Sunday, December 10, 2017

One Year Turnaround, Part Three

"Determine the Problem"

Young states the obvious before he issues this blistering criticism: 'Before determining the root causes of failure, school leaders, district and state staff, and consultants try to fix the problem by changing leadership, removing teachers, bringing in a new curriculum, hiring consultants, or implementing new programs. Millions of dollars are spent unnecessarily while schools continue to fail."

Does he put his contract into that category? Sorry, had to get the snark out of the way.

Districts should not use the same plan for every school. He is correct about that. Different schools have different challenges. Often the one plan for all approach simply reveals that district leadership is deficient in understanding its schools. The 'I know best' attitude of the district has been destructive to the goal of helping schools.

"The best time to evaluate schools is in the spring, before school lets out." I've said this for years. School Improvement Plans make no sense to me and when I talked about the process to business people, inevitably I would be met with laughter. No one other than schools opens their door to their clientele and only then begin to make a plan, a yearlong plan that will have only five months before it is evaluated. Young calls this insanity and I agree.

Young expands his critique to how schools are evaluated in that only test data is used. "Test data do not indicate the causes of school failure; test data just indicate the school is failing." The point is well made, but I would argue that test scores from reading and math are not sufficient to conclude that a school is failing. More measures are needed before making that determination.

Young calls for a multi-pronged approach to identifying the causes of a school's problems: individual interviews with students, parents, teachers, staff, and community members; focus groups; surveys; observations.

He makes the important point that if people give their ideas, advice, and feedback, that input should result in visible action. Ignoring the input of stakeholders only causes them to check out of the process. "Even if I was not in favor of some of their suggestions, I made it my business to change, implement, alter, or modify something they requested. It was their school also, so their input mattered."

YES! If only district people would have this attitude!

(I came to this same conclusion decades earlier in business. Sometimes a staff member wanted to do something I was sure wouldn't work. I approved it anyway. First, I could be wrong (DCPS, are you listening?), second, the staff member would be invested in their idea and that might provide the edge to make it work, third, they needed to know their ideas were valued and there is no way to value an idea like allowing the person to do it. If the idea didn't work, I didn't have to kill it; the staff member would do it--no one wants to be a loser. Encouraging a climate of innovation and accepting failure as a part of the growth/learning process ... isn't that what education should be?)

As for observation, years ago it was called Management by Walking Around. Go see what's really taking place rather than sitting in a closed office studying numbers on paper.

Finally, Young calls for research: "lesson planning, the master schedule, extended learning opportunities, and classroom management ..." He admits this takes time, but avers that it is necessary. Only then can a systematic plan be developed.

Mr. Young, you are on point, but the time ... you don't have it for the three schools on the chopping block. I can only assume you are positioning yourself to be the outside management company that must be hired come the end of June.

(The book is 'The One-Year School Turnaround,' by James Young, available on Amazon. I am reading and sharing my review because Mr. Young has been given a $500,000 consultant contract to work with eight schools in my city that are in danger of being closed or charterized under the Florida law known as HB 7069. Young is a former principal in the city.)

Saturday, December 9, 2017

One Year Turnaround, Part Two

"Select the Right People"

This is the chief problem of staffing turnaround schools. The past 3 and one-half years, my district has offered big salary supplements to teachers to transfer to schools identified as 'struggling,' basically any school in the feeder pattern to three of our high schools.

Known as the Quality Education for All program, which quickly garnered other acronyms such as DTO schools, geez can we ever give the naming a rest? the district attempted to bring any teacher with good data, that is test results, to these schools in the naive belief that success in one school transfers to any school.

I predicted that teachers who fell for the gambit would find frustration and fallen status as they found that their previous success depended upon the neighborhoods from which their students came.

Too true. Many high-flying teachers found out the hard way that DCPS demanded a 3-year commitment from them, but the salary bump was contingent on test results.

James Young writes in his second chapter that this uncertainty makes good teachers reluctant to move to a turnaround school. You got that right, James.

But you get other things wrong, such as asking elective teachers to be in other classrooms on their planning periods to support reading and math. No, a drama teacher needs her planning period to grade, reply to parent email, plan new lessons, do the paperwork to get performance rights, etc. A music teacher needs the same. Asking them to forego their planning time to work in a math classroom to do what? Teach children fractions as a means of understanding a time signature on a music piece? No, you are trying to intimidate unprepared teachers to be paraprofessionals in classrooms that undergo state testing. Bad idea.

Do you want to run a school, Mr. Young? Or are you happy being a factory manager, whose factory is test preparation?

Going back to the intro, your job is to see that our threatened schools survive. So do what you need to, but let us not pretend that this is what schools should be doing.

Then you say that teachers who don't know how to teach can be taught, (yes, I put that sentence together deliberately), but teachers who don't know their content area must go.

I agree that teachers who don't know their subject need to exit, but really, you want to make an argument for TFA? Yes, you do: 'Ribault's reading performance doubled with four ELA teachers having a combined total of eighteen months' experience. Two were first-year Teach for America  teachers. One was a second-year Teach for America teacher, and the fourth started in January of the previous year.'

I'll spare you the rest of the quote. At this point, we must remind ourselves that test scores mean nothing more than how well students can negotiate a test. TFA recruits are good at this. Young's job is to raise test scores (Maslow's lowest level: the need to survive), but let's not pretend that this is anything more.

Play the game, hire TFA. You want to know why experienced teachers who went through traditional colleges don't get the best test scores? Because if you really teach for student understanding, if you really understand the developmental stages and needs of the kids you teach, and if you deliver lessons that produce that, you don't get the best test scores.

That is the trade-off every teacher has to make. Do what's best for children and get the lowest scores in the building.

Let's not get started on charter schools. KIPP? Test-prep factory that is so abusive to teachers that its annual churn of staff is mind-boggling.

Again, Young was hired to see that our threatened schools raise test scores. Let's skip ahead to what he has to say about assistant principals.

He demands that principals should be allowed to hire their APs. (Never going to happen.)

What he wants is for a principal to hire APs who are competent in the many areas of administration and can handle the demands and paperwork of a system such that the principal is free to concentrate on instruction.

What he looks for in an AP: they want to be at the school, they want to be a principal (don't they all?), they have instructional knowledge (so that the principal can assign them a content area to oversee), they have a skill set that the principal lacks (oh, yes, it is an exceptional principal who will admit to a deficit and seek out people who can fill it--but this is true of leadership everywhere), they are creative, independent thinkers. By which he means that he wants no yes-people, but persons who will say what they think.

Lastly, he wants academic coaches, one for every five teachers in an 'accountability area,' that is, any course that is tested by the state and is used to calculate a school grade.

Good luck with that, Mr. Young. I was an instructional coach and I wasted my years trying to do the job. I was good, but my principals didn't understand what a coach was supposed to do. I was given extra duties that prevented me from being in classrooms. Freed of those duties, I found myself saddled with a principal who thought a coach was a substitute teacher. You would do better in putting those people back into the classroom, which would reduce class sizes.

Oh, wait, you want TFA people. They do need a coach. Not to coach their teaching, but to school them in the crucial pedagogy that they lack. Oops, maybe a college program of teacher education would be better?

One Year Turnaround, Part One

"Place the Right Principal."

How true that is. A few years ago I said at a family gathering that the principal was the key figure in the building, not the teachers, expecting pushback, but everyone agreed with me.

Your child's teacher is the second most important person at your school. A good principal makes mediocre teachers effective; an ineffective principal makes it impossible for great teachers to be great.

James Young makes an important point. Not all good principals are up to the turnaround job. It doesn't mean they are incompetent, but their skill set and temperament are not well matched to the dire and immediate needs of a school targeted for closure.

What does he think a turnaround principal needs?

     "Common Sense:" He bemoans principals who put their best teachers into class assignments that do not factor into the school accountability classes. In other words, why would a principal assign their most effective teachers the calculus and statistics classes when the tested courses are Algebra 1 and Geometry? There is an answer to that, and ironically, Young himself gives it in a subsequent chapter: Because teachers should be assigned to the courses for which they have the content knowledge. A 6 - 12 certificate does not mean that a teacher is equally competent for all the courses that fall under that certification.

     "Confidence:" Confidence is contagious, he claims. The principal should be cocky and exhibit the demeanor of Muhammed Ali, 'I'm the Greatest!' Have the attitude of a trash talker, not a tennis player. Tennis players believe they will win but will never claim victory before the match. Boxers boast of victory before the bout. This is a bad metaphor and could cause people to wonder if the School Board was duped in hiring Young. Is he good or merely braggadocious? Will he deliver? Can he deliver?

     However, good leadership projects an attitude of confidence, of a certainty that things will work out, that people need not worry. This is very helpful in stressful situations. But it works better as a quiet certitude rather than as loud, obnoxious declarations of victory before the battle begins.

     "Principles:" The principal has to be motivated to accomplish good things for children. This is about motivation: pass over anyone who will take on a school because the extra bump in pay is sweet, anyone who doesn't want to be there but they get pressganged into the location, and anyone without experience. A turnaround school should not be the first assignment for a rookie. We can all agree on these points.

     "Innovative Risk Taker:" This basically means trying out ideas, discarding quickly what doesn't work and reinforcing what does. It means letting school personnel advance ideas and experiment. It means bucking  'the district knows best' and 'stop doing that, dammit, we didn't authorize it' attitudes of district personnel. Here I need to insert one of those applause emojis.

     "Experienced." Here he directly criticizes the practice of promoting assistant principals and placing them in a turnaround school. Very true. In one of the three schools on the chopping block, the principal is in his second year of his very first principalship. He's a good man and has the experience and knowledge to run a school. However, he was tossed into an impossible situation. He was set up to fail, as Young indicates in his book, principals should not be assigned to such schools until they have a track record of success. When he was promoted, the teachers at his old school celebrated. I had twinges of sadness because the district was looking for a bagman--someone to hold the bag of blame when the school failed. This man is much better than that. Lately, the media have reported that he is among the people who were told that he would be out of a job if the schools are taken over by an outside entity.

     DCPS demands absolute loyalty, but they feel no compunction to return it.

     "Decisive:" The turnaround principal must move fast. There is no time to support struggling teachers who are not effective. He calls this 'unfortunate.' Hard decisions must be made. 'If a grade of C is mandatory, the school cannot take a chance of keeping an instructor wh can cause the school to stay in turnaround status.'

     There is a certain truth to this, but it is very unfair to teachers who often have been in impossible situations with no support. How does he know who is ineffective because of a lack of expertise at their craft and who simply needs supports that previous ineffective principals have not provided? Seems like there will be a lot of collateral damage this month at the schools he has obtained.

     Where is the union in all of this? Teri Brady, are you paying attention?

     "Motivation." Young writes that working at a turnaround school is a tough job. 'Teachers question why they chose to work in a failing school and have a class full of low-performing students. The work tires them; they work late, work weekends, and get so little appreciation. The principal has to find a way to keep them motivated.'

     Very true. Unfortunately, it is often the district staff that does the disrespecting of school-based personnel that provides the demotivation. It's funny that DCPS keeps citing surveys that show teachers are happier about what is going on at their schools. A lack of morale plagues the school system. It is not school leadership that is the problem; it is the district. Yet DCPS never surveys teachers about themselves. They must be afraid to ask the questions that would reveal their warts.

     "Positive:" Well, yes. If the principal is down on the school, everyone else will be.

     "Efficient Time Manager:" The principal needs a good staff and should delegate tasks to them so he/she can concentrate on improving student outcomes.

     "Dedicated." Young reinforces his message that the only principal for a turnaround school is one who wants to be there.

Yes, you're saying, who doesn't know this? But Mr. Young does not have the luxury of picking his principals. The women and men in the buildings are who he must work with, the ones who must make it work ... that is the frustration of being a consultant. If they are not the right people, he must make them the right people. There is no time for a change.

Perhaps this will be his greatest challenge as he walks in the doors of the eight schools he has agreed to turn around.

One Year Turn-Around, Introduction

The Duval County (Florida) school district hired a consultant and former principal to work with its schools most in danger of closure under the draconian law known as HB 7069. In particular, three schools must earn a C grade through the 2018 FSAs or they will be turned over to outside management.

The school board agreed to a contract that brings in Turnaround Solutions for about $500,000 to work with the schools in danger. The founder and chief of that company is James Young, who wrote a book describing his success in turning around schools and laying out the plan.

That brought my interest to Mr. Young. I purchased a copy of his book to review. I originally thought it would be one post, especially after the book arrived and there are only 100 pages to go through. But as I work my way through, Mr. Young raises weighty issues that need more thought and comment. So the review will be in several posts.

At the outset, let us recognize that for the three schools in danger, it is less than a year that Mr. Young has to work his magic. He has five months.

As we look at the promise and ponder the anticipated performance, let us discard the concern that he is the partner of the current head of Human Resources, Sonita Young. If James Young has the bona fides as he claims, that is irrelevant. As for a certain board member who complained after the contract approval that he did not know, <sigh> do your due diligence before you vote, man. You sound like a Republican senator who voted for a tax plan with handwritten edits made on the floor that you didn't get a chance to read. If you didn't read it, you should have voted no.

Also, Young is bringing in people to help: the Roziers, Lawrence Dennis, others. That should not be a concern. To do the job, he will have to have help. These people are familiar with the district and have the knowledge needed for the job. That district politics dissed some of them should not give cause for concern. In particular, I have had interactions with Dennis and he has the chops to improve schools. Too bad Ed Pratt-Dannals effectively demoted him when EPD wanted to look out for his pals in a restructuring that DCPS indulges in biennially.

James Young is not going into these schools to tour, criticize, and ignore for months. He is on a mission for improvement and to keep our schools ours. With that in mind, let us consider what he has to say.

First, let us say that we are not talking about failing schools. The issue of school failure is one that goes way beyond his contract. What is a failing school? How do we know schools are failing? If you answer the school grade, you are wrong. School grades measure only test performance and performance on poorly designed, poorly implemented, and even then, normed tests that only measure how well students manage their way through the test in comparison to other students. School grades tell you nothing about how well a school is meeting the public's expectations and needs of children.

James Young admits in his introduction that he is after test scores. His niche falls on the bottom level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: survival. However bad the system is, however bad the law is, however bad the Florida Department of Education and the state Board of Education write regulations and trash public schools, those are the rules of the game. His job is to show others how to play the game, win, and survive.

We must understand this or we will not understand what he says.

He will work to see that our schools survive.

Saturday, December 2, 2017

Fresh Eggs, Advent One 2017

Warm up the egg nog (put on the stretch pants,) it's time for a random collection of thoughts.

1. The Republicans finally get a win. Now the two competing tax bills have to become one through the conference procedure. Most likely, the Senate version with adjustments will prevail because the Senate must preserve a version that meets their reconciliation rules lest they open the chamber to a Democrat filibuster.

2. The life lesson that it is always dangerous to believe one's own line of <ahem, think garbage, nonsense, you figure out the word> is in play. The Republicans really believe that their bill will benefit the working poor and middle class. Once those tax bills begin going up, we will see a political tsunami in Washington.

3. Cue up the top 10 list from 1973: With Michael Flynn cutting a deal and cooperating, a whole lot more <ahem> is coming in 2018. 1973 Top Ten songs

4. If the surrounding countries would support the logistics, we could flatten the Taliban in Afghanistan. Take them out. However, that would mean the deaths of too many innocent civilians and of those who are left, we would receive their undying hatred. Something worse would appear. That's a nuance that Trump doesn't get.

5. Same thing with North Korea and the chest-beating line that we are going to be tougher now. War is not an option because any action on the peninsula would bring action from China.

6. You want to get North Korea's goat? Take a lesson from a teacher: planned ignoring. That is the one thing that drives them crazy.

7. In her latest appearance, Betsy Devos is reported to have delivered a message to her opponents (teachers, teachers' unions, people who actually know something about education): I'm not going away. That's okay, Betsy, neither are we.

8. It's been reported before, but we pay $1,000,000 a month for a security detail for Devos. If I was president, that alone would be enough for a sacking, but doesn't the woman ever wonder why she feels threatened? And if she were truly the conservative she pretends to be, she wouldn't allow the government to pay for it but would spend the chump change from her investments (she is a billionaire, after all) for her security detail.

9. The Democrats remain hapless on the state level because, while they solicit donations, they never ask for help. I would spend my weekends working tirelessly in Florida for a change in power in Tallahassee, but they don't seem interested.

10. I don't know whether to be happy or angry about my upcoming week at work. My district has expanded its midyear testing to two days, which means that the entire week will be wasted. No learning will be happening in my classroom. Now if the testing gave me useful insights ... no, wait, the purpose of this testing is for the district to predict what test scores will be in April. It's useless for a classroom teacher.

11. District testing always gripes me because the people who run it put on airs. They surround it with threats and intimidation as if it was a state exam. They forbid teachers to even look at the test when the superintendent sends out emails telling teachers to go over the test with students after the testing period ends. Then, they say we can review questions with the class, but only by displaying a question and lecturing children. We are not allowed to have the students rework problems at their desk. How out of touch to think that children will sit still for 90 minutes while an adult drones about something they don't have even the remotest interest in.

12. We had a bomb threat this past week, but it didn't make the news. Instead of an evacuation, we went on a Code Red. Turn the lights out, drop to the floor, stay away from windows, and absolute silence ... which makes sense, because as everyone knows, bombs have ears and can walk around the building.

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Don Juan

I have often wondered why I bear much antipathy toward our current President. He is a blowhard, one of the worst, yet that has been the source of whatever genius he possesses for self-promotion and self-branding.

Donald Trump came to the nation's attention in the late 1970s as he was an early developer of hotel casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, a time when the only legal place of gambling was in the cities of Nevada. New Jersey hoped that authorizing gambling would rejuvenate a tired beachside resort whose glory days had faded long before.

At first, he was perceived to have a Midas touch, that the Trump name was a guarantee of lucrative success, but alas, his third casino was up the boardwalk and had trouble drawing clientele. It folded into bankruptcy and the allure of the Trump name faded.

But D.J. was not to be easily foiled. He found bankruptcy a useful policy for shedding unwanted losses in his developments and expanded his brand across an incredible product line in the years to come. His talent for self-promotion created a new brand of Trump: the Tiffany of ties, suits, steaks, whatever he could think of.

The Donald was not one to let his fate rest in the hands of others. In one of the more hilarious moments of his career, he created an alter ego as his PR agent so that he could talk directly to the media and promote himself without the crassness that comes when a person blatantly engages in self-promotion.

This, then, is the background of the man who decided he had to be president. When he entered the primaries, I thought him a demagogue, full of ego, running to show that it would be his next triumph, that he was a better politician than the politicians. I thought him then as exploiting the resentments of poor whites for votes, the resentments of white labor for lost jobs, the resentments of many who thought the establishment party politicians had betrayed them.

Stark honesty is needed in these times. What Trump exploited was a latent racism, the people he was attracting blamed black people among others for their woes. Trump made it okay to openly display racist attitudes.

Not only did he exploit it, but the first year of his presidency has shockingly revealed that he shares it. His moral equivalency between fascists and those who oppose them, his encouragement of violence at his campaign rallies, his embrace of the alt-right and the white supremacists that populate it, and his relentless attacks on immigrants shows he also has a latent racism that is now showing through the veneer of his character.

Make America Great Again means, in Trump talk, restore the days of discrimination and segregation when the power of the federal government stood idly by while states violated the rights, property, and lives of nonwhite citizens.

Donald John Trump, the ultimate narcissist. He makes everything about him. Today's latest lie about Time Magazine approaching him to ask his permission to repeat as Person of the Year no longer surprises us. His demand that everyone give him sole credit for the release of the UCLA basketball players in China shows he is incapable of recognizing the contribution of anyone else. The false historical plaques he erects at his golf courses, the phony magazine covers, the ridiculous fawning at cabinet meetings that is recorded and shared that reminds me of Roman senator complaints about what they had to do to remain in Caligula's favor ...

Maybe that would be tolerable if it weren't for the fact that Donald J. Trump is a cyber bully. Lavar Ball is but the latest Twitter target. You don't go against Trump without suffering his twaddling thumbed response. Trump can't let it go. He can't let anything go. It's not merely an insistence on having the last word; it's a psychological need to beat down anyone who won't worship him and his self-characterized benevolence of his majesty.

He can't abide criticism. He is legitimately confused that people might disagree with him. The reports are believable of how hard he has found it to realize that there are people who genuinely dislike him. Given his hype of being the ultimate deal-maker, which has fallen woefully short in diplomacy and politics, perhaps he finds everything as a maneuver to improve a negotiating position.

The greatest target of his bullying was Megyn Kelly, then of Fox News. She had the audacity to ask him:

Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs' and 'disgusting animals.' ...

Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contestant on 'Celebrity Apprentice' it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.

Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?"

Trump spent the next year abusing Kelly on Twitter to the point where she was afraid to go out of the house lest she run into his supporters. He doubled down whenever the issue was raised and Kelly did not find relief until she requested a meeting with him at Trump Tower. One can only suppose Trump relented because he then viewed her as a supplicant begging for divine mercy.

Despite his huge ego, the 45th president of the United States has no talent for governing. His first attempt at setting up an administration looked like an attempt to replicate his reality show, "The Apprentice," which featured two competing teams trying to win his favor and a job. Everyone else was fired and, as last spring and summer have shown us, that's about what happened.

He doesn't understand why we have a legislature. He would rather rule by dictate, or as his pals the Russians would say, by decree.

He is right about McConnell, though. McConnell also has no talent for running a tight ship, although dealing with massive senatorial egos is no easy job. But Harry Reid managed it and Chuck Schumer seems to be keeping his caucus together.

As a libertarian-leaning idealist pragmatist (you're going to have a job unpacking that one!), I too want a small government yet I realize we live in big government times. We have to deal with reality and the federal government cannot be torn down into the size it held during George Washington's day.

Trump has yet to complete his staffing of leadership at the cabinet departments in the belief that if he withholds the people, the departments will dwindle in size and impact. But in doing so, he takes away the counterweight of the people against the oligarchs who would rule us.

He holds forth as a populist, but claims to be a billionaire. He wants to turn over all functions of the government to private enterprise, whether appropriate or not. Whether we like it or not, there are jobs that government is best suited for: maintaining military forces, domestic security (police and fire departments), education, and courts, including facilities for housing criminals.

Finally, there is the Don Juan angle, which ironically is Trump's name in Spanish. It has come to light that even as a young man, he was to be avoided as an octopus whose tentacles were always groping toward women's bodies. His many affairs, his ribald comments, among which he lusted after his daughter and bragged of what he can get away with, are disgusting.

I bear great antipathy towards The Donald, now I know why, and I have shared it with you. I will oppose all that he has in mind to do because the one inescapable conclusion is that he does not have the good of this country and its people in mind.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Requiem Evangelical Church

Time was when the Evangelical Church and the people who called themselves Evangelicals were obsessed with sin. The tiniest sin, even the most minuscule, was cause for guilt and anguish over the salvation of one's soul.

Old men smoking cigarettes, caught in the addiction of nicotine, blamed their lack of character and condemned their souls. Fortunately, that was not scriptural and their faith saved them.

Anyhow, the focus of evangelicals over sin was directed inward. Their outward focus was saving souls or bringing others to the Christian faith.

Historically, the Evangelical Church was one that housed the Holiness Movement, intent on improving one's life to the high standard they found in the scripture of the Bible. They used social pressure to bring about the holiness desired. For example, a woman wearing jewelry was not condemned for a sin, but would be met with questions as to why she wanted to put unnecessary adornment on her body.

Evangelicals were often perceived as moralistic and judging as they tolerated no sin in public officials. Even a whiff of scandal would be enough to lose their support and usually cause the official to be put out of office.

Evangelicals expected their public officials, especially those they elected, to live up to high standards and would condemn indiscretions with vehemence regardless of the consequences, for example, if the resignation of a senator would cause someone with views they opposed to gain the position.

How times have changed.

Perhaps it began with abortion--when the zealotry to protect unborn life led to a disregard for other life.

Perhaps it began with the push for gay rights when Evangelicals vehemently opposed the lifestyle until they found that some of their children were gay.

Maybe it was that the accumulating descent from the middle class as good-paying jobs departed from the land caused many to find themselves threatened with a decline of wealth and status.

Maybe their focus changed from saving others to saving themselves and not in a spiritual sense.

Or maybe they have taken offense that others not as themselves are progressing up the ladder. And like low-status chickens, they will peck hardest at those beneath to keep those underlings in their place.

Maybe Evangelicals are ignoring sin for the promise that their position will be maintained.

You know who we're talking about. A latent racism, long buried, has been rearing its ugly head in the aftermath of the Trump campaign and achievement of the presidency.

The time for politeness has passed although I do not recommend starting family quarrels at the Thanksgiving table. Yet, we must call out what we see taking place: Evangelicals, those who are right-wing conservative Christians, are backing immoral men because those men promise to restore the days when black people had less rights than others.

They should return to their Holiness days and examine their lives, their souls. Until then, it is Requiem for a movement that once drove improvement for all persons throughout the world because it has fallen.