I think this is a wonderful idea.  I know this was topic (professionalizing a career for HR professionals) that came up a lot while I did HR for P&G.  I think it could do wonders to increase teacher pay, to afford teachers greater classroom autonomy, and to revolutionize and inject greater innovation into teaching methods as well as teaching evaluation method research.

But I have to wonder how serious the teachers’ union really is about all this professionaliztion talk, because what is the ultimate result of truly professionalizing the teaching career?  The end result is that the union goes away, because under labor law most full-time teachers would fall under a category of “professional employee” (National Labor Relations Act–NLRA–see NLRA (12) definition of “professional employee”) thus significantly reducing the number of employees that could be represented by a union.  So if professionalizing the teaching career path means the union goes away, how likely is the union to do what appears to be in the best interest of teachers?  History says that survival will out-trump what in the best interest of teachers.

And yes, I am assuming that the increased ability to individually negotiate pay is one major benefit of not having a union; there are the others I mentioned above.  There is a significant teacher shortage, just like there is a nurse shortage.  Guess who’s getting paid better and guess who has more flexibility in work schedules, etc.: nurses because if the hospital doesn’t give them what they want, there’s another hospital down the road that is willing to let them work weekends only. 

So here’s the dilemma of the day: where does the issue of professionalization leave Utah’s teachers and what’s in their best interest, when what’s in the union’s (as an entity) best interest is in direct conflict with that teacher beneficial end goal?

I hope those in the media here in America do a better job highlighting these abuses.  In the mean time my thoughts and prayers go out to all those (mormons, baptists, jews, etc.) who now find their practice of faith, other than Orthodoxy, increasingly in the cross hairs of the Russian government.

Thomas did not recommend anything specific, but generally felt that reforming the system to put more control in the hands of the mayor, especially as it pertains to city appointments, could provide a significant check to overzealous city councils and city employees.  He noted upwards of 15 separate conversations with city employees who in Joe’s first couple of weeks each pulled him aside to “remind” him that his role was to be above all else the lead advocate for the folks on the city’s payroll.  Thomas remarked that he made 15 enemies in those first few weeks when his response was that he was the advocate of the citizens first.

I don’t know that I agree with all Mayor Thomas feels should change, but he provided some great food for thought during our monthly Sutherland Blogger Briefing.  I’m interested to see on the Bloghive other reaction to Joe’s comments.

Most recently the Supreme Court struck down the Millionaire’s Amendment of McCain-Feingold (Davis v. Federal Election Commission) and highlighted two key analytical issues:

1. Certain disclosure requirements were unconstitutional, namely those requiring that a candidate’s contributions to his campaign be disclosed as they were being made, in addition to being reported on the normal periodic disclosure schedule.
2. The court upheld the argument that a law benefitting one candidate necessarily harmed the other candidate because a campaign is a zero-sum contest.

I hope McCain gets some difficult questions about the impact of his amendment on free speech during the upcoming election cycle.  My hope is that ultimately we stop relying on the government to fix campaign finance.  Their efforts have either hurt free speech or made it that much easier for the incumbent and establishment to win. I believe that as we citizens take the initiative to be informed and we can and will bring about the most meaningful kind of reform: change at the ballot box. 

Today I read two OpEd pieces, one from John McCain and the other written by Barack Obama where each puts to paper his own definition of Patriotism.  I enjoyed reading both and appreciated the sentiments articulated on the whole and I recommend both as good food for thought.  I believe there is tremendous value to be reminded of the bigger picture now and then.  It is just human tendency to get so bogged down in arguing over the details that we sometimes forget we’re working on the same thing, a better America.

There is probably only one issue that I would say misses the mark with the two editorials and it comes from Mr. McCain.

“It [patriotism] is putting the country first, before party or personal ambition, before anything.”

If McCain had stopped before the “before anything” comment I think his editorial would have been perfect.  But I think we enter dangerous territory when country/king/state comes before all else.  There is a great scene in Chariots of Fire where Eric Liddell and a English duke where they debated priority of allegiance: king or God first.  The duke remarked that in his day it was king first–God second, to which his colleague retorted that the war to end all wars [WW1] bitterly proved the duke’s point noting the consequence of misplaced allegiance priority.

I love my country, but not above all else.  I am sorry Mr. McCain, but my allegiance to my God and my family come before my allegiance to my country.  And to me this allows me to be more patriotic not less.

Enjoy the editorials and have a great Independence Day! It’s great to be an American.

“There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves.  And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.” [italics added for emphasis] 

Perhaps the most poingnant and sad case of this is where abuse takes place.  I have heard and witnessed several examples of the hatred or feelings of betrayal an abused expresses regarding their particular abuser, and then as the numbers suggest, these abused become the abusers and continue the cycle of violence.  They become the very thing they once were indignant about.   

For me the “sin” I so dislike in others is the rush to assume intent on the part of another.  I can’t stand when some one makes some judgement about how self righteous a post or comment of mine may have been when they know absolutely nothing about me, my heart, my intent, etc.. And yet as I sit here writing this post, I can name time after time, when I have been guilty of exactly such a crime.  My natural reaction is to strike back with equal or increased wrath and judgement in response to one who has inappropriately judged me.

Blogging has forced me to confront this incongruous behavior, and while I have by no means eliminated the tendency, I believe progress is in the works. 

So today I say “thank you” to all those who take the time to post, whether that comment derides or applauds any particular post.  You’ve made me think a little deeper and be a little better.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3625548

I have a sinking feeling that whole going to the DMV experience just got much worse.  I guess on the bright side, friday commutes should get a little lighter.

“Indignation is the soul’s defense against the wound of doubt about its own; it reorders the cosmos to support the justice of its cause…Recognizing indignation for what it is constitutes knowledge of the soul.”

Example No.1 from SLCSpin: http://www.slcspin.com/?p=408.

Klein’s presentation centered on getting quality teachers into every classroom because that is where the most bang for the buck is in terms of improved student achievement.  This is no surprise.  What did surprise me, given Klein’s long-standing political affiliation, was his top three reasons (which Romer quickly seconded) why this isn’t happening, and they all point squarely to the union. Klein’s top three barriers to getting quality teachers:

1. Seniority
2. Tenure
3. Lock-step Pay

While the teachers’ union consistently claims to be real pro-education advocate, it appears that the chorus on both sides of the isle is growing ever louder that they are actually becoming the biggest hurdle to bringing about the types of change needed to deliver a quality education to Utah’s (and the nation’s) children.

So how does a Mormon (or a Catholic, Jew, etc.) resolve this political/faith dilemma?  I know what it means for me and how the church’s statement informs my view on the CA amendment issue. What I still don’t know that I understand is the rationale of, “I’m Mormon and believe the church is true, that the prophet is called of God, and speaks his will, etc., but I just think the church/prophet is wrong on this issue.” (I am sure this post will prompt some interesting answers which I hope it does.)

For one reader of the DesNews, it was a pretty simple answer:

“Left-wing Mormons and gay/lesbian Mormons just need to recognize that the LDS Church is a right-wing organization with B.C. views on human sexuality.

“Now more than ever, I am glad to be among the growing number of intelligent, forward-looking people that consider ourselves ‘Post Mormons.’

“If your upset that the LDS church is taking this POLITICAL stand, remember that it’s First Presidency believes that it speaks the will of god.  The LDS leadership’s view of this god’s will is what is perverse.  And I stongly oppose this perverted view of history and humanity.”

Yet this seems overly simplistic and I know it doesn’t resonate with folks I have seen write about this topic, who I assume believe themselves to be faithful members of the Mormon religion.  Perhaps my struggle is best summed up by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity where Lewis takes head on the argument/claim that Jesus may have been a great moral teacher but not the Savior of the world.

From Lewis:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said [in his teaching and about himself] would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that [option] open to us. He did not intend to.

I guess I see my belief system in the same light.  If I believe President Thomas S. Monson to be who he says he is, then I’ve closed the door to picking and choosing what I wish to believe and support of his teachings as a prophet, a thought illustrated by these remarks from Henry B. Eyring (part of that “unintelligent, non-forward looking First Presidency”:

“Another fallacy is to believe that the choice to accept or not accept the counsel of prophets is no more than deciding whether to accept good advice and gain its benefits or to stay where we are. But the choice not to take prophetic counsel changes the very ground upon which we stand… Every time in my life when I have chosen to delay following inspired counsel or decided that I was an exception [or the political issue in this case], I came to know that I had put myself in harm’s way. Every time that I have listened to the counsel of prophets, felt it confirmed in prayer [not blindly obeyed], and then followed it, I have found that I moved toward safety.”

So for Mormons what is the rationale for making an exception here when the instruction has been explicit?