War Hawks Are Squawking

This past week President Donald Trump made a decision to withdraw 50 special forces troops from Syria. The move was met with a wide array of reaction from government officials and social media pundits. To absolutely no ones surprise the Republican "war hawks" were melting down. This is the typical crew that are constantly calling for the U.S. military to be deployed to every corner of the planet. Their fundamental argument is that America should protect its allies and intervention in international affairs is the best way to do this. Intervening in foreign affairs certainly isn't a new concept. The term war hawk was first used to describe a group of Republican Congressmen who wanted Presidents Jefferson and Madison to declare war against Britain.  Throughout our nations history there have continually been calls for the U.S. to enter into war with other countries, either proactively (such as in the case of Vietnam) or to simply protect economic interests. One thing has been consistent with these interventions, they usually prove to be fruitless.

Now back to this most recent episode. The United States has been involved in many Middle East nations affairs for several decades. Year after year our government has engaged in nation building; creating unholy alliances that come back to haunt future leadership. Take for example the move by former President Jimmy Carter to fund the Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan in 1979. This was a group of Islamic militants that came out of Saudi Arabia to take on the Russians in Afghanistan. At the time, this was seen as a chess move in the Cold War.  The blowback? Arming a group that would eventually include the likes of men such as Osama Bin Laden. This is just the tip of the iceberg as you look at the unintended consequences of continually aligning with factions that come back to haunt us. Now we find ourselves entangled in fighting what seems like a perpetual war against Islamic terrorist groups, while continuing to try to nation build; picking and choosing leaders and groups to back along the way.

Most believe that the main group, ISIS, has been severally crippled, if not defeated in Syria. Along with fighting this group, there have been calls for replacing the brutal dictator of Syria Bashar al-Assad. Hawks are making an emotional plea, claiming that by leaving the area, a power struggle will ensue between Syria and Turkey. This, in turn, will allow ISIS the chance to reform and return to functional operation. This is why they say we need to stay over there. There are already stories documenting attacks from Turkey and persecution of the Kurds. In addition to this, the likes of Marco Rubio and Meghan McCain have been ratcheting up the rhetoric.  Both took to Twitter this past week to express their concern over this decision. 

McCain was even more biting in her response, calling the move "...nothing short of Godless." Since then, several others have voiced their displeasure. While these messages will be met with anger and frustration, we must pause to reflect on the intent and aftermath of our interventions.  Let's ask some questions.

The first test we should run is to ask what our role is in intervening in other sovereign nations affairs. As I documented above, this is what is to blame for the position we are in now. Further picking and choosing sides and nation building will not help out in the long run. While doing this may give the appearance that we are doing good (squashing ISIS) the ramifications will be felt later on down the road. When Carter was arming the Mujaheddin fighters, I highly doubt he concocted a scenario where he was helping to build one of the largest modern terrorist networks in the world. The second item we must consider is the cost. I do not need to go in to great detail here, but we clearly know the cost this campaign has had on our country; not only monetarily, but physically and emotionally as well. Every week and month in the paper we can read of casualties and other negatives of this monstrosity. Far too many of our brightest and best have been shipped off to have their dreams taken away. I know they do it voluntarily, but that does not make it right. And while we have not had a "major" terror attack domestically, many areas of the Middle East are still very unstable due in part to our intervention.

I will leave you with this quote from Thomas Jefferson, as he weighed in on the role of the United States in foreign affairs.  Think of how different the world would look if this worldview were followed by our political leaders.

"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." 

--Thomas Jefferson to E. Gerry, 1799

M.O.E (Money Over Everything)

I am a huge sports fan. Sports have always been a central part of my life. I love watching baseball, football and college basketball. Wait, why did I mention college basketball? Why not just "basketball"? Well, one of the few major sports I do not watch is the NBA. I'm not a fan of the brand of basketball that is played in the NBA. However, something caught my attention from the world of the NBA as the preseason is getting underway.

The NBA, like many other professional sports organizations, has worked to increase its global outreach. In an attempt to expand market share and as a result increase revenue, the NBA has begun playing in an international setting. So far this preseason, several teams have played games in India and China. While getting into these markets is a potential boon for professional sports franchises, it may appear to come at a cost. 

Most people that are ardent sports fans will tell you; they don't want to mix politics and sports. We have seen this within our own country with the division among players in the NFL as it related to kneeling during the anthem. The movement to protest the manner in which law enforcement officers treat minorities in a sports arena left many teams and media in a precarious position on how to cover the topic. Again, many fans were apoplectic to the situation, still some simply wanted a clean break between sports and politics. 

So how does this relate the NBA and the move to overseas markets? Recently, Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted out his support for the protesters in Hong Kong. This drew the immediate ire of the Chinese Consulate in Houston, who called for an apology to be issued. More importantly (at least to the Rockets) was the push back from the Chinese government and the Chinese Basketball Association. Morey deleted the tweet and issued a thread of clarifying tweets, quipping the traditional "I did not intend to offend anyone" which is code for "I'm sorry that I have brought on financial issues with my statements..." Many other dignitaries and NBA officials quickly joined in to make sure Chinese officials knew they did not appreciate or support Morey's position.

General Manager Daryl Morey of the Houston Rockets.

Bill Baptist | National Basketball Association | Getty Images

Clearly this issue is like so many today, where having an opinion or "take" on a topic is only acceptable when, as Tom Woods says, it fits on the "3 x 5 card of allowable opinion." In this particular case an opinion on a political manner from a figure in the sports world is being shut down because it potential harms the bottom line, again very similar to the kneeling issue, where NFL officials encouraged teams to make sure the situation was taken care of, as ratings were hurting. China is the largest international market for the NBA. It is clear from the response the NBA is not going to risk having this cash cow jeopardized by a GM expressing his own personal opinion about the abuses carried out by the Chinese government. 

Many will yell to keep sports and politics separate. They will use the old "stay in your lane" technique, which is of course ridiculous. Often times sports figures have some of the biggest platforms and microphones to help influence and inform people. We need people in these positions to feel confident and free to voice their opinions. Of course people may or may not agree with those positions, but censoring or shutting them down because they intimated through money sends the wrong message. In this case, the NBA and the Houston Rockets are cowering to the potential market value of China. What signal does this send in the future when people want to speak out against injustice and abuse when they are told to keep quiet because it risks financial blowback? We cannot promote a society where the bottom line silences opinion of citizens.       

Where Are The Adults?

This past Thursday the acting director of National Intelligence took center stage in a House of Representatives hearing. During a three hour grilling in front of the House Intelligence Committee, Director Joseph Maguire fielded questions related to the whistleblower of a conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.  There were many questions surrounding the call in which Democrats accuse there was a "quid pro quo" offer made; where President Trump asked for an investigation to be reopened on former Vice President Biden's son in exchange for (presumably) military aid. Although the transcript of the call never reaches the level of an offer for something else, some have connected the dots to make this argument.

Beyond the circumstances of the call, Democrats were on the warpath against Director Maguire and his handling of how the report from the whistleblower was handled. As I watched the proceedings unfold, I quickly turned my attention from listening to the content of the questions to how the Congresspeople addressed Director Maguire. Listening to these supposedly distinguished people treat a grown adult like a child was maddening. The level of disrespect was off the charts. This was not a partisan issue either. Both Democrats and Republicans were guilty of treating Maguire rudely. I couldn't help but think about how these people lecture us about a lack of civility and here they were routinely cutting off, talking down and downright insulting to a high ranking government official.

I thought instead of documenting these (there were too many) I would let the video speak for itself. Just watch this highlight clip and make up your own mind. How is what you are seeing here civil? Respectful? Helpful? These people are smug, rude and need to be reminded that they are servants.

Don't Be Distracted...

This week I am making a transition from teaching in the physical classroom, to teaching in a virtual environment. The rise of alternative forms of education has not come without controversy. The traditional (I call them statist) defenders of public schooling will immediately whip up the rallying cry of defending public tax dollars. Any attempt to remove a student from the local public school will be met with resistance. Pubic enemy number one is the charter school. Whether they be public or private, the statist will yammer on about accountability, stealing tax dollars and unfair operating models. Defenders of charters have dug their heels in, as they rightfully should, to deconstruct these attacks. Other alternatives face similar attacks as well.

Homeschoolers in many states face an uphill battle and often times roadblocks are placed in the way of families who wish to educate their children at home. Just this past week the public education watchdog group Chalkbeat ran a story here in Indiana about how public schools manipulate dropout numbers by claiming those leaving are going to homeschool. Of course the article is less than flattering toward homeschooling, citing that there is little to no accountability of follow up once a student leaves the public school system.

Manual High School, Indianapolis, IN

These battles, while important in a sense, should not distract us from the real issue related to education; family control over education. As I have pointed out in many previous writings, there is a clear difference between schooling and education. I have also claimed this country does not have a public education system, instead we have a school system. This is the discussion that must be had. We cannot allow ourselves to get caught up in arguing the differences between options, but instead must insist that parents enjoy those options. In an attempt to do this, let's look three common arguments statists make about why we must protect the public school system and counter those with reasons why parents should be able to reject the status quo.

Without school, children wouldn't learn - If you can believe it, this is probably the most common reason I hear for why we must protect the public school system. Of course if you give it even a second of thought you realize how ridiculous this is. However crazy this seems, people believe it! At the risk of not just dismissing it, I will at least provide examples of why this is an insane defense of public schools. In America today there are a little over 1.5 million children who are homeschooled. So how do they perform? According to a study done by the National Home Education Research Institute, homeschoolers outperform their public school counterparts on ACT/SAT testing and graduate college at a higher rate. How can this be? Isn't the only way to ensure children are educated is to cram them in to a classroom every day? Of course not! Children can and do learn best outside the confines of a standard classroom.

Schools ensure children get a "well rounded" education - The first question I ask when I hear this one is "what does that even mean?" What in the world does it even mean to receive a "well rounded" education? I assume by this the statist means an education rooted in more than the traditional reading, writing and arithmetic and would include foreign language, science, social studies, home economics, etc. This is a noble cause, but one that is not worthy of pursuit. What bureaucrat decides these things? What of the curriculum that is taught? Has anyone stopped to ask if children are benefiting from completing the curriculum they are forced to endure? Perhaps children would be better served being able to self determine what they study and how. Take the example of Richard Branson, the founder of Virigin Records and Airlines. His education was taken after the school system failed him and he went on to learn through life experiences to build a net worth of over a billion dollars!

Schools prepare children for society, whereas other options cannot - Defenders of the public school system will often lean on the socialization factor as a reason why children must be enrolled at a local school. Of course what these people willfully ignore are the negative impacts that this causes. In recent years the spotlight in public schools has brightly been shining on the bullying problem. Unfortunately, most people who have attempted to address the issue of bullying still fail to see the enabling factor that public school creates. The manner in which school is structured and run produces opportunities for those who may not fit in to social norms created in the school environment. Again, we must ask, why would someone be defiant to the point of wanting to force someone who is being bullied to stay in that environment? Those who choose to seek alternative forms of education are just as likely to engage in socialization, such as; home group co-ops, peer groups and other clubs and organizations.

Clearly there are many more arguments made by both sides and while it is important to defend alternatives to public schooling, we cannot lose sight of the main point. The public school system and its one size fits all structure is a farce. It is rooted in force. Have you ever stopped to consider why that is so? If the public school model was so effective and persuasive, why would families need to be forced to attend at the threat of truancy laws? If we really care about educating our future generations, we should embrace models that work best for all and not forcing all in to one model.

AOC Is Wrong Again

In some of my previous writings and podcasts I have covered the concept of natural rights.  Defining natural rights is something that has been debated for centuries. The basis for identifying what constitutes natural rights here in America largely rests in the work of John Locke; the Scottish philosopher of the 17th Century. Locke famously wrote that natural rights were those such as; "life, liberty and property." While there has been debate over Locke's influence on the Founding Fathers and many modern day political theorist challenge his concept of "the social contract theory", there is much that can be gained form building on his ideas.

Coming to a consensus on defining natural rights is important in determining what, if anything, people are entitled to in life. If we take Locke's three concepts of life, liberty and property (or pursuit of happiness) and define those as things we are naturally entitled to, everything else we gain is through economic activity. As Adam Smith theorized, economic activity is driven by selfish motives (not bad by the way) and guided by "an invisible hand." By this, we mean people voluntarily interact with each other; trading time, labor and money without coercion. 

So why this discussion about natural rights and economic theory? Well, as we approach the 2020 presidential election and the Democrats continue to hold debates the American people will continue to hear more and more about items that are "rights", healthcare being chief among these. Seemingly not a day goes by without a tweet being fired off by the likes of Senator Sanders or Representative Ocasio-Cortez claiming that certain healthcare services are rights. In fact, Cortez just this weekend provided us with this gem:

 This is right out of the democrat playbook:

1. Call a product that does not naturally exist, a right
2. Demonize businesses by identifying them as greedy
3. Play on emotion of the people

Let's clear up a couple of things the Congresswoman appears to be confused about. 

First, insulin as a product, is not a right. No one has a right to it, because it does not exist naturally.  Someone (the billionaire type she bashes) has taken the absolutely insane risk of organizing the factors of production to create the product. Does it help save lives? Yes. Does this mean Lilly or other manufactures have a moral obligation to provide it? No. How should prices be determined? By a government panel? Of course this is insane. Lilly and others would almost certainly cease production, or at the least cut production to the point that very few would have access to it at all.

Obviously in this case she is referencing the CEO of Whole Foods for cutting benefits. However, the same principle applies. The employment of a person at Whole Foods is completely voluntary. If someone were forcing another person to work there, it would be slavery and that is illegal. At any time if someone is not happy with their compensation package, they are free to leave and work somewhere else. So either way you look at it, there is not a natural claim to these benefits or products.

Cortez goes on to bash the business leader further by claiming this activity is "dehumanizing." Again, what could be more dehumanizing than enslaving another person, which is clearly not the case when a business leader employees another person. Providing jobs to citizens betters everyone involved. How do I know this to be true? Because again, like we defined earlier, the agreement is mutual and at any time the agreement can be ended by either party. If the CEO of Whole Foods makes this move and the employment market reacts by seeing scores of workers leave, then they (Whole Foods) executives will need to reconsider their position. But when you view employment (and the terms of employment) as non-negotiable by the company and employee, it is no wonder you view this as unjust.

Finally, Cortez uses what is probably the most worn out tactic in these debates; emotion. Using emotion to whip up the masses is a tradition unlike any other by politicians. The problem with this strategy is that it is not based in logic and truth. As we discussed above, simply claiming things are something does make it true. You can say healthcare is a right, or business leaders are dehumanizing all you want, it doesn't mean you are right. This is simply a way to get sound bites and get people angry. We must be smarter to read beyond the rhetoric of trying to score votes and understand the fundamentals of the argument.

I understand why people are worked up over this topic. I am not claiming the healthcare industry is not in need of reform. There are fundamental problems, by the way mostly created by government regulation and bureaucracy. This is a topic that is personal to me. As someone that has had over 12 surgeries in my lifetime, I appreciate what modern medicine has provided to me to improve my quality of life, but at no time have I ever felt entitled to receive the benefits of others hard work; it is a privilege not a right.   

After School: Moving on From The School System

Recently I had another piece published over at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE.org) on Growth vs. Fixed Mindset. The reaction has been overwhelming positive. I have gotten many questions though about solutions. This is something that comes up quite often in replies to my writing, mostly because I spend a good deal of time trying to educate people on the ills of schooling.

I completely understand why people ask about solutions though. After all, I cannot spend all my time railing about the system and not provide what alternatives should exist. In my forthcoming book, Failure: The History and Results of a Broken School System, we dedicate an entire section to alternatives. So today I thought I would dedicate the blog post to outlining my thoughts on alternatives to the American schooling system. Enjoy.

Moving On From School

Reform is futile. For decades, lawmakers, parents, teachers, and other social leaders have attempted to "reform" the American school system. Billions and billions of dollars have been spent in the name of attempting to educate the children of this nation. Statists have thrown every tool they have at trying fix schools. When this has failed, they have turned to attempting to justify why they keep trying. More often than not, their argument rests on "the importance of having an educated citizenry." Why on earth would we want children to NOT go to school? We need a well rounded citizen to keep this thing going. We need educated people to be the leaders of the future. I agree! However, school is not how we ensure this happens. 

As I have laid out in other writings, school does not equate to education. Maybe you have noticed that I intentionally keep using "school" and not "education." What we have is an American schooling system, not an education system. So what is the difference? Well, most people would logically assume that we send our children to school to receive an education. First, one cannot get an education, it must be taken. This was the mantra espoused by the late John Taylor Gatto, and he is correct. You cannot force someone to learn, which is what our schooling system is built upon; force. We force kids to attend school, we force them to take various courses, we force them to abide by arbitrary rules, etc. This is the basis of school and the reason why reform will not work. So what must we do?

I propose the first course of action is to remove the compulsive nature of schooling. We must return ownership of how we educate our children back over to the family. This would essentially provide an unlimited number of options to parents and children to decide how and when they are educated. Providing this freedom would generate ownership in being educated. Much like other social programs, government run schooling has created apathy. Allowing people to choose the manner in which they learn would create many options for how this is accomplished.

Accepting this logic requires us to also acknowledge that teaching and learning should look radically different than it does currently. I ascribe to the concept of open source learning. This approach sees teaching and learning as a much more natural and organic function. Under the schooling system of licensing teachers and forcing children in to schools, learning and teaching have become very awkward and clumsy. For example, take a moment and Google "Flaws in how we teach math." Look at all the examples of what people are saying about how off the mark the school system is in teaching children mathematical concepts. It's no wonder children are so frustrated and want to quit. Further, we should view anyone with experience and skills to offer as a teacher. We must allow our children to learn from those around them, not just those the state has deemed worthy of being called teacher.

How does all this occur then? I am a proponent of any system that strips away power from the quasi-monopoly government has on education. Charters, alternative schools and homeschooling are all great choices for those that do not fit well in to the government run system. Notice this implies that there are some that this model works well for. I am not necessarily a proponent of taking a wrecking ball to the school system. If families believe this model works well for them, that is fine. However, the one size fits all approach does not work well for everyone, yet the barriers to alternatives are great and restrain far too many from bucking this system. 

Ideally, I would promote unschooling. Unschooling is natural learning. It is not forced, nor is it necessarily scripted. This makes it very difficult to comprehend for those who have been exposed to nothing but forced schooling. Unschooling does not ascribe to scripted curriculum or learning from experts.  More importantly, it returns ownership of learning to the self. This model provides children (and parents) with the framework to determine what is best for their own learning style and needs. It is free of any type of force. Children in this sense then are encouraged to pursue their interests and strengths. What a novel concept! Take a moment and look at the Alliance for Self-Directed Education (self-directed.org) and research all the great options that exist in this model.

Critics of this model will claim that if children are not forced to play school, they will not learn. They will engage in idleness and waste days playing video games and milling around on social media. First, I would argue, there is much to be learned in both those arenas. Any experience is a learning opportunity. If a child has a natural curiosity in video games; let him explore it. The key, as with anything in life, is moderation. Of course in this model children will still need guidance and adult supervision. As they mature and get older, we should pull back on that. Further, I believe the natural yearning to learn would take over some time after the child learns what it is like to live freely. Most behaviors, like those viewed as "time wasters" are push back from children being told what to do nonstop. Once free, I believe we will see children flourish, pursing their passions and desires. This will take time of course.

No system is perfect. However, the current system is neither close to perfect or working efficiently. We must work to break free from the tentacles of government run schooling for the sake of this and future generations. If we truly want an open minded, well rounded citizenry, we must reengage with our children and give them the tools they need to be successful.    

  

A Farewell to School... Almost

This week I resigned. I resigned my position as a high school teacher in a public school. More aptly, I resigned myself to believing I can make a difference in my current role. Over the last 10 years of my life I have served in schools in many capacities. The last 5 years I have spent teaching social studies at a small, rural school in west central Indiana.  In many ways it has been the most rewarding stretch of my career. The connections I have made with students and co-workers has been phenomenal. There were times that reaffirmed the reasons I got into education.

I am a non-traditional teacher. I started my career by graduating with a degree in Marketing and working in sales.  Sales jobs can be highly rewarding, both personally and financially. I was doing well to help start my wife and I off on the right foot.  But the pressure of constantly meeting quotas and being rejected finally wore me down. I decided it was time for a change. So I went back to my roots.

I entered college as a history major, hoping to teach or work at a museum some day. After opting to leave the business world, I decided it was worth giving it a try to teach. I entered a "Transition to Teaching" program at a local college. This was a 2 year program that would get me certified to teach and eventually a Masters in Education. I genuinely enjoyed the program, minus a few social justice courses, and I felt very prepared to enter the classroom.

"No one enters teaching to get rich." I've heard this ad nauseam, and it's true.  Anyone who has ever even considered teaching understands this. While the debate over teacher pay rages on across the country, the real debate should focus on the purpose and intent of educating a child. To say we have lost our way is not accurate. I'm not sure we have ever been on the right path. In fact, the longer I have been in education, the more I am convinced of this.

Last year I took to help co-author a book; Failure: The History and Results of a Broken School System.  As we approach having a first draft ready for edit, I am growing in excitement to see what the final product will look like and how it will be received. The inspiration for this work came from my observations as a teacher.  So I want to leave you with some stories that did not make the book.  Stories and scenes that should vividly paint the picture of just how bad our schools are failing our children. I realize I am only one person and I have one worldview, but I believe this holds up whether you are reading this in Portland, Oregon or Miami, Florida. As you read these, I hope the message resonates with you and moves you to question why. Why are we spinning our wheels and arguing reform, when all we must do is give people freedom.

• School Hurts- There has been a lot of discussion in the district I am leaving about how much emotional baggage kids bring to school. The social emotional scars are evident. I hear it and see it on a daily basis. Students face some unfair circumstances. I've had students with parents that have died, been thrown in jail or have abused them. While this is so unfortunate, and I would not wish it on anyone, I also know the damage that school does. Last year I had a chance to get to know a student in my government class.  This student was a genuinely nice human being.  Never had a bad thing to say about anyone and always had a smile on his face.  One day we were talking about his plans after school. After asking him what college he planned on attending, he simply laughed. He looked me right in the eyes and said "Mr. Spears, I am not good enough for college.  I don't have the talent or ability to make it through 4 more years."  This hurt. I asked him what he wanted to do after school. He went on to say "I don't know, no one has ever told me I am good at anything." This is just one conversation. Each day there are students being hurt by what school tells them they are or are not. Add this to other forms of stress and anxiety of testing and it is no wonder why kids hate school. Each day children struggle to get by with the stress that school causes. I can't even begin to tell you have many students I have seen almost physically ill over tests, homework, projects, dealing with hateful people, and so on. It never ends.

• Social Conditioning - One of the worst effects I have seen schools have on kids is the conformity it creates. Supporters of school rules and regulations will babble on about having to teach kids how to follow rules and such; that is hogwash. Kids see right through the arbitrary and senseless nature of school rules. The real purpose of these rules is to break the will and create conformity. In turn, this leads students to stop caring, to stop questioning, to stop learning. A perfect example of this was a student I had in World History/Geography, I'll call her Lisa.  Lisa was a student constantly getting passes to go to the office.  One day I finally asked her, "Why are you always getting called out of class?"  She smiled and replied "I don't play by the rules very well." Year after year, teachers had been dealing with Lisa by simply "writing her up" and sending her to the office. I asked what the infractions were, as I never had an issue with her. "Little, stupid stuff" she said. One day she said she had been sent to the office twice for simply having her phone out during class. What is the point? Oh I know, taking the phone away will automatically create compliance and Lisa will be all ready to learn about the mitochondria right?  See school rules completely miss the point. Yes, order is necessary. Breaking the will and creating compliance does not. Administrators and teachers have been sold a lie that unless these rules are enforced, learning will never occur. In addition to this are the mixed signals that are sent by inconsistent enforcement. Lisa pointed this out one day when saying "I got sent to the office last year for wearing a shirt that showed my belly button, meanwhile there is a girl who has worn a tank top 3 times and has never had even a warning." This may seem harmless, but think of the cumulative affect. Would you want to be in a place that treated you that way?

These are just two stories. I could tell these same stories for days. The point is; schooling is not education. Schooling is regressive. Schooling is harmful. I can no longer participate in that environment. So I am moving on. I am not giving up on attempting to educate children. It is my passion and desire to help children achieve their full potential. This month I will be joining K12, an on-line public school option. This is an alternative for students who want to get out of the jail of regular brick and mortar schooling. I know there will be challenges. I know it will be difficult. I only hope that they see the opportunity they have to thrive in an alternative environment.

So thank you to all I have worked with over the years. You are not the problem. You are well meaning. You give your heart and soul. You are working in a system though that is working against you. I hope and pray for change, but until then; best of luck.