Mr. Farley,

I read your post some time ago, but didn't have a chance to immediately post a comment...but I still wanted to, even at this late date.

I think you correctly question the use of the title as a sign of respect, and whether said respect should hinge on the use of the title. One would certainly hope not. I think that in most schools, though, it is more a matter of school culture, and what the administration feels is acceptable and/or what the majority of the body of the faculty feels is acceptable. You could, of course, continue to challenge just why a name would be acceptable or not. I, like Laurie noted above, began teaching while pursuing my Masters in Teaching as part of a three-teacher team, and the three of us decided to have our students call us by our first name. I saw no discernible difference between that setting and my next setting as teacher, a public high school in RI, where students used "Mr." and my last name.

I don't know if it's as purposeful as I'd like, but I often refer to students in class (I imagine you might have noticed) as Mr. or Ms. so-and-so. While in our setting calling me by my first name would not be viewed as acceptable, I think addressing students in that same "reverential" way can help bridge the gap somewhat. And hopefully, it's just another way to show the respect of a teacher for students and their ideas and the value of their knowledge.

Best,

Kyle

As per the US requirement, may I suggest a one-word winter solution?

Fencing. :-) (Maybe, just maybe, I'll get you...and Mark, too?...to get into a sport I think you'd (both) be good at...)

KM

Interestingly, Chris (and others), I'm currently in the midst of taking a seminar run by Facing History and Ourselves (http://www.facing.org) entitled "Holocaust and Human Behavior". The organization's purpose is probably clear enough just from its name, so I'll leave it at that for the moment.

In reading your post, I was simply brought to a lecture I listened to today by Bard College Professor Emerita Suzanne Vromen. She made many different points along the way, but she noted something interesting in speaking about how "terror" was one of the three means, as she identified them, by which the Nazis meant to rid Germany and German-occupied land of Jews.

She brought up the fact that, prior to 9/11, she struggled with conveying to American students what it meant to live with, be exposed to (or, it could be argued, be manipulated by/with), terror. She noted that she had referenced the KKK and McCarthyism before, but clearly not with the same effect.

While there is no tremendous point I'm making, this was something just on my mind as I read your post. Perhaps it speaks a bit to the idea that, for there to be truly a "terror" it has to be something that many have in common, and that we're reminded of (perhaps simply through its connection to and through terror itself) regularly.

KM

As one of the people responsible for making you feel like you need to study inordinate amounts of time, let me be a bit of a voice of reason: go through the review sheets. Pick out only the items that you do not already feel you know and make flash cards for those – and not everything.

Somehow I think you’ll be fine.

Other things:

Mrs. B makes excellent points. Do listen.

DC is great. While good ol’ water is excellent and necessary, I support the DC. It’s the only reason I’m up now.

Mr. M.