3 or 4 years of experience and get the state mandated master's degree, they're absolutely too expensive to get a job in any other school district.
To be clear, it's a budget issue, not a conspiracy. It's not like the schools have much choice. That's just how it is these days in most places, but especially in Ohio where the state legislature has refused to solve the funding issue at the state level in spite of being ordered to do so by the Ohio Supreme Court almost 20 years ago. Ohio has chosen to revert back to the method of funding used in the early ages of Christianity wherein the rich hired tutors for their children and if their servants' children had time, they could sit in on the lessons - as long as the servants didn't interfere with the rich kid's lessons. So too it goes in Ohio now. If you live by rich kids, your schools are well funded by local investment. And that's not so bad really. I'm all for a free market and am confident enough in my experience that I'd fair well enough were that the case, but education isn't a free market. And this method of funding it violates the very principles of law and the conditions under which Ohio was granted statehood. As a State, not as a collection of little towns, Ohio agreed to fund public education as part of the Northwest Ordnance which granted us statehood. It was one of several conditions the founders of the nation required and the founders of the state agreed to. For all the talk our modern day leaders have wasted about education, their actions tell us that's no longer a priority. Instead, they've pawned this responsibility off on local school districts, and because the citizens in those districts still do value public education, they've hesitantly coughed up levy after levy to cover the state's irresponsibility. But that well's running dry. At some point Ohio's legislators will be forced to act and to show whether or not they really value education. For those watching, either because they believe in education, or like me, have a direct financial stake in the outcome, their opinions are already too clear.
Just as financing is purely a practical matter for school districts, so too is it for the Luther family.
Banks won't write mortgages to substitute teachers even if the teacher has been working consistently for almost 10 years in the profession. I guess the level of pay and the inconsistency of it frighten banks away?! So if all goes well, and we close a deal on our old house in early April (knock on wood and cross fingers) I'll need something more "permanent" before we find our new house and try to finance its purchase. (It probably comes as a shock that I wasn't able to bank enough cash to buy a home on my salary)
So I'm not choosing to leave education out of bitterness or frustration or because I believe I'll be more satisfied working with my hands again, and seeing the concrete results of my efforts at the end of each day. I'm not leaving because I'll be able to sit with my family without a stack of papers to grade every night, or because this particular job actually pays for any training it requires. I'm not leaving because I get burned out at being a parent to parentless kids all day then neglect my duties to my own kids most nights. I'm not leaving because I'm embarassed by the massive outpouring of respect offered to teachers. I'm leaving because I need a full-time job and I need it soon.
Likewise, I didn't even actively pursue this particular opportunity. I simply updated by resume on a couple of online career places. I had hoped to not even have to consider what I'd do next until closer to June, when my current employer officially has no further use for me. But suddenly I have two offers in my lap - the second came right after I accepted the first, and I'm still struggling with that one, but it's a good struggle to have at this point.
So anyway, now that I downloaded all of that from my system, I suppose it's time for the 9-girl slumber party to once again lay waste to the short-lived peace in this household. I'd better do some pre-emptive cleaning before I start the countdown to taking this group home again. As with all of life's trials, we are on the brink of surviving this one. Having done so makes us richer, stronger.
Fight the power!... and in so doing, usurp it.
Luth
In most districts, if you teach in the same position for 20 straight school days, you jump up to first-year teacher pay, which is somewhere around $90-120 per day. I made $120. And, like most districts, if you end up in a long-term substitute spot for 60 straight days, you actually get paid for your experience. In my case that meant on day 61, as long as I didn't have a break in service, I jumped to $220 per day.
That was Friday for me. That's what a 9-year veteran teacher (actually 8.7 years according to the State Teacher's Retirement System) who doesn't pay for any benefits, and who doesn't spread their pay out over 12 months makes per day. (That's just under 40k annually for those of you following the math) I never actually grossed that much in my last permanent job even though I was a coach and an advisor of a year long activity, but that's how the numbers shake out when you're a temp who doesn't pay for anything else.
So anyway, my point was that just as I start earning the pay I was earning before I moved back home, I'm faced with the decision of permanent employment for a little less money, or temporary employment for a little more. The difference in money, sadly, isn't that much. As a mechanic for this particular company I'd start at about a grand less per year than I made as an 8-year veteran teacher with 8 lesson plans to write and 120 students to chase around. This particular company, for whom I would be converting regular vans into handicap accessible and controllable vans, has a 401k plan that rivals the current teacher retirement system in Ohio. Benefits for me are comparable, and only a little more pricey for my family, but the real clincher is, this company values my experience.
I've been told, explicitly by some administrators, implicitly by most in their refusal to even interview me, that traditional public schools can't afford to value experience. They have little interest in filling vacancies with experienced teachers. Strike that. It's not that they aren't interested, it's that they can't afford it. In some places the unspoken cutoff is 3 years. In others, where budgets are tighter, it's rookies only, with a few exceptions for those who will coach the sport in need. The official line is usually around 7 years, but that's only to hire coaches who have had 5-7 winning years at a previous school. The unfunded mandates of NCLB have forced schools to meet the standards that "hold teachers accountable" by doing away with experienced staff and replacing them with rookies, who then become somewhat indentured to the districts where they start because once they rack up 3 or 4 years of experience and get the state mandated master's degree, they're absolutely too expensive to get a job in any other school district.
To be clear, it's a budget issue, not a conspiracy. It's not like the schools have much choice. That's just how it is these days in most places, but especially in Ohio where the state legislature has refused to solve the funding issue at the state level in spite of being ordered to do so by the Ohio Supreme Court almost 20 years ago. Ohio has chosen to revert back to the method of funding used in the early ages of Christianity wherein the rich hired tutors for their children and if their servants' children had time, they could sit in on the lessons - as long as the servants didn't interfere with the rich kid's lessons. So too it goes in Ohio now. If you live by rich kids, your schools are well funded by local investment. And that's not so bad really. I'm all for a free market and am confident enough in my experience that I'd fair well enough were that the case, but education isn't a free market. And this method of funding it violates the very principles of law and the conditions under which Ohio was granted statehood. As a State, not as a collection of little towns, Ohio agreed to fund public education as part of the Northwest Ordnance which granted us statehood. It was one of several conditions the founders of the nation required and the founders of the state agreed to. For all the talk our modern day leaders have wasted about education, their actions tell us that's no longer a priority. Instead, they've pawned this responsibility off on local school districts, and because the citizens in those districts still do value public education, they've hesitantly coughed up levy after levy to cover the state's irresponsibility. But that well's running dry. At some point Ohio's legislators will be forced to act and to show whether or not they really value education. For those watching, either because they believe in education, or like me, have a direct financial stake in the outcome, their opinions are already too clear.
Just as financing is purely a practical matter for school districts, so too is it for the Luther family.
Banks won't write mortgages to substitute teachers even if the teacher has been working consistently for almost 10 years in the profession. I guess the level of pay and the inconsistency of it frighten banks away?! So if all goes well, and we close a deal on our old house in early April (knock on wood and cross fingers) I'll need something more "permanent" before we find our new house and try to finance its purchase. (It probably comes as a shock that I wasn't able to bank enough cash to buy a home on my salary)
So I'm not choosing to leave education out of bitterness or frustration or because I believe I'll be more satisfied working with my hands again, and seeing the concrete results of my efforts at the end of each day. I'm not leaving because I'll be able to sit with my family without a stack of papers to grade every night, or because this particular job actually pays for any training it requires. I'm not leaving because I get burned out at being a parent to parentless kids all day then neglect my duties to my own kids most nights. I'm not leaving because I'm embarassed by the massive outpouring of respect offered to teachers. I'm leaving because I need a full-time job and I need it soon.
Likewise, I didn't even actively pursue this particular opportunity. I simply updated by resume on a couple of online career places. I had hoped to not even have to consider what I'd do next until closer to June, when my current employer officially has no further use for me. But suddenly I have two offers in my lap - the second came right after I accepted the first, and I'm still struggling with that one, but it's a good struggle to have at this point.
So anyway, now that I downloaded all of that from my system, I suppose it's time for the 9-girl slumber party to once again lay waste to the short-lived peace in this household. I'd better do some pre-emptive cleaning before I start the countdown to taking this group home again. As with all of life's trials, we are on the brink of surviving this one. Having done so makes us richer, stronger.
Fight the power!... and in so doing, usurp it.
Luth
Sunday, March 18, 2007
New Links - Religious discussion
I forgot to mention, there's some interesting dialogue, or would it be polylogue? going on a few posts prior to this one. WCharles offered up some links to previous posts on his own 'blog providing some background on his take on what it means to be a Christian today. He did so at Ray's urging to join this conversation. I'm glad he's back.
Bill and I thought this might a fun forum for the discussion and I don't think either of us has been dissappointed thus far. Join in. The original question was: Has religion outlived its usefulness?
Bill and I thought this might a fun forum for the discussion and I don't think either of us has been dissappointed thus far. Join in. The original question was: Has religion outlived its usefulness?
Luth's not up to the fight right now
Lt. Commander Charles Swift was a model officer in the US Navy. Self-motivated, always taking the initiative to exceed expectations, proud of his country, his branch of the service, and loyal. Because he successfully did the job he was assigned, he was informed that not only would he not be promoted, but that, as such, his services were no longer needed by the Navy. To some it matters that Lt. Commander Swift's JOB was to defend Gitmo detainee Salim Hamdan against terrorist charges. Well, technically that's not entirely accurate. No charges had actually been filed against Hamdan. He'd just been held at Gitmo for almost 5 years with no explanation. Swift simply tried to gain for Hamdan the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. Swift felt that the way we treat others is how we might expect others to treat us. He figured out laws mattered. That the world might remember why they respected the U.S. if we could return to the nation of laws we were prior to this administration's spiral away from those principles. In order to check his beliefs and demonstrate our principles to the rest of the world, Swift had to sue his Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense. He won. He was fired. The world can now make its decision.
Will that make us look bad? Do ya think it might make us and our troops a target?
In a similar move in the civilian world, where more people seem to notice and care, even though everyone these days claims to support the troops, the Bush administration is now being investigated for misusing the Patriot Act to fire U.S. Attorneys, whose political independence is the backbone of our freedom, the very basis upon which this country was founded. At least we're a nation that acts on our beliefs, eh?
2 million Iraqis have fled their homeland because of the destruction our actions have caused there and to this day neither they, nor the American citizens who will eventually pay $1 trillion for this effort, have been given an explanation of why we invaded the country in the first place.
The vice president criticized the democractic spending debate for Iraq saying it's what al qaeda and bin Laden would want. That strikes me as a little odd since bin Laden never had any significant ties to Iraq. Isn't Cheney admitting that Iraq was a mistake by invoking his name now... in favor of continued war in Iraq???
Long time Republican loyalist, conservative, Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel has indicated that the only way Bush will face any accountability is via impeachment. Hagel's words: "The president says, 'I don't care,' he's not accountable anymore. Which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment." Thank God someone with the power to do something is at least considering this.
I was pretty excited about a month ago when the loyalists to this page agreed to engage in a civil debate about religion's role and importance in our modern world, but between being busy at my temp job, and looking for less temporary employment, keeping my family sane in our temporary living arrangment and searching for more permanent living arrangements, and watching the world around me that's well beyond my control continue its downward trend, I just can't get into it.
I've often been heard arguing that the old adage about never arguing politics and religion is the most ridiculous piece of advice humans on this earth could ever agree to follow. What could possible be more important? What issues could be more worth overcoming some discomfort in or order to reach some agreement? I still think that way, I'm just not up to the argument right now.
Will that make us look bad? Do ya think it might make us and our troops a target?
In a similar move in the civilian world, where more people seem to notice and care, even though everyone these days claims to support the troops, the Bush administration is now being investigated for misusing the Patriot Act to fire U.S. Attorneys, whose political independence is the backbone of our freedom, the very basis upon which this country was founded. At least we're a nation that acts on our beliefs, eh?
2 million Iraqis have fled their homeland because of the destruction our actions have caused there and to this day neither they, nor the American citizens who will eventually pay $1 trillion for this effort, have been given an explanation of why we invaded the country in the first place.
The vice president criticized the democractic spending debate for Iraq saying it's what al qaeda and bin Laden would want. That strikes me as a little odd since bin Laden never had any significant ties to Iraq. Isn't Cheney admitting that Iraq was a mistake by invoking his name now... in favor of continued war in Iraq???
Long time Republican loyalist, conservative, Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel has indicated that the only way Bush will face any accountability is via impeachment. Hagel's words: "The president says, 'I don't care,' he's not accountable anymore. Which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment." Thank God someone with the power to do something is at least considering this.
I was pretty excited about a month ago when the loyalists to this page agreed to engage in a civil debate about religion's role and importance in our modern world, but between being busy at my temp job, and looking for less temporary employment, keeping my family sane in our temporary living arrangment and searching for more permanent living arrangements, and watching the world around me that's well beyond my control continue its downward trend, I just can't get into it.
I've often been heard arguing that the old adage about never arguing politics and religion is the most ridiculous piece of advice humans on this earth could ever agree to follow. What could possible be more important? What issues could be more worth overcoming some discomfort in or order to reach some agreement? I still think that way, I'm just not up to the argument right now.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
With us or against us?
While reading Richard A Clark’s description of what al Qaeda is I couldn’t help but think back to a previous post in which Ray and I debated the perceived connection between the Muslim faith and terrorism. I argued that Muslims have no greater link to terrorism than Christians, or any other religion for that matter, but that Muslims, especially in American news, just happen to get mentioned more often these days. The reason for that, I argued, was because the faith is most prevalent in third world countries where the population has no representation, but rather, the leadership decides on the country’s agenda. If a radical leader favors the al Qaeda version of Islam (which is like Hitler’s version of Christianity), then that’s what gets established in the country.
Clark’s detailed history of al Qaeda as far back as the Reagan era helps explain why terrorist acts all over the world always end up being traced back to a group that claims to be Muslim. In AGAINST ALL ENEMIES Clark spells out just how extensive and radical al Qaeda really is. From the Middle East, to Eastern Europe, to the Phillipines and Africa, al Qaeda, led by a handful of key, so-called Muslim leaders including Osama bin Laden, seizes every power vacuum as an opportunity to expand their hatred. Sudan’s Hasan al-Turabi, a religious scholar, leader of the National Islamic Front, is one of bin Laden’s co-conspirators. There are a handful of others at that high a level, all with the power and funding of nations. They made sure desperate Muslims in Chechnya were armed, fed, and paid after Russia’s fall. bin Laden made sure help was there when Christian Serbs oppressed Bosnian Muslims, when war lords left power vacuums in Mogadishu, when Christians sought to eliminate Muslims in the Phillipines. When the opportunity arose and the potential for a new Taliban popped up, al Qaeda was there. Their leaders are master strategists who have been planning for years and patiently waiting to set into motion the chain of events ultimately resulting in a Caliphate, or “Muslim Empire.”
But the empire they seek is Muslim only in name. It is their version of Islam, and theirs alone. They prey on poor, desperate Muslims and convince them that their radical version is only a return to the “fundamentals” of their faith, that it can’t coexist with any other faiths, including other Muslims who favor treating others with respect and tolerance. Once recruited, the converts are trained, fed, paid better than they ever have been. It doesn’t take much to convince someone under those circumstances that whatever their bosses are doing must be something good to provide them with a way of life like they’d never known. And when the great white satan invades a Muslim country, it only reinforces their leaders’ call for jihad.
The point is, al Turabi and bin Laden’s version of Islam isn’t the rest of the world’s version of Islam. Sure, they want to create a world based on their version. That’s what megalomaniacs do. That’s what Hitler did. Their goal is the creation of Talibans all over the world and while THEY claim it is in the name of their God, true Muslims don’t accept it any more than true Christians would.
Just as Clark notes that we won’t be effective in our fight against terrorism until we accept al Qaeda’s role, prominence, and vastness and stop chasing false leads and debunked conspiracy theories (like Iraqi Intelligence’s role in 911), so too is it imperative that Christians accept that Muslims have more in common with us than in conflict. Until we can get over that hump and focus on what truly matters, we will likely only continue to play into al Qaeda’s hands by perpetuating the lies that bin Laden uses about Americans when he recruits. If we acted more like Christians, Muslims might stop being so afraid of us that they’re willing to join terrorist organizations. If we made the American way of life more appealing by using our power and wealth to help eliminate some of the desperation that drives people to al Qaeda, we’d have to fight far fewer of those converts. Then maybe when our president announces that “you’re either with us or against us” being with us might seem like a better option. But to those who watched the “us” invade their country, that decision was already made.
Clark’s detailed history of al Qaeda as far back as the Reagan era helps explain why terrorist acts all over the world always end up being traced back to a group that claims to be Muslim. In AGAINST ALL ENEMIES Clark spells out just how extensive and radical al Qaeda really is. From the Middle East, to Eastern Europe, to the Phillipines and Africa, al Qaeda, led by a handful of key, so-called Muslim leaders including Osama bin Laden, seizes every power vacuum as an opportunity to expand their hatred. Sudan’s Hasan al-Turabi, a religious scholar, leader of the National Islamic Front, is one of bin Laden’s co-conspirators. There are a handful of others at that high a level, all with the power and funding of nations. They made sure desperate Muslims in Chechnya were armed, fed, and paid after Russia’s fall. bin Laden made sure help was there when Christian Serbs oppressed Bosnian Muslims, when war lords left power vacuums in Mogadishu, when Christians sought to eliminate Muslims in the Phillipines. When the opportunity arose and the potential for a new Taliban popped up, al Qaeda was there. Their leaders are master strategists who have been planning for years and patiently waiting to set into motion the chain of events ultimately resulting in a Caliphate, or “Muslim Empire.”
But the empire they seek is Muslim only in name. It is their version of Islam, and theirs alone. They prey on poor, desperate Muslims and convince them that their radical version is only a return to the “fundamentals” of their faith, that it can’t coexist with any other faiths, including other Muslims who favor treating others with respect and tolerance. Once recruited, the converts are trained, fed, paid better than they ever have been. It doesn’t take much to convince someone under those circumstances that whatever their bosses are doing must be something good to provide them with a way of life like they’d never known. And when the great white satan invades a Muslim country, it only reinforces their leaders’ call for jihad.
The point is, al Turabi and bin Laden’s version of Islam isn’t the rest of the world’s version of Islam. Sure, they want to create a world based on their version. That’s what megalomaniacs do. That’s what Hitler did. Their goal is the creation of Talibans all over the world and while THEY claim it is in the name of their God, true Muslims don’t accept it any more than true Christians would.
Just as Clark notes that we won’t be effective in our fight against terrorism until we accept al Qaeda’s role, prominence, and vastness and stop chasing false leads and debunked conspiracy theories (like Iraqi Intelligence’s role in 911), so too is it imperative that Christians accept that Muslims have more in common with us than in conflict. Until we can get over that hump and focus on what truly matters, we will likely only continue to play into al Qaeda’s hands by perpetuating the lies that bin Laden uses about Americans when he recruits. If we acted more like Christians, Muslims might stop being so afraid of us that they’re willing to join terrorist organizations. If we made the American way of life more appealing by using our power and wealth to help eliminate some of the desperation that drives people to al Qaeda, we’d have to fight far fewer of those converts. Then maybe when our president announces that “you’re either with us or against us” being with us might seem like a better option. But to those who watched the “us” invade their country, that decision was already made.
Has religion outlived its usefulness? featuring: Bill
There was a time when I really believed unions had outlived their usefulness in America. For a number of reasons I won’t bother with here, I’ve sort of come to realize they’re more of a necessary evil in some industries even if I don’t trust their bosses. Now I wonder if it’s religion that hasn’t outlived its usefulness in the world.
About the time I was wondering about that, I got an email from my old buddy Bill on an uncannily similar idea. Bill thought the regular contributors to Horsepoup might provide some good discussion about some questions he had. I hope that means he saw Horsepoup as a place where one is encouraged to argue politics and religion rather than a place, like the rest of public America, where such discussion is discouraged, and thus any real understanding, analysis, consensus building, progress or brotherhood is also discouraged.
In any event, I’m running the email (with Bill’s permission of course) as a guest post. Comments on the questions that arise will be neatly listed in the comments link, but may also make their way onto the main page if they shoot off into significantly different directions. So here’s the start:
Hey Luth,
So our little discussion last weekend got the rusty wheels of grand ideas turning again. And I was thinking the other day about a conversation that would be good to have with you and Ray, your trusty interlocutor on the Horsepoup blog. I think the three of us represent a range of opinions on the issue of faith, of a Creator (capital "C"), etc.
I thought I would try to begin a conversation with what I take to be a simple, yet genuine question. The question I've asked myself of late goes something like this: do I have faith? Given that I do not believe in a Creator (let alone *the* Creator), am I also without faith? Or can I say that I have faith in some other way/thing?
I don't know how to tackle that question head on, hence my inclination to have a dialogue with you and Ray. So to start that off, I'll present my case for not believing in a creator as a good thing, not just for me, but for others too.
In a nutshell, I believe *not* believing in God makes me a better person. And I believe a lack of belief in God, more generally, removes the fundamental idea of a hierarchy of consciousness - that is, of a "supreme being" to which humans are ultimately accountable. Without that hierarchy we are accountable to our fellow humans. To one another. With nobody to grant absolution, we are left to creating the conditions of a peaceful, loving world ourselves. We cannot suspend this responsibility even for one minute, because there is no time *after* which we will be
absolved for *not* creating peace among one another. The fulfilling life in this view of the world is one where you make others' lives better. Because this is the mechanism - and the only one - for joy in one's own life. Give. To others. That's all we have.
This message is not far from biblical. First Corinthians 13 says "now abideth, faith, hope, and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love." I agree.
When we put God before humans in the world, we reverse this trinity. The greatest of these, for many religious people, is "faith." This move, in fact, placing faith (or, as some might put it, a "personal relationship with God") as the primary thing in life, you can (if you are Southern Baptist, for example) forgive catastrophic human violence and cruelty. You can live a sacred life and still keep slaves. Why? Because the greatest virtue is not love for your fellow human, but faith in a higher power who makes one unaccountable to one's fellow humans.
That's enough of a start, I think. I have another bit I want to propose too - one that proposes a little thought experiment that makes a different case. If we imagine ourselves as God (and if we are created in the image of the creator, this is not an unreasonable move), what kind of human consciousness would we want to encourage and nurture? One that is forever subservient, full of divine entitlement, and unaccountable to other humans? Sounds like bad parenting to me. But more on that one later...
About the time I was wondering about that, I got an email from my old buddy Bill on an uncannily similar idea. Bill thought the regular contributors to Horsepoup might provide some good discussion about some questions he had. I hope that means he saw Horsepoup as a place where one is encouraged to argue politics and religion rather than a place, like the rest of public America, where such discussion is discouraged, and thus any real understanding, analysis, consensus building, progress or brotherhood is also discouraged.
In any event, I’m running the email (with Bill’s permission of course) as a guest post. Comments on the questions that arise will be neatly listed in the comments link, but may also make their way onto the main page if they shoot off into significantly different directions. So here’s the start:
Hey Luth,
So our little discussion last weekend got the rusty wheels of grand ideas turning again. And I was thinking the other day about a conversation that would be good to have with you and Ray, your trusty interlocutor on the Horsepoup blog. I think the three of us represent a range of opinions on the issue of faith, of a Creator (capital "C"), etc.
I thought I would try to begin a conversation with what I take to be a simple, yet genuine question. The question I've asked myself of late goes something like this: do I have faith? Given that I do not believe in a Creator (let alone *the* Creator), am I also without faith? Or can I say that I have faith in some other way/thing?
I don't know how to tackle that question head on, hence my inclination to have a dialogue with you and Ray. So to start that off, I'll present my case for not believing in a creator as a good thing, not just for me, but for others too.
In a nutshell, I believe *not* believing in God makes me a better person. And I believe a lack of belief in God, more generally, removes the fundamental idea of a hierarchy of consciousness - that is, of a "supreme being" to which humans are ultimately accountable. Without that hierarchy we are accountable to our fellow humans. To one another. With nobody to grant absolution, we are left to creating the conditions of a peaceful, loving world ourselves. We cannot suspend this responsibility even for one minute, because there is no time *after* which we will be
absolved for *not* creating peace among one another. The fulfilling life in this view of the world is one where you make others' lives better. Because this is the mechanism - and the only one - for joy in one's own life. Give. To others. That's all we have.
This message is not far from biblical. First Corinthians 13 says "now abideth, faith, hope, and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love." I agree.
When we put God before humans in the world, we reverse this trinity. The greatest of these, for many religious people, is "faith." This move, in fact, placing faith (or, as some might put it, a "personal relationship with God") as the primary thing in life, you can (if you are Southern Baptist, for example) forgive catastrophic human violence and cruelty. You can live a sacred life and still keep slaves. Why? Because the greatest virtue is not love for your fellow human, but faith in a higher power who makes one unaccountable to one's fellow humans.
That's enough of a start, I think. I have another bit I want to propose too - one that proposes a little thought experiment that makes a different case. If we imagine ourselves as God (and if we are created in the image of the creator, this is not an unreasonable move), what kind of human consciousness would we want to encourage and nurture? One that is forever subservient, full of divine entitlement, and unaccountable to other humans? Sounds like bad parenting to me. But more on that one later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)