A Common Question, Part Two: In a Joint and Unified Community, What Do We Do About It?

Once upon a time, there was just the one high school...
but perhaps not just this one bus. Still, a reminder of the
challenges of getting students from Point A to Point B,
even today.

     In part one, I posted a link to an Open Letter by Krista Taylor, discussing the inequities of our nation’s education system. Looking at her arguments, I was led to consider an oft-asked question about our local communities’ schools. Specifically, “Why is there such a difference in the perceived and measured effectiveness between our two elementaries in the Fall River Joint Unified School District?” After all, if we are both joint and unified, one would imagine the personnel, performance, and progress in each end of our district should be nearly identical. They are not.
     I closed that first post by noting that if we follow Ms. Taylor's logic, and I do, there appears to be one major contributor to the disparity: The rate of children living in poverty in Burney is 52.1% higher than the rate in Fall River Mills. (The stats are available at http://www.city-data.com/.)

Part of the heritage of Fall River Mills Elementary:
The Glenburn Schoolhouse was moved to Fall River Mills
to provide additional space...then repatriated to Glenburn
when there was no longer a need for it in FRM!

     The subsequent effects of the Adverse Childhood Experiences related to poverty (for more information on this, see here: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/) are among the best documented statistical factors affecting our communities. But the case-by-case, person-to-person evidence that is being lived out by our front-line educators needs to be heard, validated, and supported through greater community involvement—in both ends of the district.

     In sharing the link to Ms. Taylor’s letter, Fiona Hickey quoted this in part, but the rest bears repeating as well: "We are not in an education crisis. We are in a crisis of poverty that is being exacerbated by the school accountability movement and the testing industry. At best, this movement has been misguided. At worst, it is an intentional set up to bring about the demise of the public education system – mandatory testing designed to produce poor results which leads to greater investment made in test preparation programs provided by the same companies who produce the tests, coupled with a related push for privatization of the educational system. All touted as a means to save us from this false crisis."

     Some might be motivated by this to write their congressman, or other officials at the county, state, or federal level. Those measures are appropriate, and as with Ms. Taylor’s Open Letter, they may eventually be effective. In communities like ours, however, we have an opportunity to reallocate resources more flexibly and effectively within the district and the community.

Among the "signs" of improvement at
Burney Elementary School.

     But who can tell us what needs to go where and how? Here's what Ms. Taylor suggests (with which I wholeheartedly agree): "I hope that you will consider the issues raised here, and most importantly, that you will listen to the voices of the teachers and parents who are trying so desperately to be heard."

     One organization that does seem to listen is the Burney-Fall River Education Foundation, which I regularly support and I would encourage you to do the same. But more of us need to listen to the answers from our educators—even if we are afraid to ask them, "What resources do you need?"

     Does asking that question frighten you a bit? Good. Because it terrifies me…especially being married to a teacher who regularly handles twenty-five transitional kindergartners—four and five year-olds—without a net (other than two very capable aides. One is available to her for an hour on most days. The other for twenty-five minutes). I think that we may share the same worries about asking this important question. I believe that you probably know what I know: that a big part of the answer to what our educators, families, and children need is:

      "You. And. Me."

A Common Question, Part One: In a Joint and Unified Community, Why Is There Such a Difference between Our Schools?

Krista Taylor

That’s the question I hear often. And there may finally be an answer. I am indebted to two friends, both educators, from families of educators, who shared the link to an Open Letter by educator Krista Taylor, the 2015 Dr. Lawrence C. Hawkins Educator of the Year. [accessed February 17, 2017,  http://angelsandsuperheroes.com/2017/01/09/1112/] My friends Fiona Hickey and Susan Tipton, shared a link to her letter, otherwise I would have been unaware of her excellent argument for improving our nation’s schools.

But I want to highlight a particular local factor to which Ms. Taylor’s letter led me. Even within the Intermountain Area, the disparities in both the perceived and measured effectiveness of our elementaries have been marked. Comparing many statistics between the Burney Basin and the Fall River Valley, some of us have struggled to determine what socio-economic factors contribute to such different outcomes. Most of the statistics are close enough between the two communities to suggest that there should be no appreciable difference between these similarly-sized schools, the only two elementaries, in the same district, drawing on the same pool of resources, and ostensibly led by the same administrative philosophies and personnel.

But Ms. Taylor's letter (well worth the long-ish read, in my opinion) addressed a statistic I had not specifically investigated. She noted the correlation in measured performance with the percentage of children living at or below the level of poverty. Where there are more children living in poverty, the measurements of the schools' effectiveness reflect poorly (pun intended) on the performance of educators in those schools.

There are, as Ms. Taylor points out, problems with the means by which "effectiveness" is being measured, and I agree with her on this. But there is another key point I believe merits consideration here, especially with regard to our educators in the Intermountain Area.

Her letter prompted me to reconsider my previous research. During my studies I have looked repeatedly into the statistics regarding the two ends of our district--specifically, the immediate Burney area and the Fall River Valley. Not only does each comprise roughly 3500 in population, almost all other statistics have been practically identical. But today, I realized that the statistics I had relied on applied to the entire population. Ms. Taylor's statistical focus, however, emphasized not the total number of people living in poverty (which I had studied and dismissed previously as a potential for such marked differences), but the percentage of children living in poverty.

So, I looked it up. The stats are available at http://www.city-data.com/.

Why is there such a difference in the perceived and measured effectiveness between our two elementaries? If we follow Ms. Taylor's logic, and I do, this is a major contributor to the disparity:

The poverty rate of children living in Burney is 52.1% higher than the rate in Fall River Mills.

Leave that statistic to sit before your mind for just a little bit.

Then, when you've let the faces and names and homes and jobs and other visions of the impoverished families you see every day within our diverse communities wash through you...come back for Part 2: What do we do about it?

Being Moments from Eternity, Please Take a Moment To Consider Eternity

A dear friend shared this illustration with me. Her comment? “Why is it that something about this makes me sooooo uncomfortable?”

Some might suggest that the discomfort she feels should be identified as conviction. The intent of the illustration, then, would be to suggest that perhaps she is not so eternally secure as she should be. In that case, her discomfort is a sign that she should…what? Re-accept Jesus as her Lord and Savior today?

Two things lead me to reject that explanation. First, I am as convinced of her relationship with Christ as I am of anyone’s beside my own. Second, there’s “sooooo” much more here to be uncomfortable about. Let me first note one issue in particular, then explain why it’s a far bigger problem than you might initially recognize, and finally offer an alternative.

The Point Being Made

We accept that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” But here, I would suggest that two rights do make a wrong. Of course, as with any bumper-sticker and/or t-shirt theology, I realize that the eight words in the second statement imply a great deal beyond what they say. And I do think it would be a very good thing to “Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior today.” (Accepting, of course, that “accept” suggests believing and following Jesus as His disciple.)

The first statement is also true, mostly. I would object that eternity, arguably, encompasses the time-space continuum—so we are already living eternal life here and now. Still, I think the meaning is clear enough. And being who I am (Death Pastor, after all), I heartily recommend that you live with the constant possibility of your imminent death. Further, I believe that part of the advance planning for that inevitability (in addition to communicating your health-care directives, outlining your funerary preferences, and writing your will) should be the consideration of where you spend eternity. (Of course, that’s another problem with this illustration. You are going to live forever. It’s just a matter of where and how. But I want to keep my promise to focus on just one of the many issues raised by this illustration.)

So, in the illustration, the point being made is this: You should accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior today, because today might be the last day you get.

The Problem with That Point

Here is my problem with the logic being presented. Christ’s gospel is too often reduced to a simplistic consumer transaction. “You get what you pay for,” and “you deserve what you earn,” are just two ways of expressing what most North Americans believe about life in general. Thus, we tend to think of the gospel as a contract in which we “accept Jesus” as the price of admission to heaven (as envisioned by the pearly gates in the illustration).

As presented, the logic of this illustration is simple and easy to follow. Since your next breath could be your last, you need to make sure you have that admission ticket in your hand, or have added your name to the guest list, or gotten the code for the push-button remote that opens those unmanned gates in the illustration. The emphasis of all this: “sign your contract with Jesus today.”

If that logic makes sense to you, though, I am deeply concerned for your soul.

All that many know of Jesus is that He did something in the past (sinless life, atoning death, validating resurrection, etc.) in order to provide something for us in the future (heaven, eternal life, kingdom reign, etc.). But far from that limited view of God’s obligation to honor a contract, even if sincerely accepted, there is so much more that Jesus is intending to do in and through your life.

If you accepted Jesus, and are looking forward to heaven, are you engaged in conversation with Him through His word and prayer? Do you recognize the ways in which He is transforming your life to reflect His? Do you experience the deepening compassion for others, and passion for Christ that result from getting to know Him better each day? In short, beyond having “signed a contract,” do you have a living, breathing relationship with God through Christ?

If not, you might still be saved. You might sincerely have obligated God to admit you into heaven on the basis of having once prayed “the sinner’s prayer.” But if that were all you had experienced of Jesus Christ, there would be so much more you would be missing.

The Alternative to Eternal Fire Insurance

The concept of “salvation as fire insurance” is at the heart of many gospel presentations. Even great philosophers can tend to replace the idea of a relationship with God through Christ with something resembling a convenience store purchase, or a brief trip to the casino. What is called “Pascal’s Wager” (after Blaise Pascal, 17th Century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist) is simplified to portray our “bet” that God exists. As our wager, we give up certain aspects of our finite existence (sins, usually) in anticipation of infinite gains. “If we are wrong, then we have lost little. If we are right, we have gained immeasurably.”

But it is not just our sins that Jesus calls us to surrender. And it is not merely heaven that He promises in return.

In short, as human persons we were created to bear the image and likeness of our Creator—one God eternally existing in a community of three persons. The vital experience of that image in us was broken through our decision to sin. We decided to do something other than what God designed us to do, which was to enjoy life in His presence. Through Christ, however, there is the means of restoring and repairing our relationship with God, and thus with other human persons as well. Our relationships with one another can better reflect the relationships of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—relationships of intimate fellowship, harmony, and cooperation.

So, why should you choose to follow Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord today? Because today is the soonest you can begin to cooperate in the process of repairing and restoring (and representing to others) the life you were always intended to have. And today is also the soonest you can begin to cooperate in the process of repairing and restoring the relationships among other human persons that we were all intended to enjoy in His presence.

If you’re waiting for that to begin in heaven, then you’re at least missing out on what Jesus wants you to be, and have, and live today. So, yes—do not wait to “sign the contract.” But instead, enter into the conversation with Him. Today.

“I’m Right; You’re Stupid.” – Overcoming Our Tendency to Destroy Dialogue via Social Media

Let me offer the following:

A question. An observation. A process. A conclusion.

The question: When we post to social media, and especially when we construct memes, to whom is our message intended?

The observation: I have friends with whose positions I agree. I have friends with whose positions I disagree. Both groups tend to traffic in narrow, stereotypical misrepresentations of one another, polarizing any issue into the extreme ends of any given spectrum. The result is that I choose not to respond even to those with whom I might agree to some extent when they so overstate their position, or represent it as an attack on other human persons. Many of them only barely rise above the childish rant: “I’m right; you’re stupid.”

The process: Here’s how this seems to be happening.

Seeking to encourage dialogue, I have been regularly engaging some of the moderately overwrought expressions of particular positions. The positions held cover a wide variety of topics. But whether it is gun control, immigration, misogyny, the mutual hatred of Republicans and Democrats, the dangers of allowing expressions of religious faith, or any of a handful of other topics, the positions are not just predictable. The positions held become exclusively binary—they are quickly forced to the extreme ends of each issue’s spectrum. For example, if we hold that “Black lives matter,” then we must believe that “No other lives matter.” Likewise, if we love the unborn human person, then we must despise and seek to torturously enslave women. And those who seek the free exercise of their religious convictions can, in this paradigm, only desire to do so at the expense of others’ rights. In all these and more there is no sense of nuance, no appreciation for our limited perceptions, and no suggestion of third options or even alternative perspectives on either of the two (and only two) positions available on any issue.

And this is what is occurring among the moderately overwrought expressions that I have sought to engage. Other expressions are distinctly hateful and inflammatory, and my engagement of them has, so far, only elicited responses of the “I’m right; you’re stupid” variety.

I try to engage those whose expressions merely exaggerate, whose stereotypes are more universal, and who acknowledge that those who disagree with their positions may, in fact, still have a right to air, warmth, water, and food. Usually, however, even these seem intent only on further enflaming those who share their opinions. This works, of course. Each post offers the opportunity to reinforce the position held through others’ “likes” and “shares” and “retweets” and other means of congratulation, especially toward those who state the positions creatively. Yet this also encourages more extreme expressions. Those with the greatest response go beyond exaggeration into ridiculous hyperbole, beyond stereotypes into depersonalization, and even advocating the exploitation, oppression, and removal (yes, removal and even destruction) of entire groups of human persons.

This polarization continues unabated where either of two conditions exist.

The first condition allows some to remain oblivious to their own extreme expressions. This occurs when one’s social media friends and/or followers are almost entirely of a narrow political, socio-economic, religious, and/or ethnic category. Here, the reinforcement of our beliefs goes unchallenged because it is unheard outside the sycophantic circle (i.e., those who can only voice agreement with another’s thought, most often due to the total lack of any thoughts of their own).

The second condition, however, exists even where one’s circle of friends/followers expands beyond those categories. Those of us who reconnect with old friends from High School and College—and who have advanced a few years beyond those formative associations—find a broader range of opinions being expressed. We may agree with some, disagree with others, or even find ourselves wondering about the thought process that supports the position being stated. But in these cases, the polarization continues. Why? Because of this second condition: tacit approval—meaning we silently allow others to assume our agreement. As much as we may consider how someone has come to a conclusion far different from our own, we rarely engage in dialogue. We tend to respond only to those posts to which we can add a hearty “Amen!” with presumed impunity. Others, we read far enough to categorize into our own stereotypes, then scroll, swipe, or otherwise move on to safer, more agreeable posts.

The Conclusion: Having observed this polarization process, I would offer two uncomfortable suggestions. First, I recommend that we expand our corps of friends and followers to include those with whom we are likely to disagree. Second, I also recommend that we engage, politely, with questions or concerns about the content and tone of others’ posts, and especially the memes that are frequently shared by many.

Will this foster world peace? Are we hoping to come to agreement on these divisive issues? Can this possibly stop the bitterness and hatred being expressed?

I believe it would be a step in the right direction. Because when we choose to engage other human persons with whom we disagree, we would be treating them as though they were other human persons. That, in and of itself, might ramp down the rhetoric and allow us the privilege of actual dialogue. And, even if we may never reach agreement in the 5-10% on which we disagree, at least we might reach an accommodation for the 90-95% of our lives that we hold in entire agreement.