As I reflect upon the resounding (and expected) victory of Barack Obama in his bid for the Presidency, I am piggy-backing upon my thoughts from my last post. I commented that there was a high degree of emotionalism that drove Obama’s campaign both in political and popular circles. I want to undergird that statement with a couple of other thoughts on why I think Obama so resoundingly won.

First, I think Republican hubris played a huge role in the Democrat (and Obama’s) rise to power. Beginning in 2006 with losses in both the House and the Senate, the Republicans began their steady downward spiral to where they are today. They squandered their opportunity when they were in the same position that the Dems will be in after January. They, ironically, conducted themselves as traditional Democrats and increased the size of government, violating that and other core conservative values. They appeared to believe themselves untouchable. Sadly, they found out they weren’t.

George Bush, in his last four years in office, also squandered much (though hampered in the last two years with an oppositional House and Senate). He simply didn’t do much to further conservative thought and remained, in my mind, aloof as the figurehead of the Republican party. The public’s view of him as everything wrong with our country (not a fair estimate, but understandable) hurt any chance for a Republican to take office. (Ironically, we’ll see how the Dems spin the fact that they have control of both Houses and the Presidency but ALSO have such low approval ratings—even lower than Bush’s.)

Second, and most importantly, I believe the election of Barack Obama had much to do with the failure of the Church to effectively communicate its message to it’s own people. Yes, I didn’t say communicate its message to the World, but to its OWN people—both black and white. While I recently heard that polls indicate that the African-American vote helped Obama, it didn’t put him over the top. There wasn’t a significant increase, overall, in the number of black voters (with the increase coming from in younger voters). Rather, it was white independents and moderates who elected Barack Obama. Nevertheless, I find two points interesting.

First, the African-American community as a whole votes very traditionally on issues such as family and abortion. Ironically, they selected a candidate who is anything but traditional. Did the A-A community know Obama’s stances and voting history on these core moral issues? Or, was it more that they chose to overlook it—much like most of America—in favor of economy and the prize of having a black President? My own experience in urban education leads me to believe that they abdicated their role as salt and light to the World in favor of race. That’s a harsh statement, but, as I indicated, it holds true to what I hear consistently in my all-minority school.

As I indicated previously, polls show that moderates and independents won this election for Obama. Most of those were white. The present state of the mainline Protestant and Catholic churches also shows a clear willingness to PUT ASIDE mandates about life and the family in favor of progressive politics. After all, in their view, times change and the Word of God is a book written by men that must be revisited as society evolves.

I wonder what would happen if evangelical churches made their focus—over the next four years—one of educating their congregations about the core values of the Christian church. Because the Church has a different vocabulary—a different way of looking at the World—our account of life and meaning is vastly different. I have to agree with Robert Lewis Wilken:

Nothing is more needful today than the survival of Christian culture, because in recent generations this culture has become dangerously thin. At this moment in the Church’s history in this country (and in the West more generally) it is less urgent to convince the alternative culture in which we live of the truth of Christ than it is for the Church to tell itself its own story and to nurture its own life, the culture of the city of God, the Christian republic.

I can’t help but wonder what would happen in the 2010 and 2012 elections if the Church was grounded in this way.

I’ve been reflecting more earnestly these past two weeks as students have been talking more openly about their reasons for voting for Obama. Obviously, I’ve been listening for quite some time now, but the past two weeks—the last few days in particular—have been particularly poignantly. Frankly, I’ve listened (and read) Obama’s words and been intrigued as to what is so new and hopeful about him personally and his message professionally.

If you do a cursory examination of ads and political paraphernalia from the recent past, you’ll notice that during the recent past principles such as “hope” and “change” are dominant. This has caused me to ponder why this particular candidate has infused such words with so much more meaning as to win the election with so little experience and such damaging rhetoric.

It’s the conversations I’ve listened in on and participated in that has given me my answer and that answer rests in pure emotionalism. I know that sounds simplistic but the complicated answers about the sensibility of his political stances don’t make sense. No, I ground my argument not in politics because, frankly, the average American doesn’t care much for politics. I think it’s also clear just from the complexity that we’ve allowed our political systems to become mired under. After all, who has time to research all that the candidates truly stand for? Even the sites which purport to be nonpartisan fact-checking sites are proving to be less than genuine.

Rather, my argument is founded in pop cultures’ fascination with the image and the new. When my students go off about Obama, the point is clear that they’re not interested in answers as to why I can’t vote for him. Rather, they are more keen on emotionalism and vitriol. Once again, this spirit isn’t new with this election. Our election process has become all about promises that neither candidate can deliver on.

And, it’s the emotionalism of today that has people flocking to Obama instead of reflecting on the potential damages his policies will be for generations to come.

It’s late. I’ll post more tomorrow.

Is it just me or is it really just hypocritical that people get bent out of shape over NCLB (No Child Left Behind) whereas the SAT has been around for (seemingly) forever? Ok, NCLB is about federal funds but the principle remains the same, right?

It all comes down to a single test being the defining piece of information about your ability to perform well in college (and, to some, life).

Interesting commentary from Cal Thomas:

Placing hope in politicians absolves too many of us our responsibilities … Changed lives produced changed behavior and, thus, changed circumstances, leading to a more hopeful future. Olasky wrote that tragedy occurred when government began to occupy the space once dominated by religious and personal charity, displacing hope and leading to despair.

The “hope” being sold by Obama and his true believers is misplaced. Obama cannot deliver; he cannot save; he cannot improve individual circumstances by redistributing wealth and talking to America’s dictatorial enemies. He is selling snake oil.

Thomas parallels Kennedy’s mesmerizing hold over people in the 60’s and the seemingly similar dazzle Obama is producing today. Of course, his commentary on Obama and his war-time leadership is more than a little scary.

It will be interesting to see how Obama handles the scrutiny due a lead-candidate (which he seems to have avoided for the most part up until now). Again, interesting stuff.

Ok, call us losers BUT, my wife and I tuned in last night to the near-season finale of Project Runway. (The show reminds me of the art-school atmosphere that I had a taste of during college.) I can’t say I was amazed at the outcome. I figured Sweet P was going to be eliminated. As they said on the show, she does good design and is very practical; she just doesn’t do Fashion (with the capital “F”). I would agree with that. I have to say I was surprised by them sticking with Rami. I thought they would have punished him for his play-it-safe-mentality regarding the draping. We’ll see what happens. I think they’ll all put together interesting collections. Jillian has surprised us. My wife isn’t a fan, but I think she has shown me that she can come up with compelling pieces. Although Chris played it safe, we both like what he’s done in the past and he’s seemed very consistent.

(And, yes, we think Christian is a drama queen and arrogant, but talent can do that to you. One can only hope he matures with age.)

Next week will be interesting. I’m not sure who I think will win. Should be a fun hour.

“[Barack] Obama [has said] the top priority of the next president should be the creation of a more lasting and equitable prosperity than achieved under Presidents Bush and Clinton. Obama apparently missed the class that teaches government doesn’t create prosperity; people do. During [a recent] debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama said he would pay for his proposed new programs, including mandatory health insurance, by imposing higher taxes on ‘the wealthy’ and raising the tax on Social Security wages. He added, ‘What we have had right now is a situation where we’ve cut taxes for people who don’t need them.’ Should government determine how much money people ‘need’? This is Marxism: ‘from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.’ Sen. Clinton expressed similar sentiments on ABC’s ‘This Week’ when she said if people refuse to buy health insurance under her plan she might garnish people’s wages. One reason this socialistic mind-set resonates favorably with many is due to the shift in the last half-century from promoting hard work, self-sufficiency, marriage, personal responsibility and accountability and living within one’s means, to a mentality that I am entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor. That used to be called robbery before government started doing it more than a century ago through the income tax… How many politicians today talk about looking out for one’s self, not relying on government?”— Cal Thomas

I was speaking with a colleague today and commenting about how disappointed I had become with myself regarding my attitude with the kids at my school. And, I’m not necessarily just talking about the kids in my class. For those who don’t know, I teach high school art in an urban district. My kids either a) don’t care about my class or b) tell me I’ve ruined art class for them. The first group is comprised of the majority of my kids which is ever a disappointment for me because I long for some art majors. But, I realize that they may come in later years. The second group basically just emerged. Actually, a few students just verbalized it at the beginning of this week.

Regardless which group, though, the reality is all of my kids have wildly misplaced perspectives on art education. As I’ve stated in another post, they expect my class to be fun, a time for them to make a little craft and socialize with their friends. Anything difficult or challenging isn’t well received. Much of what brought this on is the fact that I have begun art appreciation/criticism and will soon start art history. The introduction of these topics has brought with it reading and writing assignments, a break from hands-on work.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t regret my curricular direction. I’m in alignment with what I’m to teach according to my State; however, I’m disappointed with how I’ve reacted in-class emotionally with my students. I’ve allowed their toxicity and negativity to poison me. That was an important statement for me to make—to someone else and myself. My school, while free of violence (minus the occasional fight), has real problems with discipline. The students have dictated their own course for enough years that it has made taking the school back—for lack of a better way of putting it—a challenging proposition. Consistency among the teaching staff hasn’t helped those efforts, though positive steps have been made and things are better than last year. Still much work remains and the students resent the educational and disciplinary imposition. I am one of a few teachers that is pushing back hard on the students with regards to the disciplinary code. It hasn’t won me any kudos from them and some of that negativity has crept into my class.

Long-story-short, the problem for me is with myself. That’s why I’m writing the post. These kids are a product of their environment. They don’t care about art because it’s not been a part of their life outside of pop culture. How can I expect them to behave differently. I don’t have control over their reactions, but I do have control over mine. I have noticed an increase in yelling, responding quickly and harshly to students and delivering my lessons flatly. While I don’t make excuses that my class is hard, I don’t need to compound their experience with a harder and edgier me. That’s a change I plan on amending now that I’ve recognized the degree to which this has occurred.

I know I’m not alone in having these feelings and experience. What I’m looking for are strategies and recommendations on making a change. As a Christian, I know what my responsibilities are before the Lord regarding my vocation. He is ultimately the author of true heart change and I believe that he’s lead me to this point. I’m thankful for that. He also works through people. Your experience in the classroom and life can be an additional means of grace to me. So, talk to me. I want to hear from you about this.

I came home today from one of the most disappointing and frustrating days of my, as of yet, very short educational career. My students were tasked, last week to ready what is the introduction to Art History (2nd ed.) by Marilyn Stokstad. Although 17 pages, it’s packed with large photos and isn’t a huge drain on your intellectual resources. She does an admirable job communicating on a less-than-high-school level for high schoolers.

Sadly, the students complained from day until night about this assignment. First, let me say my kids are used to not being challenged in art class. Left to their own devices they would be happy doing a little craft and talking to their friends all period. They love to tell me how much better the “other” art teachers were that they’ve had at the school and gleefully run through the list of past preferred teachers. However, from what I’ve gather from talking to the teachers who are still at the school (turn over is exceptionally high), none of the teachers really did anything close to what should be covered in art history or art appreciation. The later teachers seem to have been worn down by the students to the point of letting them come up with their own projects with minimal oversight. And, I can see why!

I told the students I wanted simple notes taken (and attached to their packet) or that they could highlight the text of the xerox packet. Many said they didn’t understand what that meant. I explained that in college you’re going to be tasked with having to read chapters in a book. Your responsibility is to read it and a) take notes via pen/notebook or laptop or b) highlight what you believe to be relevant portions of the text. I deliberately left it open-ended since I didn’t want to walk them through it because the students will lazily not do the reading and wait for my before-the-test study guide.

Sadly, upon reviewing their packets—I told them they would receive a grade for their highlight/note-taking—I determined many of them were either not reading it but simply highlight pieces of the text at random, or they were reading it and not pulling out what they should have been. So, I spoke to my principal and vice-principal to seek their advice. In the end, they agreed with me that I should ditch giving them a formal study guide and re-read the article during class periodically stopping to ask them for feedback and what was salient about the short passage we just read together. That would serve as their study guide.

Well, the students in my first two classes weren’t having it. First period did poor with frequent interruptions and complaints and third period did even worse. I had to ask the VP to come down to remove two students. By the time she got there, other students had basically becoming just as talkative. I pulled her outside and we conferred. In the end, she recommended that they be held accountable for their behavior and told their notes would have to suffice and the test they were to be given on this material would take place as originally planned instead of two days later to accommodate the re-reading of the packet. The next period did better with only a couple of students periodically having side conversations.

In the final analysis, though, I know most of these students will fail this test. Not because the information wasn’t available to them, but because they don’t care and see it as being irrelevant to their life. One girl told me she just didn’t care because it wasn’t important to her; she wants to be a doctor and art is not relevant to her career. I tried to explain that in college (she’s in 11th grade), she’s going to have to read many things which she is going to feel the same way about. Just because you think you’re going to med school doesn’t mean everything is a) going to be medically-related, b) going to be interesting and c) going to be easy. These kids—even the seniors—seem very naive and I just don’t know how to break through to them.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to handle some of the art history lessons I’ve got coming up? I know the students think that if they complain and cause enough problems I’ll just throw in the towel and only do hands-on projects. But, I refuse to do that.

Please send me your suggestions and comments.

I found the article, Chicago’s Military Academies Raise Education Debate, while on Digg and thought it extremely interesting since I presently work in an urban school and many I talk to in my own school as well as those in other urban districts think a military-like structure would be a beneficial.

Do I say this because I like to see African-American and Latino kids under stricter discipline than their Caucasian suburban counterparts? Actually, it has nothing to do with ethnicity at all. Frankly, I have been joking from last year that I think my school (and the surrounding district) should be taken over by the military. My school doesn’t deal with violence thankfully but disrespect and other discipline-related issues rank as number 1 on the list of why new teachers leave. Frankly, if a suburban school had the discipline issues my school struggles with then I’d recommend this type of solution-if you want to call it that-for those schools as well.

It makes me wonder why the discipline issues in urban schools are so different than (most) suburban schools. I know in my school we have a lot of professional development days dealing with culture and such things. Namely, the thought that  whites don’t get black culture and don’t see how this divergence manifests itself in the classroom. I can appreciate that up to a point, of course. Yet, many black friends I speak with don’t get it either. They roll their eyes when I recount some of the things the professionals come in to speak with us about concerning urban culture and the differences of urban students in the classroom. Like I said, I can embrace their points somewhat but there remains a good chunk of their argument that I find untenable.

I’ll talk more about this, but I wonder if anyone else had anything to contribute to this discussion (about the issue, in general, and the article, in particular).

My wife and I just finished watching White Christmas. It’s a tradition of ours this time of the year. What a great movie! We also watched this brief retrospective with Rosemary Clooney. I have to admit that there was something sad about watching it. Maybe it was the fact that all of the main players have died, or perhaps it was the fact that Danny Kaye wanted to be closer to Bing Crosby but Crosby just wasn’t the type of man to allow many to get close to him.  Vera Ellen was just an incredible dancer.

I highly recommend the DVD which was also packaged with It’s a Wonderful Life. We haven’t watched It’s a Wonderful Life yet. I’ll let you know about the version that came in this package.