My Charter School - Part 3 (Uniforms)

    In my charter school there will be uniforms.  These uniforms will be polos and khakis.  These khakis will be knee length skirts, shorts, or actual pants.  There will be an expectation that these will be buttoned at least once and three times if they want.

    Parents, if you have kids in school you should be looking for a school with a uniform or a drastic dress code policy.  Students should cover everything from their knees to their neck and covering their entire shoulders.  I have students in my class daily with buttocks and bellies showing.  I have boys wearing muscle shirts.  I have kids with holes in their jean that would be covered by bathing suits.  I have girls in spaghetti straps that show off more cleavage than I think is appropriate for Walmart.  Now of course, there are crazy people everywhere that think Walmart is a perfect place to wear anything.  Fine, but that is NOT school.  School should be a place where students and their parents work to succeed and achieve.  School success should be earned not given.  Student success should be based on struggle not ease.  

    Parents, if your school ends the dress code as did the Round Rock ISD school board you should vote them out.  If your school district was dumb enough to follow the pattern of other schools like RRISD did by following the no dress code policy of Austin ISD which scores lower than them on State Standardized Tests then vote them out because they are idiots.  

    Let's say you're on the best team in a professional sport league.  Maybe you're on the top five.  Does it make sense to follow the failed policy of the worst team.  Round Rock ISD and Leander ISD are performing better in every measurable way than Austin ISD and yet the district school boards of both ISDs have decided to mirror AISD's failed policy.  That is lunacy.  

    Parents, whatever the school, charter or private, that you have the ability to get your child into; get them into it, if and only if, the student has a severe dress code or they have a uniform.  

    This comes from a teacher.  The student needs to see school as different than the park/mall/house.  The student needs to have expectations on them at school.  If they come in pajamas they are not ready to work.  If they are not fully clothed then they are not fully prepared to learn.  If they are dressed halfway, they will only go halfway in life.  

    There may have been a time when this wasn't the case.  There may have been a time when societal norms or fear of social ostracization would encourage a family to send students to school achieving a certain level of dress.  Now that is not the case.  We used to complain about busy-bodies.  We used to disdain ubiquitous haughtiness.  For certain, sometimes bad actors would turn their cannons of social demerits at someone who may not have deserved it, but now there are no social demerits.  And just like that, very few students and families have merit.  

*I am at Title ONE school.  My students have terrible behavior.  None of this may apply to you even at a public school with no dress code, but that may have a socioeconomic cause.  But it may be that it will apply to you if your student is in Elementary school.  When they're older it might.  My hypothesis is that with fewer expectations on behavior students have less good behavior and thus, less success in the classroom.  A few years ago it was 20% now it's 60% of my students are performing sub standard. There is no consistent standard and so their performance suffers.  Students designed to engage and test boundaries, are finding out their are no boundaries. This is bad for society and bad for these students.  They must feel restricted to feel safe.  Uniforms would help, can help.  The solutions must be stricter not more lax. 

My Charter School - Part 2 (Music School)

    I haven't decided if I'm going to make my son read this.  Actually, I haven't decided if I'm going to ask my son to read this and have him tell me no.  He is awesome.  He plays multiple instruments.  He plays violin, harp, marimba, and piano.  The fact that he plays so many sometimes makes it hard for him to excel in any, but I think his skills and talents are amazing.  But I think Band sucks. 

    In my opinion Band sucks, but he loves it.  It does though, it sucks so bad.  First, band costs too much.  I'm not talking about the musical instruments, but the program.  The competition that the students are going to be involved in is too much damn money.  My son's school's band program cost a million dollars and 500 ish students also ponied up $600 dollars a piece and there are multiple fundraisers.  That's too much damn money.

    I know that there are people who sort of shmack talk about whether it's more difficult to be in band than in say football, for me they're both too difficult.  But football get more praise.  So the band spends hundreds of hours putting together this really expensive show.  It takes too long.  They used to do it for the football team only.  Now they have massive competitions that cost too much money no one but the band knows who won unless it's was your team.  Band has taken on a mind of its own which is good, because they shouldn't serve the football team, but they still kind of do.  

    Band is art, it makes you smarter, attention to detail, discipline in skill building, some athleticism; these are all reasons why band should be practiced in school.  But in my charter school things will be much different than they are at your normal 5A or 6A school band program.

    These days Band lives for marching season.  Marching season is the program that they do at halftime.  The band is practicing at the game and usually only doing part of their program.  The real competition is the multiple competitions they do on Saturdays after the game.  12 hour long competitions.  They're trying to make their program perfect by about the end of the football regular season where they'll probably go to state band competitions.  During the week, the students practice in double blocks, that means an hour and a half everyday.  Then they have multiple after school practices.  Then they have Friday morning before the game and they're at the game 5-10:00 or later.  It takes as much time as a part time job.  20-30 hours.  It takes too much time.  And the program they're perfecting, is usually only three or four songs.  This is why I hate it.

    Band stopped being about being really good at music and started being about the competition.  Band members devote so much memory their marching and aren't spending enough time learning the notes to more songs.  Some band members do band only for marching band season.  I think that is a problem and so far I haven't seen any limiting principle.  How much practicing for these competitions is too much.  There are rules and laws about how much time should be utilized, but it doesn't seem that many top notch schools follow these rules.  I know my son's school doesn't.  Sometimes, the rules are purposefully vague.  

    I think those rules should be clear and concise.  I think there should be an hour long class in school everyday.  I think there should be no more than five hours outside of school for that.  There would be no reason to get ready for football games.  There should be no marching competitions because there isn't enough time.  Band could produce shows but not buy them.  Schools could have simple uniforms, but cheap.  And emphasis should be placed on exceptional play and music library rather than expert steps.  One goes with the musician after school one doesn't.  

    Band after marching season and after football season is for competitions and shows.  So it should be still.  

    Band can play at smaller sporting events that are intramural, but they should create these halftime shows themselves and with the help of faculty.  They don't have to be professional productions.  Why should they be.  They AREN'T professionals.

    Orchestra should be the same as band.  Learning a large library of songs, pressed to play with greater talent and skill on a limited basis in school and some out of school.  

ANTS SPECIALIZE

    Athletes who are good enough to play intramurally for the school should have enough time to play in either band or orchestra.  Band members should have enough time to do band and orchestra.  Or they could be part of a musical club/class and another club instead of athletics.  If students are in two things outside of school they should be able to do them both in 10 hours.  NO more.  Limiting principles.  If the students and their parents want the student to achieve some sort of professional grade athleticism or musical talent then they should do that at home.  Their parents are responsible for that schools are not.  Schools shouldn't be.  

MISSION CREEP

Schools all over the US are getting confused thinking that there purpose is to produce students who are professional grade in high school and starting them on the path in middle school.  NO.  Schools are preparing students for LIFE.  The talents that they achieve should be introductory.  If they're doing something seven years of secondary education I think they should be good enough to go to any college music program because they're more focused without competitions.  If not, their parents should be the ones who have stronger expectations at home, not at school.  I think athletes in my school can do the same a varied capability in many sports may make them a more all-around athlete.  If the parent thinks the student needs more time in basketball or tennis, or whatever, they can see to those needs themselves or go to a school with bad priorities.   

My Charter School - Part 1 (Athletics)

    My future charter school needs a lot of work and planning.  What makes up a school what makes it good and what makes it bad?  I know very few people read this blog, but one day maybe I make a charter school and people read this in order to understand it.  First, I'm going to spend a significant amount of digital ink on EXTRA curriculars.

    The first football game was between Yale and Harvard.  It wasn't nigh unto professional sports.  I cannot imagine those students spending more than a couple of hours a week practicing and they were the only teams that filled out a team that year.  Soon many others would join.  Other schools in the last century and a half have had football teams much faster.  Yale and Harvard were open over a hundred years a piece before they started playing intramural sports.  But even colleges that were started between 1850 and 1950 started small, a college, that focused and grew and changed and added sports over time.  Now new schools race to have athletic programs.  

   And high school follow along the same trajectory.  They had no programs in small towns, then they had small programs, then they had large programs.  Now, middle schools have programs that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.  The costs are in some ways hidden by the labor.  Four coaches in athletics means $200,000+ but they also teach.  Well, some of them.  They use trainors from the high school, their gear is nike, or under armour, the kids bring in some money, they fund raise.  Middle school programs now I would guess cost more even with inflation than college programs did say 75 years ago.  Sounds like a long time?  High school programs I believe cost more than college did 35 years ago, is my guess.  There are exceptions.  Big college verses little high school might not be close, but the point is there is an unquestionable gradual growth.  And there doesn't seem to be a limiting principle.  

    Why would there be a limiting principle.  The more colleges spend on athletics, the more they get from advertising dollars for being on TV.  The more they're on TV the more students that matriculate.  The more students the more money, the more money the more athletic potential.  The more they get from donors.  High schools and middle schools get a great deal of prestige from Athletics for some unknown reason.  The average person cannot name which school was last years high school state champ unless it was your school.  The kids care so much about winning district in middle school, but who cares.  It is no great predictor of Division 1 success or professional potential.  Who cares?  Almost everyone does.  If the money is to indicate interest then teachers, parents, students, voters, and everyone else cares who wins.

    So...everyone is wrong.  Especially in the school setting.  Athletic programs were invented between the world wars and especially after WWII to teach discipline and athletic ability to a large swath of society.  Our schools are failing in this.  Football is failing in this.  Football creates prima donnas who don't listen or respect, do not achieve in the classroom.  Coaches are trying to get players to play whether they pass or not.  Coaches are leaning on admin and teachers to pass students so they can play.  There are reasons for kids to play, to learn discipline and respect, to work off some excess energy, to have an outlet for aggression and even corporal punishment.  But it should always be subservient to education.  Students who cannot read and do math on level shouldn't be double blocking athletics, but reading and math.  

    Athletics are therefore beneficial, but must serve the school.  Athletics must prepare boys and girls for all futures rather than a future in professional sports.  So in my charter school there will be no sports against other schools.  I think organizing games within the school will be much cheaper, will tamp down any fame that students may achieve for a couple of touchdowns on Friday night.  Basketball played within a single school will allow many students of varying skill levels to make an impact.  It is terrible that so many students don't play any sports and then they don't have any athletic activity in their boring PE class.  The Gym teacher doesn't push this class, many times because they cannot be useful to them on a team.  

    I know there are some students who come to school for sports.  I know there are some students who achieve in the classroom in order to play on the team although that number is shrinking.  To them, I think this could be even better than the system we have now.  If games are played daily at school among students then there is always the opportunity to achieve and play.  Because many students also practice in order to play.  Let them practice for half a class and then play everyday, there are too many, most schools, who are so business, they rarely scrimmage.  That is also bad for kids.  But what if a scrimmage isn't good enough, and what if two or three students dominate the games?  Play a bigger game after school.  Have a blue team and a red team within your school.  Trade players to resist factions.  And believe it or not, there are a lot of dominate players in intermural sports.

NO PASS NO PLAY

    I have a student named E.  He's tall, like 6'1 which is tall for an 8th grader.  I've never seen him play basketball, but he seems like he'd be good at least on defense with his size and apparent agility.  First day of school he said, he wanted to be a coach, a player, or a soldier.  He never talks out of turn, but he doesn't work.  He doesn't seem to care to turn work in.  The young boy would benefit from failing in class, because he needs to realize why he needs to perform in well in class.  But I truly wish he could figure that out without failing a nine weeks.  If he would play outside of UIL and on the school team, then he could sit out a day or a week, because faculty told him he couldn't play for a short period of time.  Not three weeks, or six weeks, or a unfigurable term that no one can figure out in UIL which is arbitrary.  The punishment, the consequences, should fit the crime.  E and others should receive swifter, simpler, more direct consequences for misbehavior, or lack of effort in the classroom.

COACHES

    In many middle schools there are 9 coaches.  Four for the boys, four for the girls, and one more for tennis or golf.  When I was a kid, 2 coaches coached 7th grade football, and 2 coached 8th grade football.  Now four coach 7th in the morning and the same four coach the 8th in the afternoon.  This is unwise.  Our coaches are becoming less educators and more coaches.  When these programs started 60 and 70 years ago there was a single coach for all the intramural sports and PE.  That is also unwise, coaches can't have impact on too many students.  That is why there should be more teacher coaches not less.  How many teachers could be utilized to coach a single class?  Two teacher coaches per period one man, one woman now there are 14 to 16 teacher coaches.  Who has the most authority in the classroom?  Teacher coaches.  Who are the most beloved after leaving school typically?  Teacher coaches.  When I have a behavior problem with an athlete who do we call?  Teacher coaches.  Now there are no stipends which are trash anyway for coaches.  There are no students who are receiving special treatment because they're 'taking us to state.'  There are students who practice a wide range of athletic pursuits, with a wide range of skill and interest levels, taught by a wide variety of teachers who cannot help, but keep their main focus on education, because they only coach an hour, but also dole out some consequences, and positive rewarding activities to students who're achieving in the classroom.

READY FOR WHATEVER

    I think football is wrong for students.  It does hurt too much.  There is brain damage with every hit.  The linemen aren't getting exercise.  Concussions and broken bones are too common.  One of my favorite movies is Necessary Roughness.  Scott Bacula is a college Quarterback and he's 40.  There are two antagonists for the football team.  One is the Texas State, the other is their own dean.  He doesn't think that college's hard earned money should be used on the barbarity of football.  I watched it when I was young and hated that guy, but I agree with him as I get old enough to be the arm of the armadillos.  No football, yes basketball, yes track, yes soccer, no hockey, yes relays and cross training, yes hiking, yes boxing with gear and hitting bags more than each other, yes field events including javelin.  Yes tag and wall ball, yes ping pong and cross country.  Yes gymnastics maybe swimming.  Yes wrestling yes volleyball.

TITLE NINE

    Girls will train with boys and will play in PE with boys.  When preparing for afterschool, more competitive games, there should be girls, boys, and co-ed.  

ANTS SPECIALIZE

    One hard fast rule for me is that I don't think kids should have to choose.  When I was part of a high school program as a student in the late 90's there was time to be an athlete and a nerd in the band or orchestra.  I think that is essential to the cultivation of students and societal members.  When I was part of a high school program as a coach (admittedly supporting role) in 2018 the time to be engaged in multiple activities was dead and dying out.  When I was in high school there were football players who pulled off their pads at halftime and marched with the band.  That is highly irregular these days.  Band members and football players both think they should specialize more to be ready for the next level.  This is a bad practice of our educational system.  It is tragic.  I think it should be reversed and it will be in my charter school.  Time will be alloted to make sure students can participate in multiple extracurriculars.  Will students be as competitive in state competitions?  No, thank God.

Cashing in on Education

"Why can't I just quit school and go to work?"

Ever hear that from your high schooler?  Maybe your 3rd grader?  

The national average price paid per pupil across the US is $12,612.  That means each kid costs that much every year.  This starts out at the upper end where New York spends $24,000 per pupil including a ton of money for pensions.  Utah is in last place, or is it first place?  They spend $7,628 per student.  *Stats from educationdata.org

America is not getting its money's worth.  Nope.  In large cities like New York, New York where students are costing $24,000 per student per year 80% are graduating and 80% of those can read.  Wow.  You know I'm actually surprised it's that high.  Maybe there is some statistical...creativity.  Maybe there are affluent schools bringing the average up.  Maybe there are some really good charter and private schools that just get it done.  Then again, exclusive private schools shouldn't even effect those statistics.  Maybe if the US used vouchers and we SHOULD use vouchers.  

Heck, maybe the numbers are fudged.  I'd believe that.  I just read 13 Ways of Going on a Field Trip.  Seems like there are some heroic and idealistic teachers in New York fighting a tsunami, but the tsunami is winning.  I've heard horror stories from people who work at Title 1 schools, and movies, and articles, and my own experiences these past five years at Title 1 schools.  

My personal assessment is that students and parents lack motivation.  Some students will do well for themselves.  Some students will do well for their parents.  Some students will do well to play sports or do the arts.  All of that adds up to maybe 50% and still few of those have an intrinsic motivation to retain knowledge rather than to score well on the test and dump their knowledge.  Still even that doesn't deal with the other 50% ish who aren't motivated by parents, sports, or anything else. 

Here's one idea.  Let's pay the students $500 a year to get A's and B's and good attendance.  Say $80 bucks per six weeks if they get A's and B's and only 2 absences, no more than 5 tardies.  They can lose out one or two Marking Periods and fix it in the others.  What about paying parents the same amount?  Now moms and dads are motivated to send their kids to bed on time, and get to school on time, and encourage them to do homework each night.  Maybe parents could even sit down with the kids regularly and look at their grades to hold them accountable.  

There does seem to be something perverse about paying students and parents to succeed.  After all we're already giving them something that has the ability to really do amazing things. Just go look up quotes about the value of education and you'll see Erasmus said, "The main hope of a nation lies in the proper education of its youth."  "Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave. -Fredrick Douglas.  "A child without an education is like a bird without wings."  "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."   So should America pay its people to take this great thing?  Yeah.  

We already pay kids the price of the school building, team sports, pensions, teacher's salaries, counselors, and admin. We pay too much to try to grow their motivations instead of just trying to pay them to be motivated.  Let's buy their motivations.  

I often think, 'I could teach 40 students at a time in all of my classes IF each student was as good as HN, MI, or DS (initials used to protect identities).  You've had students like that, right?  What if they all were?  What if they were pressing you for all they might incidentally need to know instead of asking if they'll really need all this?  What if they self-regulated class and other student's behavior so that they could all hear and succeed?  What if they tried to butter you up, but were also conscientiously trying to not look like they were?  What if they all vied to be the teacher's pet?  Would teachers need as much pay and as much support staff?  Nope.

Could this lead to cheating?  For example, a teacher offers a good grade for part of the cash?  Yes.  But would you want to trust a student to keep quiet about that?  I wouldn't.  Could students and parents make a scene and argue?  Could rotating teachers and standardized testing be used to back up all teacher data?  Yes.  

It wouldn't have to be every school or even every school in one state.  It would just have to be a couple of charters to create the experiment.  I know there would be tons of teachers, parents, and students titillated by the opportunity. Then again, I didn't even ask Google if it was legal.

End Secondary School

I don't think there should be secondary school anymore.

Why would someone have secondary school?  Well, to teach the students everything they would need in life.  Really.  That sounds impossible.  Maybe we endeavor to teach citizens the things that make them fit the definition of educated.  However, schools largely don't do that.  Schools probably never did, or how many students can pass the same calculus exams that proved mastery one month later?  

And what does it take to teach the students these things?  It takes motivated students and only barely competent teachers.  It takes supportive parents who encourage and partner with students and teachers.  Over the decades the motivation of students has dropped, the buy in of the parents has flopped, and the competency of the teachers has gone up.  These statements are addressing averages.

Now there are teachers who don't do much.  They are at these failure factories in inner cities and they are working with too many students who don't care.  They lost the battle and their job is to shift the blame and cover the truth.  If America doesn't know, schools in inner cities are broken.  

But where the battle to educate is still being waged, public schools expected less and less and less.  In some academic game of high jump the children will keep adjusting to the lowered bar until they are refusing to jump centimeters.  They have and they do play limbo until they simply won't engage the bar.  School isn't teaching the minimum basic skills because there is no reason for the students to learn.  

So just end secondary school requirements.  Stop sending millions of kids who don't want to go to school to learn something they don't want to learn.  If kids want to go to middle school or high school or if their parents are highly motivated for them to go then they can go.  Then teachers wouldn't be spending out-sized time trying to make oppositional defiant teens pass arbitrary requirements.  Teachers can focus on the students who WANT to be there.  Students can get what they need.  The bills would be cut.  The arbitrary nature of grades can be amended up instead of down for the first time in decades.  

Just change schools to Primary (K-3rd) and Senior (4th-6th) and finally Remedial (7th).  In primary students will spend a lot of their time in the same way they do now.  However, maybe with more emphasis put on fewer grade levels there can be more teachers per student.  One teacher teaching 10-15...with a helper.  Sounds great! Student citizens need only to gain powers of reading, writing, and arithmetic.

It's all they need.  To read with good vocabulary and understanding for simple facts.  The idea that all 16 year olds can engage with Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Dickens is ludacris.  As surely as the idea that all 50 year olds can.  To do basic math well enough to mentally balance a checkbook.  To write opinions and feelings.  The list of requirements isn't large, and yet elementary schools are pushing some algebraic ideas into the lower levels so they'll be ready for them in secondary school.  That's crazy. Members of our society don't lament thirty year olds who can't find a hypotenuse, but America rightly cringes when we hear of high school grads who cannot read and write at a third grade level.  Forget the first problem and attack the second.  

Senior School (4th thru 6th) would be the time for high-stakes, standardized testing.  Students would need to prove their mastery of all ESSENTIAL (meaning a lot of them aren't essential) knowledge and skills.  Just as today this should be based on teachers grades, formative assessments, and standardized testing.  State testing would continue and increase in these early grades as children are proving mastery and schools are graded for their capability.  This makes politicians and test-writer lobbyists happy.

7th Grade would be for the ones who couldn't get through.  And as their peers move on they would be given more focus and attention.  Diagnosticians could give extra time.  Master teachers could be employed.  Summer school could be elongated.  The light at the end of the tunnel could be shown to them.  Once they get it they...

If a student doesn't choose to continue traditional, but re envisioned secondary school.  Send them to get a job.  They could be making their own money, helping their families, or a bit of both.  In my class I tell my kids that if they don't get through high school they'll probably only work menial jobs.  But some kids don't find this threatening.  Let's let them work at Domino's pizza, or Starbucks, or a grocery store, or where ever, for half of minimum wage.  Simply tie a juvenile minimum wage to the federal minimum wage.  Now a 12 or 13 year old kid can work for five years instead of secondary school. Kids can become apprentice construction workers, plumbers, daycare, animal groomers, or anything else  They can make more than minimum wage if their employers find them valuable.  

I can envision assistant managers taking over a fast food restaurant when they turn 18 because they've been working there 6 years.  General Manager may not happen until they go to business classes for a year or two, but that's way better than starting that trajectory at age 19.  

Plus, I'm tired of college graduates working at Starbucks.  Lets let them forgo Harvard and start butchering names right away.

Maybe you also don't let them vote until they pass their school.  I know sounds racially charged because it used to be, but I like the idea of the school graduation earning something.  How about you can't get a job until you graduate 6th grade and you can't vote until you can read the candidates positions.  Maybe people will care more about their vote if they all had to earn it.

Maybe they would care more about school if it earned them something.       

All I want for Christmas, I didn't get.

Brethren,

                Did you get what you wanted for Christmas?

Have you ever noticed that there aren’t a lot of stories in the Bible about people who couldn’t perform miracles, who didn’t get they wanted?  Yes, I know there’s that time when Jesus couldn’t do any miracles, it says because the people had no faith in Mark 6, but even there he still put his hands on some people and healed them.  I know there was that time when Peter couldn’t walk on water but then he could with Jesus.  There was that time that the disciples couldn’t drive out a demon, but Jesus could with prayer.    Do you remember that time that Moses lifted his staff and walked into the Red Sea and got wet (I made that up.  It’s not in the Bible.)?

How about that time you prayed to God for something in his name and it didn’t happen even if it wouldn’t have been miraculous, like praying for someone you love to turn back to the Lord.  Or maybe you’ve prayed that God might help someone to forgive you, and they didn’t.  In the Bible, I wish God could have sprinkled a couple of stories about not getting what we wanted when we asked for it.  

Turns out that in his infinite wisdom he did.

Paul tells us that all of Creation is waiting for the sons of God to be revealed, and it still is presumably.  Paul also longed to see a bunch of people and wasn’t able to before the end.  Imagine Moses, this tired old fossil, walking up a mountain to see a land flowing with milk and honey, a Promised Land, that he wasn’t able to see after 40 years of anticipation.  You think he plead for God to change his mind?  How does it feel that God didn’t give you what you really wanted now?  That car, health insurance, life without a softball-sized tumor, life without divorce, life with both parents:  Do you think your hurts and hang-ups, addictions and heartaches can stand up to Moses’?

How about this one?  God, having made all things, made you in his image.  He created you to be like him and he is wild about you.  He thinks you are fantasmic.  He loves you with an everlasting love.  He loves each and every hair on your head.  Yeah, he got what he really wanted. 

But think of all those people on the ‘naughty list.’  God loves them too and a lot of them aren’t going to be under the Christmas tree.  Millions won’t make it into his stocking.  All he wants for Christmas is us yet the world is full of the faithless and the enemies of God who he never really thought of as enemies.  Those far from God, ‘WON’T be home for Christmas.’  When you think about what you didn’t get that you really wanted, think about the yearning God has for the sinner.  See if you can wrap one up for him next Christmas.     

When you can't see God he's still there

Brethren, my son Ender is cute as a button.  He’s had my heart ever since he got yanked into the world. And he likes me too.  He always has big smiles for me.  He gives me really nice dry burps faster than anyone else.  He likes our ceiling fan more than me, but I’m no chopped liver, according to him. 

Ender and I spend a lot of time together.  His mom works part-time and I’m home for the summer since I’m a school teacher; so there are five hours a day that I get to play Mr. Mom.  We really like our time together.   

His nap is usually after we’re back from a long walk and I’ve fed him, burped him, changed him, and worked him out with tummy time and a stuffed bee he likes to abuse.  It usually happens in his room.  I know from experience the nap is going to be between 30 and 45 minutes.  

This is my time.  I really like to cut loose right about now because I know the grind is going to continue in just a bit so…  I wash his bottles and pacifiers, make him a pitcher of formula, wash his clothes sometimes, start to prepare lunch, put a bottle in the warmer, tiptoe everywhere, text my wife things about the morning since she tracks his meals and diaper changes, and sometimes get ready to go on an errand with him.  Sometime during this ‘me time,’ he starts crying. 

He wakes up alone and scared so he cries out.  You know if he really thought about what I was doing he probably would think I was taking ‘me time.’  He probably thinks I’m watching soap operas, doing my nails, or weight lifting.  ‘Dad is probably reading some esoteric history tome.’ (I love personifying my son (I know it’s not really personifying because he IS a person.).) 

So I’ve noticed that my son doesn’t realize that when I’m not with him I’m still taking care of him.  You know this, even when you’re at work you’re taking care of your kids, aren’t you?  Rent isn’t going to pay itself, right?  Sometimes the most important things we do to take care of our children is stuff they can’t see us doing. 

Sometimes our heavenly father seems to be very far from us.  We are in the desert and he is nowhere to be found.  We are taking up our crosses and following after him and he is forsaking us.  We’re going through personal tragedies like dead loved ones or divorce or unemployment and God has left us in our crib and shut the door.

But God is the Father and even when he isn’t taking care of you he IS taking care of you.  He is filling your life with providence even when he feels far away.  He is making sure that all things work together for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purpose.