I am now available most nights of the week for tutoring. Here is the link:
Friday, March 23, 2012
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Teachers Unions and Their Affect Upon Education
Today in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, one of the responses to an article from the Political Fix page "Congress completes state aid package for schools, Medicaid" referred to the constant charge by some that Teachers Unions have pretty much destroyed education in the United States. The article was written by Bill Lambrecht of the Post-Dispatch. Many posters on the discussion page that followed were accusatory that the Teachers Unions were at fault for destroying education by preventing the school administration from firing tenured teachers.
One of the people posting in the discussion, cmfriend, (obviously not his real name) included an article written by a blogger as a reply that I thought was well researched and pointed out what is actually true. I am including it here and I hope that you will find it as enlightening as I did.
The Myth of the "Powerful" Teachers' Union
By DAVID MACARAY
There’s a myth circulating out there that not only threatens to ruin the reputation of America’s school teachers, but has the potential to side-track any realistic hopes of education reform. It’s the assertion that “powerful” teachers’ unions are responsible for the decline of public education in the United States in general, and California in particular.
Propagators of this myth claim that the reason test scores of American children have sunk so low in recent years is because our public school teachers are too incompetent and lazy to provide adequate instruction.
Moreover, because the teachers’ unions are so domineering and evil—because their leaders will do anything to maintain union hegemony, including not allowing demonstrably inferior teachers to be fired—school administrators are powerless to act.
You hear these charges everywhere. Arianna Huffington, the late-to-the-party liberal and celebrity blogger, has been echoing such claims for years. For Huffington to be riffing on the state of public education is, in itself, remarkable, given that she lives in Brentwood, her daughters attend prestigious private schools, and the closest she’s ever come to an inner-city school was the day she accidentally drove by one, causing her to hastily lock the doors and windows of her Prius and speed away.
On Friday, March 13, comedian and uber-liberal Bill Maher joined the attack on his HBO show. In one of his signature tirades, Maher, a California resident, railed against the “powerful” California teachers’ union, accusing it of contributing to the crisis in public education by not allowing the school district to remove incompetent teachers.
Maher came armed with statistics. He noted with dismay that the U.S. ranked 35th in the world in math, 29th in science, and that barely 50% of California’s public school pupils manage to graduate from high school. He blamed the teachers for this.
Although every teacher in the LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District), has a college degree and a teaching credential and managed to survive the scrutiny of a lengthy probationary period, Maher piously maintained that these teachers were unqualified to run a classroom.
Granted, Maher is a professional comic trolling for laughs, and not a “social scientist” dispensing wisdom, so we shouldn’t be looking to this man for enlightenment. Still, considering his liberal creds (from the environment to civil liberties to corporate mischief to drug law reform), it was demoralizing to hear someone this hip say something so stupid and simplistic.
Maher made a huge deal of the fact that, because of the union’s protective shield, less than 1% of California’s tenured/post-probationary teachers get fired. Although this ratio clearly outraged him (he appeared visibly upset by it), had he taken five minutes to research the subject, he’d have realized that this figure represents the national average—with or without unions.
In Georgia, where 92.5% of the teachers are non-union, only 0.5% of tenured/post-probationary teachers get fired. In South Carolina, where 100% of the teachers are non-union, it’s 0.32%. And in North Carolina, where 97.7% are non-union, a miniscule .03% of tenured/post-probationary teachers get fired—the exact same percentage as California.
An even more startling comparison: In California, with its “powerful” teachers’ union, school administrators fire, on average, 6.91% of its probationary teachers. In non-union North Carolina, that figure is only 1.38%. California is actually tougher on prospective candidates.
So, despite Maher’s display of civic pride and self-righteous indignation (“We need to bust this union,” he declared), he was utterly mistaken. The statistics not only don’t support his argument, they contradict it.
Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, California’s public school system was routinely ranked among the nation’s finest. You can look it up. More significantly, the teachers in those classrooms were union members. The same teachers who were winning those awards for excellence belonged to the “powerful” teachers’ union. Let that sink in a moment: Good schools, good teachers, big union.
Which raises the question: Has anything else changed in California (and the rest of the country, for that matter) in the last 40 years to lead one to believe there might be causes other than labor unions to explain the drop in graduation rates? Have there been any significant changes in, say, cultural attitudes or demographics?
For openers, how about the disintegration of the American family and the decline in parental supervision/involvement? Being a good student requires discipline, application and, perhaps, a certain level of respect for authority. Have we witnessed any “breakdowns” in these areas over the last 40 years?
Or how about the rise in urban poverty? Or the hollowing-out of the middle-class (the average worker hasn’t received a pay increase, in real dollars, since 1973)? Or the assimilation of non-English-speaking immigrants? Or the decrease in per capita funding on California public education? Or the chaos created by school boards arbitrarily mandating wholesale changes in “educational ideology” every two years (LAUSD has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on consultants)?
Ask any teacher, child psychologist, sociologist, or real estate agent, and they’ll tell you the same thing: As a general rule, good schools are found in good neighborhoods, and bad schools are found in bad neighborhoods. Simple as that.
Moreover, people know this “formula” to be true. Not only is the promise of good schools one reason why people with kids buy homes in good neighborhoods, it’s not uncommon for parents in California to lie about their home addresses in order to get their children assigned to better schools.
An experiment: Try moving those “good” teachers from decent school districts—where the kids show up each day, on time, prepared, bright-eyed and attentive, having completed their homework, having eaten a nutritious breakfast, etc.—to one of those South Central LA #####-holes, where crime is rampant, neighborhoods are ravaged, families are in crisis, and 40% of the students live in foster care.
See if these “good” teachers, by virtue of their innate “classroom abilities,” are able to improve the test scores of these stunted, overmatched and underprivileged kids. See if these “good” teachers can do what a generation of parents themselves, and society itself, can’t seem to do; see if the graduation rates in these depressed communities rise significantly.
And, as part of that same experiment, move the “incompetent” teachers to these healthy, self-sustaining districts and see if the students in these schools don’t continue to score significantly higher, even with the “bad” teachers now running the show.
Fact: Oregon has a good public school system. So do South Dakota, Vermont, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine and Washington, among others. Is that because the folks living in these states are exceptionally bright? Is it because their teachers are extraordinarily talented?
Or is it because these school districts are stable, relatively homogeneous, and don’t face a fraction of the challenges facing California?
For the record, the teachers in these aforementioned good schools are overwhelmingly unionized. Oregon and Washington teachers are 100% unionized; Wisconsin is 98%; Connecticut is 98%; etc.
Also, comparing the scores of American students in foreign countries is a bit misleading. The United States was not only the first nation in the world to offer free public education, it was the first to make it compulsory.
In the U.S., by law, you must attend school until at least age 16 (some states have even higher age requirements). That means our national average is going to incorporate test scores of every kid from every background in every neighborhood in the country.
In India (where I once lived and worked), great emphasis is placed on education; accordingly, India has a decent school system, one that scores well. But school attendance is not mandatory. Indeed, India has 400 million people who are illiterate. One wonders what their national test scores would be if those many millions who can’t read or write were factored in.
Fact: Teachers can be fired. Who honestly believes a teachers’ union—whether in California, Oregon or Connecticut—has the authority to insist that management keep unqualified teachers? Since when does a labor union dictate to management? Since when does the hired help tell the bosses what to do? The accusation is absurd on its face.
Fact: During the first two years of employment, any teacher in the LAUSD can be fired for any reason, with no recourse to union representation and no access to the grievance procedure. Two full years. If the district doesn’t like you for any reason, they fire you. No union. No grievance. Nothing. Could any arrangement be more favorable to management?
Yet, the myth persists, the myth of the Unqualified Teacher. Instead of identifying the real problems facing California’s schools (daunting as they may be), and trying to solve them, people stubbornly insist that thousands of our teachers—every one of them college-educated, credentialed, and having survived two years of scrutiny—need to be fired.
Let’s be clear; no one is suggesting that all teachers are “excellent.” Obviously, you’re going to find marginal workers in any profession. But, realistically, how many “bad” teachers could there be?
Surely, America’s colleges, universities, and credentialing system can’t be so hideously flawed that we no longer trust their output—that our teachers aren’t worth a damn. Moreover, if it’s the unions who are protecting them, why does South Carolina—where 100% of the teachers are non-union—fire only one-third of one-percent of them?
Fact: The fault for unqualified teachers remaining on the payroll lies entirely with the school administrators. These overpaid, $120,000 a year, gutless bureaucrats want us to believe that we live in a world turned upside down. A world where, fantastically, the bosses answer to the employees.
Arguably, the problems facing America’s public schools are staggering. But because politicians are essentially spineless—fearful of doing or saying anything that would risk antagonizing their “base”—they refuse to address the real issues. Instead, they play little mind-games with the voters. It’s not a pretty picture, but it’s where we stand.
And if television personalities like Arianna Huffington and Bill Maher honestly believe all this anti-union propaganda being circulated, they’re more gullible than we thought.
One of the people posting in the discussion, cmfriend, (obviously not his real name) included an article written by a blogger as a reply that I thought was well researched and pointed out what is actually true. I am including it here and I hope that you will find it as enlightening as I did.
The Myth of the "Powerful" Teachers' Union
By DAVID MACARAY
There’s a myth circulating out there that not only threatens to ruin the reputation of America’s school teachers, but has the potential to side-track any realistic hopes of education reform. It’s the assertion that “powerful” teachers’ unions are responsible for the decline of public education in the United States in general, and California in particular.
Propagators of this myth claim that the reason test scores of American children have sunk so low in recent years is because our public school teachers are too incompetent and lazy to provide adequate instruction.
Moreover, because the teachers’ unions are so domineering and evil—because their leaders will do anything to maintain union hegemony, including not allowing demonstrably inferior teachers to be fired—school administrators are powerless to act.
You hear these charges everywhere. Arianna Huffington, the late-to-the-party liberal and celebrity blogger, has been echoing such claims for years. For Huffington to be riffing on the state of public education is, in itself, remarkable, given that she lives in Brentwood, her daughters attend prestigious private schools, and the closest she’s ever come to an inner-city school was the day she accidentally drove by one, causing her to hastily lock the doors and windows of her Prius and speed away.
On Friday, March 13, comedian and uber-liberal Bill Maher joined the attack on his HBO show. In one of his signature tirades, Maher, a California resident, railed against the “powerful” California teachers’ union, accusing it of contributing to the crisis in public education by not allowing the school district to remove incompetent teachers.
Maher came armed with statistics. He noted with dismay that the U.S. ranked 35th in the world in math, 29th in science, and that barely 50% of California’s public school pupils manage to graduate from high school. He blamed the teachers for this.
Although every teacher in the LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District), has a college degree and a teaching credential and managed to survive the scrutiny of a lengthy probationary period, Maher piously maintained that these teachers were unqualified to run a classroom.
Granted, Maher is a professional comic trolling for laughs, and not a “social scientist” dispensing wisdom, so we shouldn’t be looking to this man for enlightenment. Still, considering his liberal creds (from the environment to civil liberties to corporate mischief to drug law reform), it was demoralizing to hear someone this hip say something so stupid and simplistic.
Maher made a huge deal of the fact that, because of the union’s protective shield, less than 1% of California’s tenured/post-probationary teachers get fired. Although this ratio clearly outraged him (he appeared visibly upset by it), had he taken five minutes to research the subject, he’d have realized that this figure represents the national average—with or without unions.
In Georgia, where 92.5% of the teachers are non-union, only 0.5% of tenured/post-probationary teachers get fired. In South Carolina, where 100% of the teachers are non-union, it’s 0.32%. And in North Carolina, where 97.7% are non-union, a miniscule .03% of tenured/post-probationary teachers get fired—the exact same percentage as California.
An even more startling comparison: In California, with its “powerful” teachers’ union, school administrators fire, on average, 6.91% of its probationary teachers. In non-union North Carolina, that figure is only 1.38%. California is actually tougher on prospective candidates.
So, despite Maher’s display of civic pride and self-righteous indignation (“We need to bust this union,” he declared), he was utterly mistaken. The statistics not only don’t support his argument, they contradict it.
Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, California’s public school system was routinely ranked among the nation’s finest. You can look it up. More significantly, the teachers in those classrooms were union members. The same teachers who were winning those awards for excellence belonged to the “powerful” teachers’ union. Let that sink in a moment: Good schools, good teachers, big union.
Which raises the question: Has anything else changed in California (and the rest of the country, for that matter) in the last 40 years to lead one to believe there might be causes other than labor unions to explain the drop in graduation rates? Have there been any significant changes in, say, cultural attitudes or demographics?
For openers, how about the disintegration of the American family and the decline in parental supervision/involvement? Being a good student requires discipline, application and, perhaps, a certain level of respect for authority. Have we witnessed any “breakdowns” in these areas over the last 40 years?
Or how about the rise in urban poverty? Or the hollowing-out of the middle-class (the average worker hasn’t received a pay increase, in real dollars, since 1973)? Or the assimilation of non-English-speaking immigrants? Or the decrease in per capita funding on California public education? Or the chaos created by school boards arbitrarily mandating wholesale changes in “educational ideology” every two years (LAUSD has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on consultants)?
Ask any teacher, child psychologist, sociologist, or real estate agent, and they’ll tell you the same thing: As a general rule, good schools are found in good neighborhoods, and bad schools are found in bad neighborhoods. Simple as that.
Moreover, people know this “formula” to be true. Not only is the promise of good schools one reason why people with kids buy homes in good neighborhoods, it’s not uncommon for parents in California to lie about their home addresses in order to get their children assigned to better schools.
An experiment: Try moving those “good” teachers from decent school districts—where the kids show up each day, on time, prepared, bright-eyed and attentive, having completed their homework, having eaten a nutritious breakfast, etc.—to one of those South Central LA #####-holes, where crime is rampant, neighborhoods are ravaged, families are in crisis, and 40% of the students live in foster care.
See if these “good” teachers, by virtue of their innate “classroom abilities,” are able to improve the test scores of these stunted, overmatched and underprivileged kids. See if these “good” teachers can do what a generation of parents themselves, and society itself, can’t seem to do; see if the graduation rates in these depressed communities rise significantly.
And, as part of that same experiment, move the “incompetent” teachers to these healthy, self-sustaining districts and see if the students in these schools don’t continue to score significantly higher, even with the “bad” teachers now running the show.
Fact: Oregon has a good public school system. So do South Dakota, Vermont, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine and Washington, among others. Is that because the folks living in these states are exceptionally bright? Is it because their teachers are extraordinarily talented?
Or is it because these school districts are stable, relatively homogeneous, and don’t face a fraction of the challenges facing California?
For the record, the teachers in these aforementioned good schools are overwhelmingly unionized. Oregon and Washington teachers are 100% unionized; Wisconsin is 98%; Connecticut is 98%; etc.
Also, comparing the scores of American students in foreign countries is a bit misleading. The United States was not only the first nation in the world to offer free public education, it was the first to make it compulsory.
In the U.S., by law, you must attend school until at least age 16 (some states have even higher age requirements). That means our national average is going to incorporate test scores of every kid from every background in every neighborhood in the country.
In India (where I once lived and worked), great emphasis is placed on education; accordingly, India has a decent school system, one that scores well. But school attendance is not mandatory. Indeed, India has 400 million people who are illiterate. One wonders what their national test scores would be if those many millions who can’t read or write were factored in.
Fact: Teachers can be fired. Who honestly believes a teachers’ union—whether in California, Oregon or Connecticut—has the authority to insist that management keep unqualified teachers? Since when does a labor union dictate to management? Since when does the hired help tell the bosses what to do? The accusation is absurd on its face.
Fact: During the first two years of employment, any teacher in the LAUSD can be fired for any reason, with no recourse to union representation and no access to the grievance procedure. Two full years. If the district doesn’t like you for any reason, they fire you. No union. No grievance. Nothing. Could any arrangement be more favorable to management?
Yet, the myth persists, the myth of the Unqualified Teacher. Instead of identifying the real problems facing California’s schools (daunting as they may be), and trying to solve them, people stubbornly insist that thousands of our teachers—every one of them college-educated, credentialed, and having survived two years of scrutiny—need to be fired.
Let’s be clear; no one is suggesting that all teachers are “excellent.” Obviously, you’re going to find marginal workers in any profession. But, realistically, how many “bad” teachers could there be?
Surely, America’s colleges, universities, and credentialing system can’t be so hideously flawed that we no longer trust their output—that our teachers aren’t worth a damn. Moreover, if it’s the unions who are protecting them, why does South Carolina—where 100% of the teachers are non-union—fire only one-third of one-percent of them?
Fact: The fault for unqualified teachers remaining on the payroll lies entirely with the school administrators. These overpaid, $120,000 a year, gutless bureaucrats want us to believe that we live in a world turned upside down. A world where, fantastically, the bosses answer to the employees.
Arguably, the problems facing America’s public schools are staggering. But because politicians are essentially spineless—fearful of doing or saying anything that would risk antagonizing their “base”—they refuse to address the real issues. Instead, they play little mind-games with the voters. It’s not a pretty picture, but it’s where we stand.
And if television personalities like Arianna Huffington and Bill Maher honestly believe all this anti-union propaganda being circulated, they’re more gullible than we thought.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Disparities in College Costs in Missouri
The following are estimate for tuition, room and board, books and supplies, and spending money as provided by the Sallie Mae Education Investment website. It is a great site for comparing college costs.
Truman State University $15594
The following are the costs for one year at some of Missouri's 4 year public universities.
Truman State University $15594University of Missouri Kansas City $20194
University of Missouri Columbia (Mizzou) $19630
University of Missouri Columbia (Mizzou) $19630 University of Missouri Saint Louis $19774
Missouri Institute of Science and Technology (Columbia) $20,788
Northwest Missouri State University $14949
Southeast Missouri State University $16,692
Now here are a few Missouri Private Colleges
Washington University $55979
St. Louis University $50196 
Fontbonne $31677
Maryville University $33182
Westminster College $27674
Why the Disparity?
Rick and I know people in science who have been to each of these universities. All are quite competent in what they do and seem well prepared for their careers. So why the difference in costs?
One reason is the lack of federal/state money going to the private institutions, so they make up for this by charging more for tuition, fees, room and board. They also spend a lot of time shaking the alumni trees for some fat donations.
Does this mean these students are getting a better education? Based upon our experience with employees and co-workers, I really think not. As a matter of fact, the second lowest cost school, Truman State University, has been ranked by US News and World Report for twelve straight years as the # 1 public university in the midwest that offers both bachelors and masters degrees. All of the schools listed have their strong points, but some people seem to think that the expensive schools come with a name that will help them to get better jobs.
Not true. It's actually the graduate school that you attend that matters, namewise. And even that isn't that important. What is boils down to is the type of person you are, your abilities, your work ethic, being a life-long learner, recommendations and how well you interview. It is, unfortunatley, also who you know.
So do you want your four year degree to come with a cost of more than $200,000 with no better an education than a four year public school with a cost of no more than $60,000? If you are a realist like me, you'll pick the latter. I don't want my kids paying off a four year bachelors degree for the rest of their adult lives.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Should Public Schools Pay for Special School District Student's Private School Tuition?
Today in the Saint Louis Post Dispatch there is an interesting article discussing two cases where the courts have had to try to decide if public school districts should have to pay for special school district students, or special needs students, to go to residential private schools. Here's a link to the article, it adresses some pretty complex questions.
Two students are discussed with very different issues.
Student 1: "a struggling Oregon high school student whose parents enrolled him in a $5,200-a-month residential school after he became a heavy marijuana user and ran away from home".
He was evaluated for learning disabilities and didn't have them, his folks removed him from public school before he could be evaluated for ADHD, which it sounds like he may have this or possibly Oppositional Defiant Disorder based upon the description.
Questions:
- Should the District pay for this?
- Why did Mom and Dad allow his problems to get this far (to Junior year in HS) before they decided to have him evaluated? Have they ever thought to take him to a psychiatrist? Did they take him?
- Without waiting for a diagnosis from the school district which would have helped place the student in an appropriate learning situation, can the district be expected to pay for the private school?
All students have the right (by law) to an appropriate public education. The key word here is "appropriate".
Maybe it isn't appropriate to put my son into a learning situation with an out of control student too. Does that mean the school district would pay for me to put my son into a private school that refuses to educate kids with problems?
Hmmm.
Student #2: Younger learning disabled student whose Dad enrolled him in a private school without ever trying public school.
If this child has a true diagnosed learning disability, why didn't Dad enroll him in public school with the guarantee of special school district help in that setting? This one has already gone to the Supreme Court where the decision was deadlocked when judge Anthony Kennedy recused himself.
Questions:
- What is this child's learning disability and why would a private school do a better job educating him?
- Why would his Dad not have the child evaluated by Special School District before the child started school, and then look at public school options?
- It seems as if Dad jumped the gun, but as the president of Viacom, perhaps he is used to getting what he wants right away. And I'm guessing he could better afford this private school than the local school district.
- Shouldn't there be an independent consultant for parents and public schools who can best decide if a student's learning disabilities (or behavioral disabilities) might best be addressed by a private residential facility? Otherwise it seems as if any parent can make this decision at any time for any student, and this could decimate the entire public school system.
Let us all know what you think by commenting on the blog itself, so others can read your responses.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Rethinking the Mom Thing
As my kids get older and more independent, I find myself feeling at a loss sometimes for what to do with my own personal time. So much time and effort has been spent in raising my kids, that my husband and I are having to reflect upon what it is we actually liked to do before the "Mom Thing" happened to us. Truly, any time we've had has always gone toward our kids and making sure they are the best possible people that they can be.
But things are different now. Emily is finishing her junior year and is looking toward college and a job. Her boyfriend and all of her activities take up most of her time. Ricky is finishing his freshman year, and as Mr. Popular with 800 friends, his time is taken up in a very social way. Both still like to do family things with us, but there is less and less time for that sort of thing.
As friends of mine know, I've stayed sane through all this "Mom" stuff by getting together with my girlfriends one Friday a month at "Moms Hell Night Out". But now that doesn't even seem like enough socializing to me, since I have so much more free time without kids. And as a teacher, going into summer, I've really been thinking lately of what parts of me I've lost over the last twenty years, and how I'd like to get back into activities and social events that I used to love to do. Here are a few:
1. Golf: I used to golf quite a bit up in Michigan, and have really missed having the time to do this. I stink at it, but it is so much fun and it is so nice to be outside for that long I really miss having that one great shot a day. It's literally been 18 years since I've done much of this. There's that "Mom Effect" again.
2. Excersize: Summer is good for this, but I'd like to extend this to the rest of the year. I'd like to do lots more bicycle riding on some of the cool trails around St. Louis with friends. Fun and get in great shape too. This of course means a slight investment in a bike carrier, but since I've also decided to spend less on the kids activities and more on me, that'll work.
3. Theater: I might just get us some season tickets to the rep. Or go to the Opera, or Symphony or anything that brings a bit more appreciation of the arts into my life.
4. Organizing my life. Taking all those boxes full of stuff that I said I'd organize "later" sounds just awful, but I think "later" has arrived.
5. Wine Tasting. Nothing more fun than getting a group of friends together and appreciating the grape. This of course can be combined with riding bikes on the katy trail, so #2 can actually correlate with #5.
6. Flute: I've just started playing with a church orchestra this year, and hope to do more. Actually, I might even have time for lessons to get better (maybe I'm dreaming here.)
I'll keep thinking, another aspect to all of this is doing joint activities with Rick too. Af course we have to agree on what we like, but the bowling league we were in through church was a hoot. It answered the need for a fun couples activity with other people we know and like, and also was a good outlet for my competitive side. So we'll see how the "Mom thing" plays out this year. I'll keep you posted.
But things are different now. Emily is finishing her junior year and is looking toward college and a job. Her boyfriend and all of her activities take up most of her time. Ricky is finishing his freshman year, and as Mr. Popular with 800 friends, his time is taken up in a very social way. Both still like to do family things with us, but there is less and less time for that sort of thing.
As friends of mine know, I've stayed sane through all this "Mom" stuff by getting together with my girlfriends one Friday a month at "Moms Hell Night Out". But now that doesn't even seem like enough socializing to me, since I have so much more free time without kids. And as a teacher, going into summer, I've really been thinking lately of what parts of me I've lost over the last twenty years, and how I'd like to get back into activities and social events that I used to love to do. Here are a few:
1. Golf: I used to golf quite a bit up in Michigan, and have really missed having the time to do this. I stink at it, but it is so much fun and it is so nice to be outside for that long I really miss having that one great shot a day. It's literally been 18 years since I've done much of this. There's that "Mom Effect" again.
2. Excersize: Summer is good for this, but I'd like to extend this to the rest of the year. I'd like to do lots more bicycle riding on some of the cool trails around St. Louis with friends. Fun and get in great shape too. This of course means a slight investment in a bike carrier, but since I've also decided to spend less on the kids activities and more on me, that'll work.
3. Theater: I might just get us some season tickets to the rep. Or go to the Opera, or Symphony or anything that brings a bit more appreciation of the arts into my life.
4. Organizing my life. Taking all those boxes full of stuff that I said I'd organize "later" sounds just awful, but I think "later" has arrived.
5. Wine Tasting. Nothing more fun than getting a group of friends together and appreciating the grape. This of course can be combined with riding bikes on the katy trail, so #2 can actually correlate with #5.
6. Flute: I've just started playing with a church orchestra this year, and hope to do more. Actually, I might even have time for lessons to get better (maybe I'm dreaming here.)
Raise money for Oakville Band Parents Association just by searching the web and shopping online!
I'll keep thinking, another aspect to all of this is doing joint activities with Rick too. Af course we have to agree on what we like, but the bowling league we were in through church was a hoot. It answered the need for a fun couples activity with other people we know and like, and also was a good outlet for my competitive side. So we'll see how the "Mom thing" plays out this year. I'll keep you posted.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
A New Button
Here's a pretty nice thing, our GoodSearch account is in pretty good shape so they've created our own little button for us. Cool Huh?
Raise money for Oakville Band Parents Association just by searching the web and shopping online!
Friday, April 10, 2009
Biology and Chemistry Tutoring
Just thought I'd mention that I do online biology and chemistry tutoring with live chat and email. It's a great way for me to help kids, and pick up a little extra $ at the same time. If you or a student you know should like to be tutored in biology or chemistry at the high school level (I happen to like working with high school kids, if you didn't know) just click the link below to get started.
http://www.liveperson.com/dr-mehigh
http://www.liveperson.com/dr-mehigh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
