As we approached the airport in New Orleans on our way to the NEA Representative Assembly (RA), we knew we were going to be part of a history-making convention. Not only is the RA the largest democratic body in the world, with almost 10,000 delegates, we were going to debate and vote on making NEA and AFT combined the single largest labor union. All members had received a document titled "Principles of Unity" and we had read it thoroughly, finding several provisions that bothered us and 58% of the rest of the delegates. Among those items which concerned us were term limits, weighted voting, recorded voting, local dues standards, and the proposed Leadership Council. Currently, the NEA officers have term limits of two 3-year terms. The Principles of Unity would give the RA delegates, at a future convention, the option of unlimited terms or three 4-year terms. There was no way to vote in the current term limits. Most NEA officers have been out of the classroom in their own states for many years before becoming an NEA officer. The longer persons are out of the classroom and far removed from public schools, the more out of touch with the realities of the classroom they become. In the NEA RA, delegates are apportioned according to a set ration. The number of votes a delegation has is determined by the size of their membership and how many delegates are brought to RA. In the AFT, each local votes the number of members it has. Large numbers of votes can be concentrated in the hands of just a few people. This is called weighted voting. On the NSEA Board of Directors, Chris experienced first hand what it is like to come from a small local, have the Clark County members call for a weighted vote, and get what they want despite more actual people on the Board voting against them. Currently, NEA has secret ballot voting for officers and changes to the Constitution and Bylaws. The AFT has votes recorded by individual delegates. The Principles of Unity provides that votes will be recorded by affiliate, rather than by individuals. Affiliate leaders can be pressured to deliver votes and, consequently, pressure their delegates. We feel that the only members who have the right to know how we voted are the people who sent us to RA - the members of OCEA and UCN. Local affiliates in the NEA family—both licensed and classified—are able to set their own local dues based on average salaries, cost of living, etc. The Principles of Unity proposed that, in order to receive partial funding for staff positions (like the UniServ staff from NSEA), a local's dues must be at least the average of all local's dues in their state. Mathematically, one-half the locals in a state would be unable to qualify for staff funding! NSEA is represented on the NEA Board of Directors by one person (based on membership of 10,000). Nevada will probably top 20,000 members this year and get another person on the NEA Board of Directors. The members of the Board of Directors are elected by the NSEA Delegate Assembly. Every delegate to NSEA Delegate Assembly has one vote. Under the Principles of Unity, the Board of Directors would become the Leadership Council with locals having 2,500 members given a seat on the Council. There are only two locals in Nevada that would qualify-both in Clark County. Washoe County might someday grow large enough. OCEA and all the other locals in Nevada would never be large enough to have representation on the Council. In addition, paid staff would be able to become governance representatives on the Leadership Council and the Leadership Council would be advisory only.

Here are some other items which raised questions for us:

• Private school and non-education related employees would have full membership rights, so education would not be the sole thrust of the new organization.
• If the merger had been accomplished, $7,500,00 would have gone to AFL-CIO for the new organization's membership. State and local affiliates would have to vote individually whether to join AFL-CIO and pay dues. Seven million is a great deal of money to be drained from a treasury supported by members' dues. Many members are not anxious to become part of this type of labor organization.
• There were no specific references to women, support personnel, students, or retirees as constituency groups in the new organization.
• AFT supports Democratic candidates for public office. NSEA, OCEA, and NEA have worked hard over the years to support candidates from both political parties.

All during the convention, delegates supporting the merger stated that we would be the largest union in the world—2.4 million NEA members and 900,000 AFT members. The truth, bigger is not always better! There are other options which need to be explored. As a result, NEA will be surveying all delegates to RA and then, armed with the results of the survey, return to the bargaining table with AFT. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to call Gaylea at CMS or Chris at EVMS.

The opportunity for public school educators and support personnel across the country to speak with one voice on behalf of children and public education is still an unrealized dream. Though I voted in favor of the NEA/AFT "Principles of Unity" ("POU") at the New Orleans Representative Assembly, I was definitely in the minority. Yet, I believe the overwhelming majority of delegates endorsed the concept of merger with the American Federation of Teachers. It was the details of what the new organization would look like, and how it would function that ultimately were points of friction. NEA and AFT have both represented the interests of teachers and public education extremely well. The 950,000 members of AFT are primarily within big city locals. Some of their biggest locals are in New York City, Chicago and Boston. There are even several NEA/AFT united or combined locals in Los Angeles, Miami, Oakland and San Francisco. These are locals that after years of bitter fighting agreed to merge under both organizations. So merger is nothing new. It has been going on at the local level for years and will continue to happen this year in Minneapolis and New Mexico. Here in Nevada, the NSEA has never had to worry about competition from the AFT. Yet, last year the Teamsters unsuccessfully tried to raid the ESEA (the NSEA classified school employees local in Las Vegas). ESEA leaders are concerned that the Teamsters will try again. Merger for them would mean stability. The no-raid clause in the "POU" was very important. I believe one of the main sticking points for many delegates was the proposed affiliation with the AFL-CIO as part of the merger with the AFT. If the AFT was considered the bride, then the AFL-CIO was the in-law. I still don't think many of the delegates understand the organizational structure of the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO is a voluntary federation of 72 independent unions. Each union makes its own decisions and controls its own affairs. The AFL-CIO has no authority over any of its member unions. Yet, because the member unions represent 13 million members, the AFL-CIO is able to speak with a significant voice. Many delegates did not grasp the significance of the new NEA/AFT united organization being the largest and therefore the most influential entity within the AFL-CIO. The sore point for some delegates was the issue of NEA paying several million dollars a year in dues to the AFL-CIO. Other delegates had a sour taste with the idea of NEA belonging to a federation of both blue-collar and professional unions. Even though a NEA financial study determined both the AFT and the AFL-CIO were both financially sound organizations, rumors abounded that the merger was just a bailout for the AFT-CIO. For me the affiliation with the AFL-CIO was not a deal-breaker. I've been a working guy my entire life. Sure I see myself as a professional educator, but I'm under no illusions about what that means. I believe working men and women share common concerns (wages, health care, retirement, working conditions, job security) that supersede the specific type of work they do. I was also comfortable with the proposed changes in how the NEA/AFT would function as a democratic organization. The "POU" proposed to change several NEA traditions with those more aligned with the AFT. Instead of the NEA secret ballot, the new system would require delegates to literally stand-up and be counted. This is not a problem for me. When OCEA members elect me to attend the national or state conventions, I believe they have the right to know how I vote on issues. Shouldn't members have the means to determine if I truly represented their interests? The new rules also proposed establishing the concept of block voting. Instead of the NEA "one person - one vote", each representative would have a weighted vote based on the number of members he/she represented. If a local association with 500 members sent one delegate to the convention, he/she would have the voting power of 500 members. At the NEA convention, under similar circumstances, the delegate's vote would only count for one. Interestingly, for several years, the weighted vote has been used for voting on the NSEA Board of Directors. As one of the directors representing Carson City and the rural counties, my vote on the Board is weighted more than a board member from Clark County. Clark County has more members on the Board, but each represents a fewer number of members. Ultimately, I voted for the merger of NEA and AFT because I am very concerned about the future of public education. Nationwide, public education is under-funded and under attack. The special interest groups that have a very narrow and self-serving agenda frighten me. There are those who advocate improving public education by seeking to destroy it. In this kind of climate I believe teachers and educational support personnel must stand united for all children receiving the opportunity for a quality education in a safe and nurturing school.

Fall is OCEA's traditional recruitment season. Most of our new membership joins by October every year, so it is imperative that we spend some time and effort now to reap the benefits associated with expanding our membership. Take some time to talk to at least one of the 60 or so new teachers to our district, or to experienced teachers who have allowed their membership to lapse. When you do, follow these simple principles:

2) Insurance is important, but there is much more. New teachers are especially concerned about their legal liability in the classroom, as well they should be. Every new teacher I"ve recruited has mentioned that as a significant factor in their decision. While this is an important aspect to membership, we are not an insurance agency. Explain the other personal and professional benefits to membership. Being part of a professional organization can help them become better, more effective teachers. If they choose to, they can become involved in committees affecting school and/or district policies. Membership offers social activities and contacts, particularly for teachers new to the area. Even if they tell you they plan to join because of liability protection, please make them aware of other benefits.

Everyone loves the beginning of a new school year. We have spent a considerable amount of effort planning and preparing, and the time has finally come to implement our designs. Students, appearing rested and eager, arrive with a sense of optimism and a renewed spirit. These are the salad days: the honeymoon period before reality sets in with interruptions, failures, mistakes, and misfires from both teachers and students. Every experienced teacher knows that once things settle down a bit the class will change, and that change will be for the worst. But does it have to be this way? Is there something we can do to ameliorate this deterioration? Or are such attempts doomed to frustration and failure? I think the answers to these questions may lie in an examination of the Rosenthal effect. The Rosenthal effect is named for Robert Rosenthal, a Harvard researcher by way of UCLA. While not the first to study the phenomenon of self-fulfilling prophecy, he was the first to demonstrate how much control teachers' attitudes have in affecting student outcomes. Most of us are familiar with the first two parts of the Rosenthal effect: pupils who are expected to do well tend to show gains, and those who are not expected to do well tend to do less well than the first group. But there is a third part to Rosenthal's findings. He also found that when a teacher expected a student to perform poorly and that student actually did well, the teacher perceived that student negatively. In other words, students who make it on their own, who gained intellectually in spite of the prediction, were considered less well-adjusted, less interesting, and less affectionate by the teacher. I bring up these facts as a reminder of just how dynamic the teacher-pupil relationship is. Like most teachers, when things begin to go downhill for some students in my classroom I immediately think, "Aha! Now I'm seeing what they're really like," rather than questioning whether they perceive me differently. It is easy to notice how they change, but not quite as easy to turn that reflection inward. Both teacher and pupil affect the relationship; however, the teacher is by far the dominant element. We need to ask ourselves how we have changed. In those first few days, are we expecting our students to behave? Does that expectation fade with time? Do we exhibit the same consistency in classroom management that we began the year with? Are our lessons as prepared and challenging throughout the course of the year? Are we constantly striving to achieve excellence? Are we always looking for a better way to do things, or do we settle for the same old way? If we demand our students to do their best at all times, how can we demand less of ourselves? Teaching is difficult work, but it is the work we have chosen to do. To do it well requires constant self-examination. Complacency is our perpetual enemy. Having higher standards in the classroom does not simply mean having high standards for our students; we must have high standards for ourselves, too. Do we strive to teach the entire curriculum, or do we concentrate on those segments we like the most or are the most fun? Do we build upon what we learned teaching a concept the previous year, or do we merely teach it the same way? Do we look at our students as complex human beings with unlimited potential, or do we consider some incapable of achievement? These are some of the questions we must continually ask ourselves. Of course, all honeymoons do eventually end. One hopes, however, that the end of the honeymoon marks the beginning of a long and fulfilling marriage, not the start of a general decline. Like a marriage, the teacher-pupil relationship requires constant attention. Obviously, sometimes this is not enough. Students' lives are shaped by much more than their schoolteachers. Sometimes, no matter what you do, some students will not achieve. It is only after we know we have done everything we can possibly do to provide the opportunity for achievement that every student deserves that we can fully absolve ourselves of such failures. The converse is also true: It is only after such self-examination that we can fully take credit for our success.

This year I am teaching Richard Lederer's book The Miracle of Language so I reread the book again this summer to refresh my mind but mostly to again enjoy the absurdities and peculiarities of the English language. Richard Lederer wrote several books on how crazy English is. I had the pleasure of talking to Richard several years ago at the IRA conference in Reno, and he was as charming and entertaining as his books. Too often we take English for granted. We expect our students to write clearly and communicate effectively to their audience, yet we...

call it an eggplant but it has no egg in it,

call it hamburger but it has no ham in it,

call it pineapple but it has no pine or apple in it.

No wonder kids are confused when boxing rings are square, quicksand works slowly, and guinea pigs are not from Guinea nor are they pigs, people recite plays and people play at recitals, ship by truck or send cargo by ship, noses run and feet smell, and we part on a driveway and drive on a parkway. Already I have a headache trying to teach vocabulary. Grammar review becomes even a bigger headache because writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham. Where are the rules for this? I have never seen any of this in a Warriner book. If the plural of tooth is teeth then why isn't the plural of booth beeth? The plural of goose is geese then shouldn't the plural of moose be meese? Following this rule shouldn't the plural of cheese be choose? There is no end. The words just get crazier. How can a slim chance and a fat chance mean the same thing and a wise man and a wise guy are opposites. A house burns up while it is burning down. You fill out a form by filling it in, an alarm clock goes off by going on, and you wind up a watch to start it and wind up an essay to end it. Life was so much easier before I read Richard Lederer. I didn't question. I did my grammar and vocabulary exercises on faith alone. I accepted that the language gurus had a good reason for all this craziness. But alas it is too late. I read Lederer and my mind has been open to the chaos of the real world of words. I probably should teach Spanish next year. It doesn't make sense to me either.

We live in a society that foundationally proposes the separation of church and state, yet this is culturally impossible; and since culture and government are so inextricably interconnected, Judeo-Christian values surround us and influence us on levels we don't even wish to acknowledge. One of these areas is the concept of evil. Evil is defined in the dictionary, "as that which is morally corrupt or injurious and arising from bad character," and because of our Judeo-Christian roots, our society views it as something separate from ourselves and our nature. It was something brought to us by the devil, although in Genesis, there is no mention of the snake in the Garden of Eden as being the devil, but still the cultural misconception persists and leads to the conclusion that evil is outside of ourselves, and there is nothing inherently evil about being human. This is a basic position that is part of the foundation of our society. We are all basically good, and it is environmental factors that make us bad. Change those factors or punish the perpetrator, and the perpetrator will become good. This negates the position of the founding fathers who decided that it was the inherent corruptibility of humans that required a system of checks and balances, judicial, legislative, and executive, to restrain the evil inherent in man's nature. Since we are greedy and seek power, it is necessary to have systemic restraints to limit those factors. Today we have a governmental system the size of which could never have been envisioned by the framers of the constitution—a system that is in many ways failing the community it was designed to nurture. Greed and power have become the defining forces that shape and move the government. Money that is donated to election campaigns by various special interests is dominating the political arena to such an extent that what is best for the society is not considered as a priority, but what generates the money and power is of utmost importance. Nevada stands as an example of this process where the money donated to election campaigns by casinos shapes governmental policy to the point that to suggest raising taxes on casinos to an equitable level is political suicide, and all of our major political figures are closely aligned with the casinos. The obvious solution has been to change the way money is generated for election campaigns, yet the call for reform has fallen on deaf ears because the people who are benefiting most by the current system are the same people we expect to change it. This can be traced to our Judeo-Christian perspective that these people should be able to do the right thing. People are surprised that our President has a flawed nature, yet anyone who looks at history realizes that this is not an unusual scenario—remember the Kennedys? When the public is asked about politicians in general they believe our representatives are corrupt; but when asked about their representative, they believe that person is doing a fine job. The very apathy that this generates contributes to our declining system. Until we accept the premise of the corruptibility of all people, we will be unable to implement the necessary reform that is so needed in our government. Shakespeare illustrates this point so well in his play Macbeth. An apparently virtuous man, he is quickly corrupted by those around him and his desire for power, and once that path is taken, there is no turning back. "For mine own good, all causes shall give way. I am in blood stepp'd so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er." We must change the way money is generated for campaigns. If this means creating a pool of resources through public monies and creating tax breaks for television networks so they can donate commercial time, so be it. It is a small price to pay to remove a major temptation to humanity's corruptible nature. Things are going to get much worse before the public outcry is so tremendous that it can no longer be ignored.