Learning YourABCs

I’ve been a teacher for 38 years. I still remember when I was taking my education classes early in my career, and my conservative uncle, who was a school superintendent in the Chicago suburbs, gave me a bit of advice that stuck with me. He said, “Do not join a teacher’s union.” At the time, I didn’t fully understand what he meant. I guess I was too young and idealistic. But now, decades later, I understand exactly what he was trying to warn me about.

Over the years, I’ve gone back and forth on union membership. Sometimes I joined the NEA (National Education Association), sometimes I didn’t. If there was no pressure, I stayed out. If everyone else around me was joining, I’d go along with it. For the past 15 years or so, I’ve been a member off and on. But this year, as I prepare to move to a new school in a larger city where nobody knows me, I’ve made a clear decision: I will not be joining the teachers’ union again—especially after what I’ve seen recently.

In the past few weeks, I’ve read several articles that left me stunned. One headline from the Washington Free Beacon hit me like a ton of bricks: “Largest Teachers’ Union in the United States Erases Jews From the Holocaust.” According to the article, the NEA described Holocaust victims as “12 million people from various faiths”—never once mentioning the systematic extermination of the Jewish people. That omission is not just disappointing—it’s disgraceful.

It’s become increasingly clear to me that the NEA is no longer focused on students, academics, or educational excellence. Their priority now seems to be pushing political and ideological narratives. I’ve read how they’ve voiced support for groups aligned with Hamas and use language that downplays the suffering of Jewish people while glorifying the Palestinian “Nakba” and vilifying the state of Israel. According to their 2025 handbook, they want to “educate” the public about the Nakba, which literally means “catastrophe,” framing the founding of Israel in 1948 as a disaster rather than a historic triumph for the Jewish people and a vital democratic ally of the United States.

This is not why I became a teacher.

I’ve also seen videos from PragerU, like the story of a gym teacher who was fired because she wouldn’t allow a biological male to enter the girls’ locker room. She was then investigated simply for expressing Christian beliefs in her personal life. They actually questioned whether her faith could be “accommodated.” This isn’t just anti-education. It’s anti-freedom.

I am deeply disappointed, not just in the NEA, but in how so many educators have fallen in line with an agenda that is increasingly radical, anti-patriotic, and anti-Israel. The NEA has strayed far from its mission. It is now a political machine, not a professional organization serving teachers and students.

As someone who has dedicated nearly four decades to education, I feel disillusioned. I love my country. I support Israel. I believe in the importance of free speech, faith, and honest history. But I can no longer support an organization that undermines these values.

So goodbye, NEA. I’m walking away—with a clear conscience and my eyes wide open.

After reading Chris’s article on the so-called “abuse” of language in the education industry, I felt he may have taken the argument a bit too far. I do agree that education is full of jargon and constantly shifting acronyms. But do I believe this language is meant to harm or confuse students? No. In most cases, these changes seem intended to be more inclusive or politically correct, not malicious.

Chris and I actually discussed this during a car ride to Fort at Number 4 yesterday. I’ve since had time to reflect more on what he said. One of our points of disagreement was the shift from the word “student” to “learner.” My own school district made this change just before COVID, and while it took a few years for me to adjust, I now use “learner” regularly.

I believe this change was made with positive intentions. To me, “learner” suggests someone who is actively engaged, not just passively sitting in a chair. It reflects a belief in the potential of every child to grow, discover, and take ownership of their learning. I don’t believe the shift was done with ill will.

Chris argued that not all students are learners—that some are disruptive and show no interest in learning. I understand his point. But I still believe all students can become learners, even if they don’t show it yet. Will every child become a lifelong learner like Chris or me? Maybe not, but we can still hope and work toward that goal.

The ever-evolving language of education doesn’t bother me much. After 38 years of teaching, I’ve learned to go with the flow. I’ve seen many changes in terminology. Chris is passionate about precision in language, and while I agree that language matters, I just don’t get as worked up about it.

When our children were in elementary school, they were in the Talented and Gifted program. Later, it was renamed the “Infinity” program. I questioned the change at first, but ultimately, nothing really changed—the same kids were in the program, and they all knew they were high achievers. It was just a new label.

Similarly, the language used around learning disabilities has changed many times. These shifts often aim to reduce stigma and promote first-person language that emphasizes the individual, not the disability. As our understanding grows, so does our vocabulary.

Chris also criticized the use of the word “friend” in classrooms, something many teachers began using in the early 2000s to refer to all students. He argued that calling every classmate a “friend” confuses children, especially when some of those classmates are bullies. I agree with him on this point. The term may have been used too broadly, but again, I don’t think it was intended to cause harm.

Ultimately, words like “student” and “learner” carry different connotations. A student is typically someone who studies within a formal structure, while a learner is more self-directed and intrinsically motivated.

So, what do we want for our children? To simply complete assigned tasks, or to become curious, independent learners? Will changing our language help us reach that goal? I’m not sure, but I don’t believe these language shifts are malicious. Most are simply well-intentioned efforts to reflect evolving values in education.

I was raised in a strict Christian, Republican household where my parents always voted Republican, and they passed their views down to us kids. My father passed away about 15 years ago, and my mom remarried—a Democrat. While I’ve mostly leaned conservative, with some occasional moves toward the center, my mom has changed a lot since my dad died. She now lives in a suburb of Chicago and regularly listens to news outlets that lean left.

I didn’t tell her who I voted for in the 2024 election because I didn’t want to start a political debate. However, I did ask her, “Do you think Dad would have voted for Trump?” She replied, “Of course NOT!” I knew deep inside that he would have.

Yesterday, I called her to check in, and naturally, the conversation turned to politics.

“Can you believe it? Trump is having his inauguration inside!” my mom exclaimed. “What a wimp! It’s not going to be that cold out!”

I responded, “I don’t see any problem with that. I wouldn’t want to stand out in the cold for hours, either.”

She continued, “Well, can you believe it? He’s also staying inside because he’s afraid of being shot!”

I replied, “I wouldn’t want to be shot either. Honestly, that just makes it even more understandable that he’s having the inauguration inside. I guess I don’t see what the issue is, Mom.”

I then tried to put it into perspective: “Mom, if I were planning to get married outside, I’d have a backup plan in case of bad weather. The same goes for the high school down the street when they have graduation outside—they always have a backup plan. So I don’t understand why you’re so upset about Trump wanting to be warm and safe.”

After my conversation with my mom, I mentioned her comments to my husband and sister. They pointed out that having the inauguration inside would limit the number of people who could attend. My sister added, “If you lived in Seattle, Washington, and were flying in to see the inauguration, it would be really inconvenient if there weren’t enough tickets.”

I can understand that perspective. It makes sense that some people might feel frustrated by the limited access. However, I still find myself wondering why the left is making such a big deal out of something so minor. It feels like they’ll latch onto any small issue to portray Trump as the villain. Honestly, it makes me question—don’t people have better things to focus on? There are so many more important issues at hand.

Happy Inauguration Day! A big relief to those of us on the right.