I'm saddened to see one of my favorite towns shaken by tragedy. What happened today in Ottawa is horrible, and among the many thoughts on my mind is the hope that today's horrible news doesn't threaten what makes Ottawa so special.
Ottawa impressed Sherry and I so much during a one-night stay in 2013 we returned for nearly a week in 2014. It's not nearly as large as Washington, D.C., but like an excellent capital it offers a lot of really neat things to see in the way of museums and other attractions. One thing, in particular, I liked was how welcoming it was. One could walk amidst the buildings of government pretty easily. In fact, on one of my mornings there, I ran right up Parliament Hill to Parliament building, and spent a good 20 minutes talking with a Mountie on duty there. It's hard to imagine being able to do that in Washington, D.C.
My run on August 6.
A really neat light show.
The night before that run, we took in an awesome light show on the very lawn of Parliament. Though security was there, it felt more like a police presence than a police state. One didn't see more police at those events than one would at Central Park or in Center City Philadelphia. Heck, security is more oppressive at an NFL event than in that capital.
Now some violent acts will force the Canadians to rethink those measures. They'll have to evaluate their security, just as we did after 9/11. I pray they don't come to the conclusion to lock down their city and turn their capital into a public fortress. Ottawa and the Canadians deserve better.
For the first time ever I shopped health coverage today. Shopped might be too strong a word. Selected might be better. My employer, in an alleged cost-saving move, switched us into a consortium with other area school districts, so we're switching from Amerihealth to Blue Cross. We didn't have too many choices: really just an option of the new-age HMO vs. a preferred provider. But it does involve a choice, whether we want to maintain all the independence we did have or opt for something that costs less in exchange for having our options managed.
I decided to go with the lower cost. If I'm earnest about our nation lowering its health spending, I guess I should be part of the solution.
Ironically, the cost-saving move is costing us more money. Apparently we didn't read the fine print that we'd now be liable for paying for subscriptions. Irritating. Though it's nothing compared to the "deal" shoved down the throats of my colleagues in Philly. I did see all sorts of political figures line up behind that decision because, after all, who doesn't want to see teachers pay their fair share.
It seems like society enjoys making sure we're all paying our fare share.
So, 2014 comes to an end and we see costs shifting decisively to the employee. Cadillac tax, co-pay, premium share . . . it really doesn't matter what the jargon, more of the bill is become more explicitly laid on shoulders of the employee for health care. This might be a good thing for society. The cost of medical coverage has long been obscured, and in such an environment costs escalate. As an amateur economist, I can't help but appreciate the unveiling of a bill for what had seemed to be a free lunch. But I must ask: Now that we're shifting the cost of medical coverage (and retirement) to the employee, are we ready to discuss better pay?
We made it to church today. In a stunning display of timeliness for our family, all four were there by 7:45. That's as in quarter of 8!
Caroline's choir was singing at the 8:15 service, which explains why we were there so early. The incentive to get donuts, which has been a reward set in place since last spring.
I'm not the best at being on time to church, and I'm not quite sure why that is. At some point I'd like to work on the punctuality to church, but as for right now I think it's best that we focus just on getting there period.
The best reward for being in church today, however, was hearing my friend announce that he and his wife have a baby on the way. I like that.
I finally had my fill of an obnoxious little function of modern-day life: browser incompatibility. I've learned in 2014 that:
a) Internet Explorer doesn't work with a lot of things
b) Chrome is really convenient to use, but only works well when one consistently uses it
c) Firefox is nice and plays nicely with a lot of things but . . .
d) . . . for some reason won't work with the website of my favorite magazine, The Week
e) my employer will not allow Chrome on its computers
f) that Internet Explorer doesn't work well with a critical website at my workplace makes a good-natured colleague turn to me for something s/he could otherwise do if it wasn't for this browser idiocy
g) and tonight I learned that the e-version of the textbook I'm piloting has one chapter (of 31) that won't work with Chrome . . .
So, I lost it. Kind of.
I filed a complaint to the company who maintains the website referenced in g) and when the IT person recommended that I try Firefox instead I replied with a comment saying a) I get it and b) I'm sick of this being the answer.
I don't fault the IT people who put up these websites. Full disclosure: I'm married to someone who does this stuff (and I see how she works tirelessly to test these glitchy things).
I blame the usual suspects: Microsoft and Google. Firefox, this time you're escaping my wrath. Same with you, Apple. I'm laying this at the feet of Microsoft and Google. Obviously, they've over-worked features into their over-engineered programs (that we seemingly get for free) to create hiccups like this.
Allow me to don my history teacher's hat for a moment. When I teach my students about our industrial past, I like to highlight the value that standardization* played in the world of America's growing commerce. The railroads standardized gauge and time. Stapler makers standardized the size of staples. Typewriter manufacturers standardized the keypad. As we took to the roads, we standardized signage of highways and the systems by which we assigned route numbers. Standardization promoted efficiency and productivity.** Our worlds will work faster, too, if the damn browsers can play nicely.
*Enjoy the irony, those who read of my fight against the homogenization of teaching. I resist standardization when dealing with human beings, especially children. But I'll champion it for things like staplers, the gauge of railroads, and web browsers.
**I know, I know, the QWERTY keyboard actually slows us down.
I'm grateful to have had a chance to read some of Why Nobody Goes to Church Anymore. Something that is challenging me: though 40% claim to attend church every Sunday it's really more like 20%. I'm not in that twenty, but I'm in that forty. If I were to go back to June, the end of the school year, and count Sundays in or out of church, the Sundays out of church might just outnumber those in. If one takes any particular week that we weren't at church, the reason seemed quite logical. Often, it was to free us up for family gatherings or worthwhile events with friends. But are such worthwhile things just an excuse to duck church? Are we treating our church home like a vacation property rather than a true home? Am I oblivious to how being at church is being part of building a community, that others might benefit from me and my family being there?
I'm wondering how many weeks in a row we could get to church, starting Sunday, October 19.
Tracking is something of a dirty word in education. Differentiated instruction is very much in. I can't necessarily say either of these prevailing winds is bad. Tracking can consign a student to a second-tier educational experience. Differentiated instruction acknowledges the difficulty of getting a whole class of adolescents to arrive at the same point in mastering a skill or content piece at the same time.
Today I was sifting through the results of my students on their first couple of tests for me. I broke down the data and sorted my students out into clusters. I made groups based on kids who aren't missing a beat, then groups of students who are struggling. Groups that seemed to be tripped up on the first test but then find range on the second. And so on.
Then I realized, I'm tracking them. I might be up to differentiated instruction, but I'm tracking them within my class.
I'm not ready to draw a conclusion as to whether or not I'm doing the right or wrong thing, or to cast some sort of judgment on tracking or DI. But I think it is worth wondering if tracking might be a more efficient means of doing what I'm doing. It's also worth wondering whether or not DI gives us the benefits of tracking without the cost of the way it traps kids into tracks that limit their possibilities.
. . . But the economics teacher must point out that there's no such thing as a free lunch. What I did takes time. Also, it's done by a novice at data. I avoided Statistics classes like the plague and, still after 17 years, I still don't have a true degree in education.
Father, husband, brother, teacher, and Lutheran. Life-long Pennsylvanian who enjoys traveling the country (and its northern neighbor). Loves include history, music, the automotive world, baseball and football, and board games. Fascinated by a lot, optimistic about the future, but cynical about much of our present.
Sideling Hill Tunnel
A long-lived dream finally achieved, December 31, 2006
The pace of summer 2009
Caroline - Spring 2010
Caroline running through puddles.
Sam and the Snow Storm
If life could be so simple and fun for all of us . . .
Life-long resident of southeastern Pennsylvania. Grew up in Northern Chester County and has lived in Lansdale with my wife for more than a decade. Active in my church and community band. Takes great joy in his life as a father and career as a teacher.