One year later...

On this date last year, I posted about my weight loss, which, at the time, I was just over six months into and had lost 50 pounds. Well, here it is one year later, so perhaps  some of you are wondering how it's going or if it's even still going at all. Most diets seem to last only for a short time and then the person gains all their old weight back, right? While that is true, so far, it's not true for me.

To start, at this point last year I was right around 175 pounds, just 15 pounds from my goal of 160. I officially got below 160 on August 1, 2015 when I checked in at 159.4. I officially "bottomed out" about two weeks later on August 12 when I got as low as 156.4 pounds. Since that time, yes, I have gained some weight back, currently hovering around 170 pounds. But here's the deal: while I have gained weight, it has been incredibly slow, and more importantly, has not resulted in me having to get any larger clothes or any of the smaller sizes I bought feeling tighter, particularly around the waist. What does that mean? It means the weight I'm gaining is mostly muscle, not fat. And, oh by the way, I've been trying to gain weight, back to 170.

May 26, 2016

At this point last year, since I was still actively losing weight, I was functioning on a daily recommended intake of 1,485 calories per day, which translated to 45g of fat, 150g of carbs, and 120g of protein. I was pretty good about hitting those numbers or being pretty close. I was also getting regular cardio done each week to burn around 2,000 calories in the week. Beginning in August, once I hit that initial goal of getting below 160, my trainer Josh slowly started to increase my macro totals to the point where I have been since December: 2,450 calories/per day, which includes 70g of fat, 335g of carbs, and 120g of protein. I also started to keep track of my fiber and sugar intake. Josh recommends 1g of fiber per 100 calories per day (so my goal is to be above an average of 24g per week) and no more than 100g of sugar/day. By then I had already stopped doing formal, documented cardio, at least as part of my regular workout. I still do cardio, but it's in things like yardwork or walking places instead of at the gym. When I'm able to measure it, I still put it into my app just to keep track of it all.

Progress from the beginning, covering 18 months

I still check my weight every day and keep track of everything I eat. Yes, that can be tedious at times, but overall, I've gotten so used to it, I don't mind. It becomes an issue when I'm not totally sure how much I'm eating of something or what all is in it. In those cases, I do my best to guess. The most difficult challenge I had was during my trip to Ukraine. Here in the US, most food has fairly detailed nutrition labels based on a determined "serving size", so inputting that into My Fitness Pal is pretty easy, especially when I can just scan a barcode. Even for things that don't have the label, I can usually find something in the database that's close to what I think it is.

Could I maintain my weight without tracking everything I eat? Most likely. I continue to track it all and use a scale to measure some things when I can, but more for the precision and accuracy of my results than the bigger picture.

Such was not the case in Ukraine. In other parts of Europe they have nutrition labels that are based on 100 grams, so it requires some additional math to figure out how much you're getting when the total isn't 100 grams, especially if it's less than 100 grams. Ukraine didn't have much of any nutrition labels, but even more so, I couldn't read them anyway! There were a few times I could get info from scanning the barcode, but that was pretty rare as most food did not have a barcode.

So what did I do? Well, in Ukraine, I simply stopped keeping track of food since I not only didn't have the barcode to scan or label to read, but I also often didn't even know what to call the food or if the version available in the database was anything close to what was what I had in front of me. I did that because I knew it was only for about two weeks, plus I did bring my scale, so I was keeping track of my weight every day. Keeping track helped me notice any changes and I could make adjustments as I needed. Even if I wasn't totally sure of the numbers and hitting my exact macro goals, I could usually tell if something was probably higher in fat, carbs, or protein. I also paid attention to how I felt after eating. I didn't want to feel hungry, but also didn't want to feel totally stuffed.

In the end, my starting weight when I left for Ukraine on March 21 was 168.2 and my weight when I returned home on April 4 was 169.2, and that was after being awake for over 24 hours, mostly sitting on a plane and in various airport waiting areas as I traveled home. On the course of the trip, my weight got as low as 167.4. In other words, it fluctuated just like it has consistently done here, even when I'm hitting my goals and getting my workouts consistently. Bottom line is I practiced reasonable moderation in what I ate and I got a good amount of physical activity. It was pretty easy doing that in Ukraine since I was with my sister (who doesn't like just hanging out) and we had to walk just about anywhere. I was able to get one good formal workout in on the trip, but that was it.

I've never been comfortable calling what I've been doing a "diet" mostly because "diet" has the connotation of "restriction", meaning I'm not eating a certain thing or otherwise denying myself of certain things. When people say they're "on a diet", it seems they most often mean they're avoiding certain things, usually things they really like (sweets, dairy, carbs. etc.). So it's no surprise when they inevitably miss those things they are avoiding and then ultimately fail at their attempt to lose weight as they decide this whole "diet" thing sucks and give up.

As I've said before, it's all about moderation. I continue to eat out regularly and have sweets in a reasonable manner. Not a day passes that I don't have some kind of cookies or chocolate, and ice cream regularly finds its way into my macro budget too. That doesn't mean I base my entire day around sugary snacks, but it does mean I have them. I'm far less likely to binge on them (never have had a so-called "cheat day" this entire time) since I'm not giving them up or avoiding them altogether. Same for anything like carbs and fat.

As for supplements, at this point last year I was only using a protein powder as a supplement. Well, I haven't used even that for several months now, mostly because I made a few changes in the foods I eat to meet my protein goals without having a supplement. Instead I get it mostly from chicken, turkey and roast beef lunch meat, and Greek yogurt, along with my trusty Triscuits and pretzel chips :). Occasionally I get the Pure Protein bars mostly because I like their flavor. I got a case of them for Christmas and then got another case later and used them in place of the Greek yogurt on days I felt a bit rushed in the morning. I have yet to find a supplement I actually need, at least as far as what I'm trying to accomplish. Just remember: anything that claims to "cleanse" or "detox" your system is complete and utter nonsense and is a waste of money. The only thing it "cleanses" is your bank account. Same for any supplement that claims to "block fat" (really?!?), "transfer carbs" (come on!!) or any such malarkey. Seriously, just don't waste your money on things you don't need and that aren't helping you at all.

And lastly, remember to get health advice from TRAINED PROFESSIONALS (registered dietitians or at least people who have taken college courses in nutrition and physiology), not memes or cute graphics on social media, random stories from slanted sites like "NaturalNews, Food Babe, or Mercola, or from well-meaning friends who happen to work for a multi-level marketing company that sells some "awesome" BS supplement. Working for a supplement company does not suddenly make you an expert in health and nutrition, on top of the obvious conflict of interest.

6 months in, down 50+

Since late November, I've been following a diet mainly to lose weight. During the process I've been meaning to blog about it, telling myself I'd blog when I hit my first main goal, or after six months. Well, I just recently hit the 50-pounds-down mark, and on May 23 I marked six months, so now is as good a time as ever. I have to say, though, what I've been doing doesn't really feel like a diet in the traditional sense, mostly because what I eat largely hasn't changed.

Progress chart from the beginning. As you can see, weight loss isn't linear! 

Lots of ups and downs

My reasoning for even attempting this was very practical: I simply wanted my clothes to fit better and I didn't want to have to keep buying progressively larger pants and shorts. It's not that I felt like I was horribly overweight or unhealthy, no, it was simply my clothes were tighter than I wanted, so I knew I needed to drop a few pounds. But I wasn't doing it as a "challenge" or to show off on social media; that's a huge part of why most people I know largely didn't know and only noticed because I was obviously losing weight. It wasn't because I was posting my progress for the world to see or taking and posting endless photos of what I was eating. Heck, even my own family didn't know about it until I had been doing it for a few weeks and anyone else who found out did so because they asked if I had lost weight and then I explained how.

So, what exactly have I been doing? In short, it's a technique called flexible dieting or "IIFYM", which stands for "If It Fits Your Macros". What are macros? That's short for macronutrients: carbohydrates, fat, protein, and calories. Basically, flexible dieting means you track what you're eating and try to stay within certain limits for those macronutrients, essentially a daily budget. Every day I make sure what I'm eating is as close to those "budget numbers" as possible. Most days I do pretty well, but some days it just doesn't happen for a variety of reasons. How much of each macro is determined by a percentage of calories. For instance, right now, my percentage goals are about 40% (150 grams) for carbs, 35% (120 g) for protein, and 25% (45 g) for fat. Right now I'm on a low-calorie run of 1,485 calories/day, but in the course of my weight loss, that number has varied at different times. The basic principle is that to lose weight, you have to operate at a calorie deficiency.

Within that budget, I eat pretty much whatever I want as long as I meet those macro goals for the day. I like that because it has allowed me to still enjoy the many foods I like and not have to miss out on things like eating out with friends and family or having something sweet. The difference is that I simply keep track of what I'm eating and limit myself to certain amounts based on my "daily budget". There aren't any foods that I all-out avoid or even foods that I only have at certain times. Doesn't mean I meet my goals eating candy and ice cream all day; but it does mean I get to enjoy those things on a daily basis while still losing weight. Amazing, huh? (note sarcasm).

The idea that eating something like a Reese's peanut butter cup will "make you fat" isn't based on any real science. It's all about the macros. Eating a whole bag of them certainly isn't recommended, but they in themselves won't make you fat or are "bad" for you. Having too many is the problem. That goes for anything. What's "bad" for us is too much of anything, even something as basic as water (drinking too much water, for instance, can lead to hyponatremia, a deficiency of sodium, which can be fatal). The problem with things like sweets and other high calorie foods is that we generally eat too much of them, which is easy to do, not that they're "bad" for us in any amount. I've been able to enjoy things like a Whopper from Burger King, a Blizzard from Dairy Queen, pizza, and even a Big Mac and milkshake from McDonalds with no problems. Not only that, but I still continued to lose weight even after eating them. Why? Because I made sure they fit in my budget that day. Simple as that. I have had something (usually more than one) sweet every day the entire time I've been losing weight, and I'm not talking about artificial sweeteners either, though I do have foods with them too.

Another common element in many diets that isn't really present in flexible dieting is that of a "cheat day," which is a day where someone who is dieting binge-eats all their favorite foods (often sweets). In flexible dieting, there isn't much need for that since you can work those things into your daily diet. If it's "not healthy" to eat sweets to the point they're completely absent from a diet six days of the week, why is eating them in major excess one day of the week "healthy"? Really, about as close as I get to a "cheat day" is Saturday when my budget just allows more flexibility so I can add a few extra treats like a Nestle Drumstick or a trip to Yogurt Vi for some frozen yogurt.

Background

Dated November 26, 2014, so I was all of 3 days into the whole thing. This was my 2nd day in the gym. I remarked in my journal that day that I was was excited to be getting in the habit of going after wanting to do it for so long. And look at that...I even have the super-sad "before" look for my beginning photo. HA! (I took this photo to prove to my trainer that I was actually working out!)

I had made some attempts previous to this on my own, mostly in attempting to get more exercise and/or at least eating more fruits and vegetables in my diet and making sure I was getting enough water. Each one of my attempts, though, ended up being short-lived. Why? Mostly because I didn't feel like I was seeing any noticeable results after a certain amount of time. I looked at getting a personal trainer too, but all of them seemed far too expensive for my budget and/or involved diet philosophies that I knew would make me unhappy, like giving up sugar, significantly reducing carbs, or something else extreme. I've always believed in the importance of balance in all areas of life, especially in diet, but it seemed no one out there shared my views. Just before I started this, I had pretty much resigned myself to the fact that I was never going to lose weight and to just accept the fact that my weight at the time was it; it was either be content as is or be miserable trying to lose weight and then potentially gain it all back. On top of that, joining a gym seemed prohibitively expensive with my income, so I tried as much as I could to do things without a gym.

My best attempt to at least be more active was in 2011 when I got into the habit of going for walks and even a little bit of jogging every day in the spring and summer. I would walk up to the high school campus and walk around the high school and middle school, then do a few laps around one of the two tracks there, both walking and jogging. I was getting about an hour in every day and really enjoyed it. Can't say I lost any weight, but I had no real way to measure it and was just going to go by how my clothes felt. Well, reality had some other plans. First, I got a pretty bad ankle sprain during a dance rehearsal for This is Kirtland! that kept me from walking for several weeks, on top of the show opening, which cut into my time. I had just started getting back into the habit and was even able to jog again when I had to get my gallbladder taken out in late August. Worse was it was done with traditional surgery instead of laparoscopically, so that put me out of commission for a few more weeks (I was literally stapled together) and I simply fell out of habit.

One thing my gallbladder removal and recovery helped me to understand was that even though I may not have been totally thrilled with my weight, I was healthy in terms of how well the rest of my body was functioning and I remember the doctors being quite pleased about how quickly my incisions healed and my prognosis for full recovery and adjustment without the gallbladder. They were quite surprised that I don't drink, smoke, or do any drugs, so that helped even more. Why was I healthy? Mostly from eating a fairly balanced diet (following the Word of Wisdom, also known as a "Mormon Health Code"). I certainly wasn't starving myself (and I told my trainer right at the beginning I'd rather be fat than starving) and I wasn't living on one food group more than the other; I just wasn't paying any kind of detailed attention to it. Even when I really started tracking my macros I noticed it wasn't a case of me not having a balanced diet, it was mostly a matter of how much and getting some more physical activity.

Some basic helps that have made a difference for me:

• Make sure you have a reliable scale to weigh yourself. I prefer digital since they give you a more precise measurement that's very clear to see. Sometimes the changes you make will only be in tenths, so it's important to be able to see that.
• Remember that the weight is only part of the success. Pay attention to how your clothes feel too. If they're feeling looser, you're probably on the right track even if the scale isn't showing much change.
• I weigh myself when I get up in the morning after using the bathroom. I try to be as consistent as possible, though when I get up depends largely on where or if I'm subbing. The more consistent you are, the more accurate your readings will be. 
• Remember, even if you're following everything perfectly, weight loss is not linear. You can see in my own chart that while the general direction is going down, it's a series of up and down up and down. 
• I weigh myself every day. Often I will check during the day for my own interest, but the log I have on MFP and that I send to my trainer are from that morning weight. That's my "official" weight for the day.
• I work out at least five days a week, though six is my ideal. I'm a firm believer in the importance of a rest day for a variety of reasons. My rest day is Sunday (those of you who know me will, I'm sure, be absolutely shocked...haha). I prefer to go to the gym in the evening around 8:30 so that it isn't as crowded.
• Get to know what a "serving" looks like. I've come to see how some serving sizes are ridiculously small and are clearly for marketing so the manufacturer can put low numbers on the box. Sometimes, though, you'll find that a serving is more than you thought. For instance, a typical scoop of ice cream is actually only a half serving! Yes!
• Along with serving sizes, make sure you have a kitchen scale to measure your food. That has been a big help in not only making sure I'm staying on track, but getting familiar with those serving sizes!
• I've been surprised how easy the whole process has gotten. You really do start memorizing certain numbers or what kinds of foods will fit a certain situation, even even measuring food out is routine now for any meal I make on my own. If you can't measure it, make your best guess and overestimate a bit if you're not sure.
• Going out to eat? Use a search engine to help. Many people have made websites that go through different fast food and sit-down restaurants and have examples of foods that are better for people watching calories, fat, carbs, etc. or options you can add or remove from certain dishes to help you meet your goals. MFP can help with that too. No excuse to damage or destroy your social life because you're on a "diet".
• Remember being "healthy" is more than just your weight, it's also your mental state. If you're doing a diet but are feeling miserable doing it, are you really all that healthy, even if you might be losing weight? Part of feeling well mentally is being able to have those "comfort foods", those foods you like to eat that make you happy. It's not about restriction, it's all about moderation and being reasonable.
• I use diet pop/soda as a "filler", meaning I use it when I'm feeling hungry and water just won't cut it but I'm not really able to add anything else because of my budget. That translates to having a diet pop once a day or less.
• Set realistic goals. What I've done with my trainer is set "major" and "minor" goals. For instance, my first "major" goal was to get below 200 lbs. I started at 230, so that seemed a ways off, so we decided a "minor" goal, based on how well I was progressing at the time, was to hit 215 by New Year's, which I did. Another "minor" goal was to be at 195 before my birthday so I could actually match the weight listed on my driver's license when I had to get it renewed! My next "major" goal is 175, which I'm very close to! Having those incremental goals has helped me notice that I am making progress and gives me a continual sense of accomplishment. It's kind of like taking time to sight-see on a large trip. It helps break the trip up and gives you something to look forward to!

In regards to a trainer and gym:

• First, yes, if at all possible, GET A TRAINER and JOIN A GYM. You do not need to join an expensive gym either. There are many options available in local gym memberships or chain gyms like Gold's, LA Fitness, etc. Within the various gyms available, they usually have different levels of memberships. For instance, I joined the regional chain Fitworks. They have a basic membership for $15/month which gives me access to the gym whenever they're open. Their higher membership fee includes additional amenities like childcare and bringing guests. Fitworks, like many gyms, also has their own personal trainers and group classes available. Like any PT, though, find out their qualifications! As I said before, trainers provide important guidance, but also motivation, accountability, and moral support.
• Be wary of any trainer or "fitness" person who works for a supplement company. I personally believe a trainer who is a supplement representative has a conflict of interest, no matter how hard they may try to avoid it. I don't think they're bad people or are even intentionally looking out for their sales more than their clients, but since they work for a company, they're more likely to have motivation for you to buy their products (ESPECIALLY if they work for a Multi-Level Marketing, or MLM, company) or join their "team". The vast majority of supplements aren't all that necessary from what I've found. It's not that they're bad for you, they're just not really helping you but are costing money. The only supplement my trainer recommends is whey protein and that's to help me meet my protein goals. He has never recommended a specific brand of protein, only letting me know what nutrient levels to look for. I could also meet my protein goals just from food intake, but that is often more expensive.
• Along with that, remember all personal trainers are not created equally. Make sure any trainer you hire has qualifications. At the very least, he or she should have some training, education, and experience in nutrition and physiology, particularly at the college level. Many personal trainers can be "certified" with very little training, so the "training" they recommend for you may be more along the lines of whatever the popular fad is or just a cookie-cutter "plan" they give everyone.
• Many companies have started giving their reps a more classy title like "coach" or "wellness representative" even though their reps likely have little to no serious training in nutrition or physiology. Again, be aware of that and ask for qualifications, just like you would for any professional. What makes them qualified to give you advice on how to work out and what to eat?
• It goes without saying to find a PT who is a good person too. Seriously, they need to be on your side and have your best interest in mind. They also need to be someone you feel comfortable asking questions to and discussing any issues or concerns. And they should always be able to explain WHY they want you to do anything they ask you to do. A huge part of my success is from the fact that my trainer and I have a good relationship. I know he's not some shill for a supplement company and my success is his success. And hey, we have tons of other things in common too, like sports and general humor. 

Me with my trainer Josh down in Tampa this past April. And no, he is NOT a Texas Longhorns fan! We had been chatting, mostly about sports (baseball in particular), on and off for almost two years before I learned he had a background in personal training. Most of the time, we correspond by text and I report my results via spreadsheet. For workouts, he sent me several videos to make sure I knew what I was doing. When I was in Florida this past April, we were finally able to meet in person and have two workouts, so I got even more pointers. I also constantly ask him questions about my workouts and the diet to make sure I'm staying on the right track. As you can see, the results are there! See his page at Beyond Fitness.

This probably seems like a lot, but it's really not that complicated; it just takes some attention to detail and consistency. The biggest reasons I like flexible dieting are because it fits my personal philosophy of balance and moderation in all things and still lets me enjoy the foods I always have. You shouldn't feel guilty for having something like ice cream or candy nor should you have to give them up (outside of a legitimate and medically diagnosed allergy or other issue). It's one thing to have too much, but no, eating a candy bar or having a Big Mac every so often isn't going to make you fat; heck, in itself none of those things will even result in weight gain for that day unless they're part of an overabundance of calories and other macros. There is nothing wrong with finding comfort in food and having something to look forward to; in fact, that's part of being healthy. Again, the real key is how much.

May 26, 2015, exactly six months later

I also like it because it doesn't involve spending a ton of money. Yes, joining a gym and hiring a trainer isn't free. Are they completely necessary for success? No, but they'll make your success far more probable. But you're not committing to buying regular supplements or investing in a "business". In terms of food consumption, I've actually saved money doing this because I'm eating less. But don't forget, the key to success is making it part of your every day life, not just some "diet" that you do for a few weeks or months and then give up and have to do again in a year or two.

Evaluating Information

With the rise of social media the past decade, it is now more possible than ever to share information. Sure, we've been doing long before social media came out or even before email became widespread, but now it's easier than before. I have often said that as much as we live in the "Information Age", we also live in the "Disinformation" and "Misinformation" Age too. Yes, being able to spread information is quick and easy, but it's just as quick and easy to spread false information, whether intentional or not, too.

We all remember back when email was still new for most people who those forwards would work. They usually involved some kind of conspiracy theory or "secret" that someone didn't want you to know. Even today I occasionally get email forwards and almost all of them are false. They're really a form of electronic gossip.

On social media, I frequently notice many of my friends posting articles on topics they are either passionate about or interested in. The places I tend to see the most questionable information is with health and diet, though politics is another popular one, especially near elections. Many very well-intentioned people want to spread what appears to be good information, but are instead passing along information that is either partially or completely false, or is just based on outdated and/or anecdotal evidence.

What's interesting, and somewhat sad, is that when I or someone else brings to the poster's attention that the article likely has blatantly false or otherwise questionable information (with an explanation or link to show why we think that), it's often met with disdain or open hostility from the original poster or others who are following. It's too often a classic case of "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up."

On sites like Facebook, these false or misleading information sources can be in the form of links to articles, blog posts, or images. Why do these persist? Because the average person assumes they're true without any kind of examination and then passes them along. The solution to this isn't restricting what we can post or send, but rather, educating people to know how to evaluate information so they don't pass along things that aren't true.

There are several websites available that are devoted to fact checking, such as Snopes.com and HoaxSlayer.com, both of which have Facebook pages. But you know what? You don't need either of those sites to spot a garbage article or post, though they are helpful. These are points I look at when evaluating information. Ask yourself these simple questions:

1. Do the claims sound outlandish or too good to be true?

• If yes, it most likely is! It's garbage and not worth your time or anyone else's!
• As old as it is, if it sounds too good to be true, it more than likely is.
• If no, move on to the next question.
• Even if you may not agree with some of the claims, if they seem at least plausible, perhaps they might be true!

2. Does this have any sources?

• If no, then it most likely garbage and isn't worth your time or anyone else's!
• Anything that is worthwhile, especially if it's a health or diet-related article, will take the time to include sources.
• If yes, move on to the next question.

3. What kinds of sources does this have?

• If from personal blogs or from any kind of special interest group, then it's most likely biased and/or garbage and isn't worth your time or anyone else's! 
• Despite their best intentions, when advocacy groups are the only source, they are inherently biased since they clearly have an interest in what your opinion is. They're not presenting the information for you to make a balanced decision, they're presenting it so you choose their position. Always look for more neutral sources of data to draw conclusions from.
• If from established news sources and peer-reviewed journals, move on to the next question. 
• News outlets are hardly free from bias and false information, but there is at least some degree of editorial oversight. Peer-reviewed journals and publications are even better sources, especially for any type of health or diet-related article or statistics.

4. How are the sources used?

• If they are present but don't appear to support any of the claims of the article or graphic, then guess what? It's GARBAGE and not worth your time or anyone else's! 
• Many times an article will have a bunch of sources listed, but the sources don't actually support what is in the article. For instance, an article might state that "many people" had a particular reaction to a food but the actual source gives a specific number, like 15 of 200 in the study group. 
• If they support the claims with legitimate research and documentation, you have a winner! 
• Share it with your friends and family to spread GOOD information and to help them see what GOOD information looks like!

Now, there will always be articles that look genuine and appear to have good sources and even legitimate studies attached to them, but in reality, aren't. Not all studies are conclusive and many simply don't follow any kind of proper procedures (like the sample size, for instance) to get trustworthy results. Just because an article has sources, even many, doesn't mean anything. The sources have to be evaluated as much as the content. If you're ever not sure about an article or graphic, like it appears to be trustworthy and legit, but you can't say for sure, say so in your post or just don't post it.

Anyone who's connected to me on Facebook knows an article I posted a link to recently was one I thought was "garbage". It was entitled "Why the Amish Don't Get Sick" and was making its rounds on my Facebook feed from several well-meaning friends. While the article did have sources, it only had a few and some of the main points (particularly the claim that the Amish don't get vaccinated) didn't have any sources. Why not? Well, it's not true, for one, and is based on a misconception that the Amish simply avoid all modern medicine. They don't. In fact, many (if not the majority) of the Amish do get vaccinated. Just reading the article it was clear that the author was pushing a specific viewpoint, not just providing facts for a reader to make any kind of educated decision about.

Another interesting occurrence on that article was in reading the comments. Now, comments on an article should always be read with caution since anyone can say anything, but there were a significant amount of comments from people who claimed to live in or near Amish communities in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania that refuted many of the claims of the article, not only on the vaccination issue but the very notion that the Amish "don't get sick" or even use completely natural farming methods (another tenet of the article which is simply not true). But really, the comments simply added to the already shaky "facts" the article was built on. In other words, I didn't need the comments to know that the article had some major problems; the comments merely confirmed my own analysis of the content. About the only truth in the article is that the Amish typically get more physical activity than a typical American just because of the manual labor they have to do on things that most of us have machines for. But stress free? All organic? No autism or cancer? Uh, no.

Another link I saw recently had to do with aspartame, which has been very controversial. The link was to what was purported to be a report from the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) about the dangers of aspartame. It cites several studies and other sources and appears legitimate, but there's one problem: it's not a report of the FDA. Yes, it can be found on the FDA website, but upon reading the very first lines of the document, it's clearly stated that the text is from an email to the FDA from a person named Mark D. Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center, sent January 12, 2003. In other words, this isn't beyond the realm of bias as it's from an advocacy group which wishes to have aspartame banned in the United States. It certainly isn't a damning report on aspartame from the FDA itself as many seem to believe it is. No, being a Federal agency, an email to the FDA is public record.

Now, I don't present this to discredit Mr. Gold or his organization or to promote aspartame (I don't typically drink diet sodas simply because of the taste), but rather to caution readers as they evaluate information. This is an exercise in evaluating information and also presenting it correctly. If someone wishes to present this, it needs to be presented as an email from Mark D. Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center, not a report from the FDA. I haven't been able to sit down and evaluate the content of his email either (how he used the studies, how legit the studies were, whether they actually support his claims, etc.); all I can tell you that aspartame is still legal in the US.

One final point in evaluating information is to watch out for anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is when we observe a certain behavior or occurrence either with our own eyes or reading about it. While anecdotal evidence can often be correct, it can just as often be totally wrong because we don't have all the facts or are just observing a very small group of people or things.

For instance, I saw a blog post dealing with diets in the early 20th century, 19th, and even 18th centuries. The basic premise was that people lived longer back then because of their diets. Unfortunately, the post failed the very first test about sources because, well, it doesn't have ANY to support scientific and diet claims. The only "evidence" offered is COMPLETELY anecdotal. Examples? To prove that people back then had less stress, the author uses a single journal entry from a relative in the early 20th century. A single journal entry. Really? From that we can determine without a doubt that people back then were under less stress than we are today? Huh? Never mind that people back then had to worry about all sorts of things we don't even think about today and that people deal with stress differently.

Another example of anecdotal evidence was showing some of the lifespans of the author's and her husbands ancestors. She uses two of her ancestors and two of her husbands. TWO! Since they both had relatives who lived into their 70s and 80s back into the early 19th century, well, obviously it was because of their diet AND the lifespans of everyone around them were just as long. Never mind how small a group that sample is coming from, any role genetics played there, or if other family members actually lived that long.

To top it off, there's even a generalization that the reason our life expectancy has increased (and continues to do so) is simply from improvements in infant mortality. Actual health experts have attributed several factors to life expectancy (see the Wikipedia article and the many sources it has!), among them better diet and of course, improved medical care. Yes, infant mortality plays a role in that average, but so does the fact that people, particularly children, aren't dying from things like a ruptured appendix that couldn't be detected in time, or cholera in the water supply, or even a simple bacterial infection that wasn't dealt with properly.  In other words, simply attributing the rise in life expectancy only to improvements in infant mortality is simplistic and inaccurate.

I could go on an entire post about some of these specific instances, but the bottom line is evaluate your information before you decide to pass it on to others. I certainly don't like passing on bad info and misleading others, even if I had all the greatest intentions in the world. Even if an article seems to fit your personal views on something, if it doesn't have decent sources, good heavens, don't pass it on unless you can verify reality. The more we as a general public demand out of our sources of information, the better they will get in terms of quality. If we want others to be persuaded by our opinions and interpretations, we need to make sure what we're spreading is actually substantiated. Spreading nonsense helps no one.

Time to move on

I've felt like the writing's been on the wall for some time in regards to working in the Kent City Schools, but it's now official.  As of June 6th, I am no longer an employee of the district as I will not be returning the substitute teacher form and thus not renewing my contract.  I knew coming into this school year that it would be my last subbing in Kent because I would either get a full-time job here and thus not need to sub, or I wouldn't get the job and would take my services elsewhere.  The latter has proven true, so off I go.  If I do continue subbing (which means I have been unsuccessful in obtaining a full-time job), it will be in neighboring districts (including Maplewood Career Center in Ravenna where I have also been the last three years), but not Kent.

Most that know me know that I had hoped to get the choral director job at Roosevelt High School.  Not only was I a product of this program, but as a sub, I interacted with the choirs on a pretty regular basis.  At one point during this past school year, I subbed in choir 9 days in 3 weeks.  So yeah, I knew the program from both a historical perspective and from a present perspective.  Even then, though, I knew it would be an uphill battle for me to get the job based on what I was hearing in terms of what the district was looking for in a candidate.  It sounded like the intangibles I brought to the table in terms of continuity and rapport with the students weren't really traits the district considered that important.  Other events later in the year pretty much sealed the deal as far as I could tell, though I don't think those later events were game changers (in other words, I don't think those events made me go from someone they were thinking about hiring to someone they definitely weren't).  

In any case, I obviously didn't get the position I was hoping.  Again, not at all a surprise, but still disappointing nonetheless.  This is the district I live in and graduated from, so that in itself is disappointing, but even more so because I wasn't even interviewed.  On top of that, I found out pretty much by accident that someone had already been hired.  No one could even send me an email or mention that they were no longer looking, thanks for applying, etc.  Nothing.  And I was at Roosevelt the last week of school subbing on Tuesday (May 29) and Friday (June 1) too (Friday, ironically, was *in choir*).  The way I found out was by looking at the Feedjit app on the lower right side of this page.  It monitors web traffic to this address and tells me when someone visits.  When you click on the "real-time view", It also tells me what browser the person used, what operating system they're on, and even where they are logging in from.  If the person came to my page from a websearch like Google or Yahoo, then it will often show the what word or phrase was being searched for that led them to my page.  I occasionally check the full page of this and did so the other day.  I noticed a visitor from Ravenna, Ohio, had gone to my Resume page via a Google search for "mr. fowler choir director kent roosevelt". I decided to do that Google search myself and noticed the Roosevelt Choirs web page had a mention of this new person. Not a formal announcement by any means, just a passing mention, in a way that suggests the audience already knows about it.  And don't get me started on how many recommendation letters I asked for and never got from various people I know professionally.  I am, however, thankful for those who did take the time to write them for me!  You know who you are!

And in case any of you are wondering why I won't continue subbing in the Kent Schools, it's basically a matter of principle.  Would anyone reading this continue to work for an employer that only values you as a temp worker, especially an employer full of people that have known you for several years?  As a sub I get paid a fraction of what a full-time teacher does with no benefits and no guarantees I'll even be working most days.  Heck, subs don't even get employee parking passes at the high school (we get a "Visitor Pass").  I'm not going to keep doing it in a district that clearly has no respect for nor interest in me as a teacher.  That's not to say I didn't enjoy my time as a sub in Kent.  In terms of the teachers and students I worked with, I had a great time overall, and hope to continue the many positive associations I built in the last three years.  I especially enjoyed subbing in Intervention and Physical Education classes at the elementary schools, plus it was always nice to do something in my field of music at any level.  It's disappointing that it has come to this, but time to move on.

Arts Academies

Recently, the neighboring Field Local School District started an arts academy for grades 3-6.  Being in the arts, on top of the news, and knowing a number of people in Field Schools, I had heard of the plans for some time.  After some difficulty and controversy, the new Falcon Arts Academy was established earlier this year and officially started classes this past August.  It is housed at the former Central Elementary School, which previously had housed the district's kindergarten classes.  Central is located adjacent to Field High School and Field Middle School right on the border of Brimfield and Suffield townships (so it is appropriately named!).  From what I was able to gather, this academy basically uses an arts-intensive approach to education.  What that means is that while students have more arts classes, the standard classes they do have (such as science, social studies, and math) have the arts integrated into how they're taught.  The examples I heard were things like using stained glass to learn geometric elements or writing songs to help learn science concepts.  Hearing about it definitely got me thinking about the whole concept, though initially I was hopeful for a potential job opening.  That turned out to be for naught as Field simply shifted their current teachers to the new school.

Anyway, I think most people assume that because I'm an arts person that I would naturally be a supporter of something like this.  To be totally honest, I've never been sold on arts academies or any kind of specialty school that segregates one interest from another.  My main experience with a separate arts academy was the same school Field used as a model: the Miller-South School for the Visual and Performing Arts in Akron.  I was a part of the Summit Choral Society's Junior Chorale program for a few years in the early 1990s and our rehearsals and many concerts were at Miller-South, which was converted to a 4-8 arts school from the old South High School.  I didn't know much about the school itself, but the kids I knew who went there largely had an arrogance about them.  It wasn't major, but it was there.  That's my first major problem with a separate school like that.  I think the unintended consequences are that you end up with some students who think of themselves as better than they are, but you also take away some of the most motivated and creative students and isolate them.  Another unintended consequence is the potential for a district to use an arts school as an excuse to reduce arts programs in other district schools.  While I've never actually seen that used as a reason, knowing how many non-arts people think, having an arts school and strong arts programs at the district's other schools would seem redundant and people would basically think if students want to be in the arts, they should go to the arts school.  Of course, an arts school can only handle so many students, so in the end, kids would be denied participation in arts programs or at least in the best arts programs simply due to numbers.

Before I go on, let me be very clear: this is not criticism exclusively of the Falcon Arts Academy.  No, this is my arguments against any kind of setup where students of one interest are taken out of their school and placed in a completely separate building, effectively segregating them.  Having an academy within a school, I think, is much better way to not only allow students to explore their interests on a higher level, but also allow those students to still be well-rounded while still giving other students the opportunity to take advantage of those programs but maybe on a lower level.  When I first found out about the Falcon Arts Academy, I started thinking about another specialty school I have experience with: the Maplewood Career Center.  Maplewood is a joint vocational school in Ravenna that serves students at 9 of Portage County's 11 high schools (excluding Kent Roosevelt and Aurora) as well as Mogadore in Summit County.  Students at Maplewood are all juniors and seniors who are enrolled in one of the schools several vocational programs.  Prior to coming to Maplewood, those students take care of most of their state-required classes needed to graduate.  Half of the day at Maplewood is spent in lab while the other half is spent in required courses such as English, Social Studies, and Math.  Students are still considered part of their home high schools and many participate in athletics, but for any other courses such as band, choir, art, or any other kind of elective, there is no chance as no such classes are offered at Maplewood.

Now, again, this should not be considered a criticism of Maplewood itself.  I have been very impressed by the faculty at Maplewood and enjoy being able to sub there; the format of having a completely separate vocational school is what I'm talking about.  Subbing in Kent, I have been able to see the other option: having vocational programs integrated into the school itself.

Roosevelt has somewhat of a hybrid system.  While there are some vocational programs students can take that will put them at another building for much, if not all, of the day, most of them are either available at the school itself or only require a few periods at another school.  Roosevelt is part of a compact with 5 other school districts that basically pools the vocational resources of each school and makes them available to students at the other compact members.  What this allows is for students to pursue a vocational tract, but as their schedule allows, they can still be part of things like choir, band, art, and other electives that may interest them plus their required classes are with fellow classmates as opposed to just vocational students like at Maplewood (though some program-specific classes like that are offered at Roosevelt).  It also keeps them as part of the school environment for much of the day rather than segregating them from their classmates all day, every day.

The more I think about it, the more I like the integrated approach over the separate building approach.  It lets arts students really explore their interest in the arts, but also can allow others to explore it without having to change schools; basically an all-or-nothing approach.  Indeed, even with the more arts-based approaches they are taking in the non-arts classes like science and social studies, if the methods are valid and work, they should be integrated into standard curriculum, not just restricted to "arts" students.  Students learn at different speeds and in different ways.  Not only should teachers be using a variety of approaches in presenting curriculum, but they should also be giving students a lot more options for projects and assignments to promote and develop creativity.   The same is true in any specialty area like math, science, vocational, etc.  The more these kinds of academies can be integrated into traditional schools, the more options it gives students not only in how much they learn but how fast.  But, on the flip side, I think having an arts academy is a step in the right direction; however, I'd much rather see many of its ideals better integrated into the regular curriculum to be most effective and reach as many students as possible.

Good schools

As promised in my last post, here is what I think are the best ways for individuals to find a good school or make sure the one they or their children are in is a good school.  Too often people are relying on the various rankings to decide a school when those rankings tell only a small part of the story as I alluded to in my last post as well as a post a few months ago when my high school was named as a "best school" in a high-profile national report.  Another key element to understand is that even if a school is "awesome" by every measure, it still may not be the best school for you or your child depending on what is available at other schools or unique features that may be perfect for you or your child.  I'm going to list the criteria I think are most important.  Some of these I got from my graduate classes where we discussed what makes a good school and watched a video of things to look for.

The first thing to look for is the teacher.  Either from your own interactions or the interactions your child has with them, ask questions.  Too often, students and parents alike cite "being nice" as a reason a teacher is good.  While being "nice" is definitely a great attribute, it is meaningless if the teacher doesn't have a good grasp on the subject and is teaching a bunch of fluff or making things too easy.  There is a fine line between making something learnable and making something easy.  On the flip side, just because a teacher has an advanced degree does not mean he or she is a good teacher.  I think everyone has had a teacher or professor who is incredibly knowledgeable and smart in their field but can't for the life of them bring their vast knowledge to the level of those of us who know far less.  This is why the state showing us what percentage of teachers in a school or district have a masters degree or above can only go so far.  Having that degree is no guarantee that the teacher is a good teacher or that he/she has created a safe environment in the classroom.  Look at the work the teacher gives: is it challenging and worthwhile or just busywork?  Good teachers give students work to help them grow and learn; work has a direct purpose.  When tests are given, find out what is being tested.  Are students being challenged to think (higher level) or to just regurgitate memorized answers (lower level)?  There is a huge difference between memorizing and critical thinking.  A good teacher will also help students who don't do well on tests and recognize that a student doing poorly on a test (especially if a lot of students do poorly) is just as much a reflection on their teaching as it is their student's comprehension levels.  Bad teachers use tests as weapons; they punish students with them and solely blame the student for his/her failure on the test (even if an entire class does badly on a test).  Next, do students have opportunities to develop and express their own creativity?  A good teacher understands that developing creativity is a must and will give students options to achieve that; it does not mean students do "whatever they want" but instead are given choices within certain bounds.  Does the teacher do what they can to facilitate and encourage outside learning or are they "teaching to the test"?  A good teacher inspires while a bad teacher bores or even instills fear.  Another great thing for parents to do is contact the teacher, which can usually be done with e-mail.  A good teacher will be THRILLED that you are taking interest in your child's education and will want to know what he/she can do more to help.

The next thing to look for is the environment.  Part of that comes from the way the teacher interacts with students, which I already covered.  Students should feel safe not only with the teacher, but also with other students.  A good teacher is going to do all he/she can to create a safe environment, which includes confronting and eliminating bullying and other like elements.  He/she will also treat students with respect so they are comfortable talking to the teacher.  A bad teacher will either make a student fear them or even the opposite extreme just be their friend as opposed to being their teacher and guide.  Along with that, look at the facilities.  Be careful not to fall into the trap that good facilities (particularly new facilities) = good school.  Facilities, and the technology they may or may not have, are tools.  If used properly, they can greatly enhance the learning experience.   But like any tool they can be misused or even ignored.  On top of that, if a building has all the bells and whistles, but lacks good teachers and/or a good environment, it doesn't really matter much does it?  That said, facilities that are in very poor shape can be telling too.  And I'm talking about dangerously out of date, run down, etc., not simply older or well-worn.  Facilities that are in horrible shape can often be an outward sign of a community that does not care about its schools.  My advice is to look at them yourself.  Don't be quick to judge a book by its cover, though.  Plenty of schools have fully functional facilities that are not flashy and new; they don't "wow" you per se, but they easily get the job done.  And there are plenty of great learning environments and teachers that do not involve heavy use of technology.

The last main element to look for is curriculum.  What educational options and opportunities are available to students at the school?  A good school will recognize the diversity of learning and offer many different levels of classes and have tools and options to help students learn in many ways and at many speeds.  This includes technology, but also specialists and class options for students who may be "slower" or "gifted" as well as outside opportunities through agreements and programs.  In other words, the school doesn't have a one-size-fits-all curriculum.  This is especially critical at the middle school and high school levels where many more class offerings can be offered and students are more free to build their own schedule and truly prepare for life in the "real world".  At a high school, a course catalog is usually available for students or upon request from the community and many have them online already.  Look at not only what courses are available, but their  descriptions too.  Simply having a lot of classes doesn't mean they are worth your or your child's time at all.  This is where a school may not do well on standardized "rankings" but still be a great school specifically for you or your child, especially if there is a special need involved.  And I personally think there is nothing wrong with asking to meet with teachers and administrators or contacting them through phone or e-mail to ask them curriculum-specific questions or any questions for that matter.  If they are interested in having a good school, they will be happy to answer your question(s) and will greatly value your involvement.  But be careful; like anything, there is a difference between being an involved and supportive parent and being a controlling and over-bearing parent.  

Hopefully this can be helpful for people, especially parents.  With all the confusion and, in my opinion, misleading information that exists about schools and how good or bad they are, it's important that we educate ourselves and don't simply rely on an outsider's view of the school or assume it's definitive.  Outside views and rankings can be great supplemental materials, but there is no ranking or evaluation system I am aware of that gives a true measure of how good a school is.  They all measure certain aspects of a school or district, which is why some schools do very well on certain evaluations but not on others.  It's all dependent on what is being measured and how.

Report card nonsense

The Ohio Department of Education released their annual report cards for every public school district and individual school in the state.  Every year I find myself thinking less and less of these report cards as I see not only how they "rate" schools and their districts, but how certain people react.  Basically, the state will come out and say a school or district was given a designation.  The main overall ratings are Excellent, Effective, Continous Improvement, Academic Watch, and Academic Emergency, which the media commonly references with letter grades (Excellent = A, Effective = B, etc.).  In elementary and middle schools there is additional criteria, that, if met, results in the school and/or district being rated Excellent With Distinction (which the state and media equate with an A+).

I've always been bothered because most people look at the overall rating and make their judgments about a school or district based on that rating alone.  They don't bother to look at the reasoning behind the overall rating or what caused it.  So in one way it can create a false sense of security for schools or districts that are rated Excellent or Effective.  Such was the case in Ravenna last year.  The district was rated "Excellent" by the state despite meeting only 15 of the 26 "indicators" the state uses.  In the other case it can create this false sense of alarm that a school is getting worse or in bad shape because of a particular rating or if a rating goes down from year to year.  I saw this a few years ago when Kent was lowered from "Excellent" to "Effective" and I read comments from parents online who were concerned the schools were getting worse and wondering if they should take their kids somewhere else.

For those who are wondering, the state uses 3 basic criteria to come to their overall rating and then have what they refer to as a "value added assessment" which is used for grades 4-8 and adds the "with distinction" to an Excellent rating.  The first criteria is a series of "indicators" that are based mostly on standardized test scores as well as daily attendance and graduation rate (obviously the graduation rate only applies to high school).  A school "meets" these indicators by achieving the state designated average or above.  The total number of indicators for a district is 26 (24 are test related) while a 9-12 high school will have 12 indicators.  The more indicators met, the better.  To be "Excellent" a school/district must have met at least 94% of the indicators (11 for high school, 24 for a district).

The next criteria is what is known as the "Performance Index".  The Performance Index is a weighted average that measures what percentages of students who passed the state test in different levels of understanding (from "untested" to "advanced") based on how well they scored.  The more students who pass as "advanced" and "accelerated", the better.   Untested students and those who score at "limited" or "basic" understanding hurt the average.  This basically tells us how well students are doing on the test as opposed to that they are simply passing or not.  The highest Performance Index score is 120.  To achieve "Excellent" a school must have a PI score of 100.

The last main criteria is "Adequate Yearly Progress" or AYP.  This is a Federally mandated criteria that to me is virtually unattainable in its long-term hopes.  Basically, in terms of the whole student body and amongst various sub-groups of students (minorities, gender groups, students with disabilities, etc.), there must be certain improvements in test scores.  The theory is that by 2015, 100% of all students will be proficient in reading and math.  Unfortunately, 100% is unattainable in the real world because it not only requires every student to take it seriously, but it also assumes that a student not passing a proficiency test is purely the fault of a teacher, school, or district.  What's scary is that if a school or district doesn't make AYP for 5 consecutive years, changes as extensive as replacing the entire administration and teaching staff or turning the school into a charter school are options.  Mind you, a school will "not meet" AYP if any sub group doesn't make it in a given year, even if every other group makes this alleged "adequate" progress.  How scary is that?  A school can be doing everything right but because of an arbitrary number the entire school could be completely restructured.  And seriously, I have a hard time believing that every school can be making such progress every year.  Eventually you're going to hit a peak.  To be "Excellent" a school or district must meet AYP in all areas or not have it for 3 or more consecutive years.  Even if the other criteria are met with "Excellent" status, not meeting AYP in any area (remember, not meeing AYP with any group means the school/district didn't meet AYP at all) for 3 consecutive years means a school can be rated no higher than "Continuous Improvement", the 3rd or 4th highest rank (equivalent of a "C" grade).  See how that can send the wrong message to someone who just looks at the final rating?

I'm all for accountability.  I really am.  But as an educator, I'm also aware that a student's successes and failures are not completely the result of the school he is attending or the teachers he has.  There are many outside variables that the state doesn't take in account at all or doesn't weigh as heavily as I think they should.  There are also many elements to what makes a good school and those are not all currently measured or even evaluated by the state.  At the same time, there needs to be some sort effective way to evaluate teachers and schools for the benefit of students and parents as there are too many bad teachers out there.  Unfortunately, though, the current system looks at only part of the picture and largely awards or punishes schools and districts for many things they do not have control over.  My next blog will go over ways that individuals can assess whether they or their children are in a good school with a good teacher.

Safe Spaces

I'm pretty sure I have subbed at Roosevelt for the last time this school year, unless something comes up tomorrow or next week. It's unlikely for next week since they only have three days of school and most of those days are exams. One of the things I noticed subbing there were these little stickers on many of the classroom doors that said "Safe Space". They are from the website GLSEN.org and are to mark the room as a "safe space" for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students (LGBT). Being in a fairly liberal town like Kent I wasn't surprised at all to see them there, though they got me thinking about the whole concept.

As an educator, one of the things I remember having drilled into my head on many occasions was the idea of creating a safe environment in the classroom. Basically, every student should feel safe and comfortable in your classroom if you're doing things correctly. So seeing these stickers on so many doors definitely had me thinking "shouldn't they already be safe spaces for LGBT students as well as any other students at Roosevelt?" The answer is of course a resounding YES. I certainly don't have a problem with LGBT students feeling safe at school. No one should have fear going into a school or a specific classroom; fear of the teacher or the fellow students. Bullying is still too much of a problem at any school, Roosevelt included, because so much of it happens outside the view of teachers and administrators. Sadly, from my own experience in school, even bullying and similar actions that actually do occur in view of teachers is often ignored which, of course, simply perpetuates the problem. It is irrelevant why the bullying or harassment is taking place. Whether it be because of the student's sexual orientation (or perceived sexual orientation), their looks, their religion and/or ideology, or any other reason, it's all the same in terms of promoting an unsafe and negative environment for students. It's one thing to state that bullying and harassment aren't tolerated; it's an entirely different thing to actually enforce that rule and stop them in their tracks when they are witnessed firsthand.

Seeing these also got me thinking about the whole "gay rights" movement in general and their claims of fighting for equality. In reality, it's not so much about equality for everyone, but just for their specific group. The website that promotes and sells these stickers and other related materials is pretty specific that these are to specifically help promote safe spaces and environments for LGBT students first and foremost. Again, I'm not opposed to safe environments for any student, but why do these students need extra special attention? There are all sorts of "minorities" in a given school. I'd be willing to bet that everyone is part of some sort of minority whether it be racial, ethnic, ideological, religious, etc with some being part of more than one. To put in in perspective, as a Latter-day Saint (Mormon) I was one of just 10 students out of around 1,400 at Roosevelt High School my senior year. This year there were just 4 LDS students in the entire school. There were a lot of bizarre ideas and misconceptions about what I believed and while I never experienced any direct persecution because of my religion, I did, at times, feel uncomfortable expressing what would be considered more conservative viewpoints in a discussion. I would not be supportive if the school decided to make Mormon "Safe Spaces" like this because it would only further separate members of the church from the rest of the student body and perpetuate the "us and them" mentality. That's what I see here. In our eagerness to protect a group of our students--by all means a good thing--we are in fact separating them and potentially creating more resentment towards them. What about the 12% of the school that is black? Or the even smaller percentage of other races and ethnicities? And it bears mention...would we be so quick to bring the hammer down on name-calling and persecution towards those with conservative and/or religious beliefs? So much of the campaign against Proposition 8 in California claimed to be against the "hate" it was promoting, but one of the biggest ways too many groups "fought" this "hate" was by using hate back in the form of insults, slanders, generalizations, and even violence and property damage. Using hate to fight hate doesn't solve anything and makes the alleged victim as much a perpetrator and guilty as the people they are fighting. When you use fire to right fire, everyone gets burned.

So, if/when I have my own classroom, will I have this sticker on my door? I think the answer is pretty obvious: NO. My reasoning is that it would be inaccurate; not because my classroom would be unsafe for LGBT students, but more because it would be a "safe space" for all students including them. Do I think Roosevelt teachers are favoring LGBT students? No not really. In all honesty I don't think many have even looked at it from this angle. They see it as something good (and it is) and want to show support for diversity and tolerance but fail to see the hidden and unintended messages such a promotion sends to other groups or individuals who are also subject to persecution and harassment. In the end, every classroom needs to be a safe space for every student. And if you truly are for equal rights and equal treatment, make sure that applies to all races, ethnicities, ideologies, religions, etc. and not just certain ones; even ones you may completely disagree with! If you're just for the improved treatment of a specific group, say it! Don't make it out to be all inclusive if it isn't.

Not just "any job"

I had a brief conversation with my grandmother the other day when I stopped over to pick up my sister that got me thinking and had me a little irritated. Somehow the topic of jobs came up and my grandma asked if I had heard about jobs in Las Vegas. Of course I said yes because EVERY teacher knows that there are teaching jobs available in Las Vegas. There always seems to be a teaching shortage there as they are opening several new schools every year. The problem is first, I have no desire to live in the desert, especially a city that gets as hot as Vegas. On top of that, the cost of living in Nevada is much higher than here in Ohio and teacher pay is not higher, so moving there would set me back as much as it would move me ahead. The same is true with Utah, which also came up. Apparently, my grandparents' across the street neighbors, who are also members of my local LDS ward (congregation), told her that the cost of living in Utah is significantly lower than here in Ohio, so despite the fact that Utah ranks 45th in average teacher pay, that is allegedly offset by the "low cost of living." I disputed that because when I lived in Idaho and was in Utah frequently, I didn't notice much of anything being significantly cheaper there than it was in Ohio. Things like gasoline were usually more expensive (though that can vary greatly) and groceries tended to be more expensive because of Utah's regressive sales tax on food (Ohio does not have a sales tax on food). All in all, I found the cost of living there was roughly the same as Ohio; it certainly wasn't lower.

The thing my grandma said that got me was "I'd think in this economy you'd want any job." While it's true I want a job and I need a steady job, how would moving across the country be financially sensible for some crap job in Utah or Vegas? I'd have to sink myself further into debt for a job that could barely keep me afloat. How would that be smart? As it stands now, it looks like I'll be subbing for this school year. While that's less than ideal, it is much better than doing nothing. On top of that my Derby grandparents are OK with me staying here as long as I need. Why rush "in this economy" to get my own apartment if I don't absolutely need to? Believe me, I want to get my own place ASAP, but I also understand the situation. I would much rather take it carefully and well-planned than moving far away and hope for the best. That said, as much as I wouldn't mind staying in this area, I am not opposed to moving anywhere for the right job. But that's just it; I won't move for "any job" unless that job is worth the time, effort, and money it will cost to relocate.

I, of course, did a little digging on cost of living and teacher pay too. Earlier this month I found a study that ranked the states for teachers where cost of living and teacher pay were factored together to make a "teacher comfort score." This is a much better indicator than just comparing how each state ranks in average teacher pay since cost of living can vary, particularly on the east and west coasts. So, while Ohio ranks 13th in average teacher salary and 19th in starting teacher salary, it ranks 6th in "comfort" when cost of living is factored in. California, on the other hand, which ranks 1st in average salary and 9th in starting salary ranks 44th on the comfort index because the cost of living is so high. The same was true for a lot of the higher paying states; they ranked high on starting and average salary but low on comfort because of high cost of living. Utah, on the other hand, didn't fare so well in ANY ranking. It ranks 45th in average starting salary, 45th in average teacher salary, and 39th in comfort index. So much for the low cost of living! The best state was Illinois: it ranked first in comfort, 4th in starting salary, and 3rd in average salary. The worst was Hawaii which ranked 50th in comfort, despite being ranked 9th in starting salary and 15th in average salary. Oh, and wonderful booming Nevada? They ranked 45th in comfort , 25th in average salary, and 38th in starting salary, so not much better than Utah. Again, why would I want to go into that? Sounds like I should look in the Land of Lincoln!!

• See the study here: Teacher Salaries By State

As for cost of living, I found an interesting study. It doesn't rank the states, but does do a comparative chart index using numbers from 2006 and 2008 as well as the housing numbers for the same time. The average for the US is 100, so the index tells how close each state was above or below the national average. I first looked at Ohio, which was at 95.4 in 2006 and 93.4 by 2008, so just below the national average. Housing was a different story. Ohio was at 84.3 in 2006, but fell to 74.9 by 2008. Not really any surprises there. How about Utah and their "low cost of living" according to my fellow ward members? Not true: Utah was at 96.1 in 2006 and 95.0 in 2008. Housing was at 95.2 in '06 and 92.1 in '08. So yes, Utah is below the national average in COL and housing, but it is not less than Ohio; it's right about the same though slightly higher, which I always suspected. Tennessee was very low: 90.8 in 2006 and 88.3 in 2008. Housing was even better: 79.3 in '06 and down to 75.8 in '08. Not bad even with a high sales tax! Nevada wasn't too great: 107.4 in '06 and it went up to 109.2 by '08. Housing was even worse: 119.8 in '06 and up to 126.4 in '08. Yikes. The worst states for cost of living and housing were the coastal states on both coasts (Hawaii is the worst in all categories: COL of 162.8 in '08 and housing index of 252.5 in '08 followed in both categories by California. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Alaska also were very high in all categories), though even the mountain west and southwestern states didn't do so hot either. The best are the south followed by the midwest.

• See the study here: Cost of Living by State

Updates Updates Updates!!

OK so my title makes it sound like I'm posting some big news. I WISH! No, nothing really is going on, though I am blogging from Nashville, Tennessee! Nope, haven't moved here (well, yet!) but I am visiting for the week! It's more to get out of town for a week than anything. I got here Thursday evening and haven't done a whole lot, but I'm not complaining. I'm in a beautiful air conditioned house with people I enjoy being around.

Yesterday we went with Heather's sister Kristie to the famous Loveless Cafe, which is just a few miles from where Andy and Heather live. It's famous for southern cooking, particularly its biscuits. When you walk in, the main waiting area is covered with autographed pictures of famous people who have eaten there. I must say I enjoyed the food I got there: hand-breaded chicken fingers (which were freakin' huge!), crinkle fries, and mashed potatoes. It was all very good! Today Andy and I went to a luncheon for the Vanderbilt Housing Alliance, an association for the spouses of those currently in their residency here in Nashville. I thought it was an excellent organization and they provided a reeeeeealy good lunch (not to mention an amazing lemon pie...wow!). Most of the group is made up of women (counting myself, there were all of 5 guys there total and like 50 women), so many of the smaller groups within the organization are geared towards that, but even then it's a great idea with something for everyone. It made me grateful for the organization of the church too. Many of the people in this group have come here with little or no support system, so this organization is a valuable too to help make the transition easier. How wonderful to know that wherever we end up, we also have the church organization (particularly the local ward) as a support and constant. One group this organization helps support is the Hospital Hospitality House of Nashville, which is similar to the Ronald McDonald House in providing housing and care for those who come to Nashville for the treatment of a loved one and have no money to afford a long-term hotel room or even food. The "HHH" is able to supply basic needs so the family member can focus on being the support for their loved one in the hospital without having to worry about even more expenses. What struck me in the presentation they made is the genuine desire to just help people for the sake of helping. If I had money to give, that would be something I would give money to support.

As far as other updates, the play ended July 18. We had a great closing week and the final performance went really well. After the show we took the set apart and my dad took the lights down the following Tuesday. I definitely miss being around the cast, but thankfully the last night of the show wasn't the last time we al got together. On the 24th I went with several of the children cast members and some of their parents (many of whom were also in the cast) to visit Historic Kirtland and the Kirtland Temple. Not only did we pick a fantasic day weatherwise to go (the day before and the day after it rained), but it was also Pioneer Day, a day we celebrate the arrival of the early Latter-day Saints in the Salt Lake Valley (July 24, 1847). I had a great time seeing the sites, but especially being with some of the cast again. It was even cooler being with them at the actual sites where the play took place. We were able to sing "He Lives" in the actual School of the Prophets room and sing "Spirit of God" in the Kirtland Temple. Way cool!

We had a cast recording the next day, where we all got together and recorded most of the vocal numbers from the show professionally. A recording had been made available from the show itself, but this one will be more balanced than a straight recording from the show and without any audience noise. Not only that, it gave us an excuse to get together again! I can't wait to hear the finished product! I also got to see a few cast members the next day when I went to the Hiram Ward to hear Bobby Berryhill (who played Lorenzo Snow) give his "farewell" address. He is set to leave for the Nevada Las Vegas mission in just a few short days. It was nice to "see him off" and visit the Hiram Ward. I hadn't been in that building since sometime in 1999 or 2000 and I have no idea the last time I attended a sacrament meeting there!

As for my job search, no such luck just yet, though July was going to be dead anyway as pretty much all principals are off during July, so there is little if any movement. Already I have started applying for 3 openings in Lorain, Ohio, so we will see how that goes. At this point I'm preparing to start subbing in Kent and the surrounding districts. While it won't allow for total financial independence, it will allow for some and still give me some flexibility. I'm also keeping my eyes open for other job opportiunities besides just teaching music in a public school setting and am open to teaching abroad. I got my PRAXIS scores a few weeks ago (I took it in June) and found out I did well enough to earn a distiction on the test (top 15%), which translates to finishing 20 points above where I needed to. While I'd love to feel really good about it, it has little bearing on getting a job and to be honest, after plunging some $20,000 into graduate school, I BETTER have done really well on that test! I was just glad I passed so I could apply for my teaching license.

Updates

As I'm writing this I'm wondering if it will be the last time I post in this house. The phone will be shut off on Wednesday the 13th (well, shut off here...we will still have the same phone number at my grandparents' house) so once that happens, I won't be able to get online here. I don't think it's hit me quite yet that after next Thursday I will never be allowed to come here anymore, even with most of our furniture already moved out. Really, all that's left here are 2 beds, the piano, the couch (getting picked up in an hour) and the washer and dryer. That's not to forget all the loose items that are still around that need to be packed or disposed of. It looks like our last night here will be Tuesday night to Wednesday as the utilities will be shut off on Wednesday or Thursday morning. Since we will be going to Heather's graduation in Baltimore on Thursday, we have to make sure everything is out before we leave that afternoon. Being a part of this is similar to waiting for someone to die. We know the end is coming and we hate to see them go, but it's to the point now where we are ready to move on. Granted, I'd much rather have this house than not, but since we have no choice in the matter, I just want the moving to be over.

As for graduation, I still need to turn in the application for graduation, but I still need to make sure my prospectus (a sheet that lists what classes I plan to take) is amended with the grad workshops I took in the Fall. Of course I can't do that myself; I have to hope my advisor takes care of it. As I expected, the School of Music was no help and in their infinite wisdom determined that it was all my fault despite the fact that the grade change was not submitted by my advisor until after the deadline (yeah, I'd like to know how that was my fault too!). As for not changing my prospectus, yeah I totally missed the ONE line in the letter back in February that simply said my advisor needed to send a memo about the classes I took to add to it. So yes, I dropped the ball on that one, but I find it somewhat disgusting that I pay how many thousands of dollars in tuition and fees and the University can't send me one more crummy letter or e-mail as a reminder that I have outstanding issues and that the deadline is approaching. They were certainly capable of sending me notice well AFTER I could do anything about it! And I wonder if my advisor was sent a copy of that same letter too. If she was, she certainly didn't do anything about it either or even ask me what it was referring to.

Oh I'm still not totally done with school yet either! While I still need to take the Praxis PLT in June, I also have a poster presentation this coming Tuesday. All that involves is a tri-fold poster that highlights the action research I did this semester in my 6th grade music class. I just need to print it off and put it together before then, which will be a bit more complicated such most things here are already at Derbys' or packed away in boxes here. For the last few days in the house, my desk will be gone (moving it tomorrow), so the computer will probably be on the floor. Lovely.