The Translation Gap

One of the coolest things about knowing stuff about science is that you can predict the future. As a teacher, I’ve always taken pride in the various predictions I have made that have come true. Most notably, I predicted the demotion of Plutoas a planet, the flooding of New Orleans, and Japan getting hit by anearthquake of monstrous proportions – all well in advance of the actual events. I’ve made other predictions that are still pending (the flooding of New Orleans again, a more devastating pandemic virus, a significant cosmic collision in the next century, the country that figures out cheap renewable power economically dominating the world over the next couple centuries). Most of these predictions aren’t particularly insightful or my own – more just me repeating what I’ve learned from people much smarter and more academically accomplished than me. However, in this article, I would like to introduce a prediction that I believe is both uniquely mine and fated to be true.

CENTRAL DOGMA

Francis Crick's Central Dogma

To guide this essay, I’d like to borrow and idea from Francis Crick. In 1958, Crick stated the “Central Dogma of Molecular Biology”, which goes something like this: DNA replicates itself and transcribes information into RNA, and RNA translates that information into proteins. The terms “transcription” and “translation” are carefully chosen as they are borrowed from linguistics. ‘Transription” is rewriting something in the same language (DNA and RNA molecules are made of the same stuff), whereas “translation” involves converting something from one language to another (from DNA/RNA language into the language of proteins).

My own twist

            I’d like to state my own central dogma of health care. Scientists guide their own research and transcribe their information for the benefit of health care professionals. I associate this exchange as “transcription” because scientists and health care professionals are both fluent in the language of science. That information is then translated by health care professionals for their patients. I’m associating this exchange with “translation” because the average guy at a bus stop is most likely not able to digest a scientific journal article on contemporary molecular genetics.

TRANSCRIPTION: SCIENTISTS TO HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS

            It is no stretch of the imagination to suppose that the world of medicine will be improved greatly as our understanding of genetics improves. It is possible that reviewing our genetic sequence will become a part of regular checkups within 10 years – certainly within 25 years. People are already having their DNA fully sequenced in anticipation of this, and it is getting cheaper to do so all the time. The National Human Genome Research Institute set goals to cut the cost to sequence an individual’s DNA to $100,000 by 2009 and to $1,000 by 2014 (and it seems we are ahead of schedule). It won’t be long before having your DNA sequenced will be as routine as having a blood test. It has been a long time since there has been such a big change in health care. I think it is fair to say that the forthcoming impact of genetic information on such a huge number of issues in health care will be the most dramatic revolution in the history of medicine.

None of this is particularly Earth-shattering, even if it sounds good to make predictions like this in my grade 12 biology classes.

TRANSLATION: SCIENTISTS TO DOCTORS

Understandably, there has always been a significant discrepancy in knowledge between doctors and patients. Studies are conducted on an ongoing basis on this discrepancy and how effectively the gap is bridged by doctors. Even at this stage in history, this is an important issue that significantly affects the practice of medicine.

However, bringing genetics into this adds a much greater complexity of information to the doctor-patient dynamic. As it stands, the average patient knows their body and can learn more about whatever part is bothering them. They understand information about blood, diet, exercise, surgery, pharmacy and physical therapy, and could probably recognize many internal organs by sight. However, the vernacular of genetics is not common knowledge and may not even be something that many patients can read up on in order to come to grips with what is going on in their treatment.

As a high school biology teacher, I have a decent idea of what people know (and don’t know) about science in general, and genetics in particular. Where I live (in Ontario, Canada), students are only required to learn about science through grade 10. In that time, they learn almost nothing about genetics. High school graduates who take the minimum amount of science in high school will only be able to tell you that chromosomes contain genetic information and are the blueprint for the cell, and that they are copied during cell division. That said, many students go on to take biology in grade 11, so they will be exposed to Mendelian genetics and a basic overview of the construction of the DNA molecule (there are four bases, and how complementary base-pairing works). For the significantly fewer number of students who take “university preparation” biology in grade 12, they get a far greater exposure to molecular genetics. In my experience, I would say only about half of these students actually “get it”, though they are certainly exposed to a lot of information.

LOST IN TRANSLATION

This brings us to my prediction. The discrepancy in knowledge between doctors and patients – already a big issue – will become a full-fledged crisis in patient care as genetics becomes central to health care. The title of this article – The Translation Gap – refers to this enormous discrepancy in knowledge and all of the issues that arise from it.

As it stands, there is no age group of society that is well-prepared with the rudimentary knowledge necessary to process medical treatment that is centered upon their genetic makeup. Consider…

            ** Elderly patients were born before mankind recognized DNA as hereditary material. In most cases, these people probably know almost nothing about genetics

            ** Patients of the “Baby Boom” generation, despite having grown up in a world where DNA was better understood, are also unlikely to have more than a superficial knowledge of genetics

            ** Patients born in the neighborhood of 1960 – 1980 would generally know a bit more about genetics, but probably not much more than what is revealed in the average prime-time television criminal/forensics drama series.

            ** The current “youth” (people born 1990 – present) are not learning much about genetics either.

            ** Without significant changes to the science curriculum moving forward, the education system will continue to produce citizens with very limited knowledge of genetics.

I should also mention what I regard as a smaller, though not insignificant issue. I feel it is fair to wonder whether or not we will also experience somewhat of a breakdown in the ‘transcription’ of information. Health care professionals have varying levels of familiarity with developments in genetics. In the coming years, all of them will be expected to operate with an enormous amount of new information. Will there be sufficient professional development available to physicians everywhere to make appropriate use of all the new knowledge? I feel this is probably a smaller issue due to the fact that health care professionals are sufficiently intelligent and responsible enough to acquire the information they need to perform their duties. In addition, the availability of other health care professionals for second opinions mitigates the risk of serious errors affecting patient care.

FALLOUT

What can we expect as a result of the Translation Gap? To be sure, the effects will be far-reaching, and it is probably beyond my limited mental fortitude to foresee them all. However, a few notions occur to me.

            ** Folks with a solid knowledge base in genetics will be valuable in society. Genetic consulting – perhaps by paramedical staff – may become a widespread industry. Education and outreach programs will become an even larger and more significant part of the operation of hospitals, clinics and educational institutions.

            ** Many patients will fall into extremes in response to the new medicine.

            ** At one extreme, despair may become a significant issue. Already there are reports of patients committing suicide upon learning that their genetic makeup predicts future health concerns (even though their makeup most likely indicates a chance of future concerns rather than a guarantee). The new developments in medicine promise to be of tremendous use, but medicine as we know it today will be far from obsolete and the new developments will have limitations that may not be appreciated by lay people.

            ** At the other extreme, there may be a significant portion of society that doubts the ability of the new technology. This would be like the resistance to the knowledge that smoking dramatically increases the likelihood of lung cancer. In the early days, it was more common for people to dismiss the connection due to the fact that “increased likelihood” is not the same as “guarantee” and there have always been exceptions (folks who smoked into their 90s having never gotten lung cancer). By comparison, smoking is still being marginalized 50 years after the Surgeon General’s report. If you prefer a more modern example, look how resistant the general public is the human-caused climate change. This will be exacerbated by the fact that genetics will often indicate a “likelihood” (not a guarantee) of health issues, and there will be ample instances of patients who did not get the condition for which they were genetically predisposed.

            ** Doctor-patient relationships are strained as it becomes harder and harder for the patient to understand what their doctor is talking about.

            ** Money, money, money. There will be tons of it to be made. Biotech companies, particularly those involved in genetic/forensic equipment, should do great. Pharmaceuticals may well have to reinvent themselves. Also, there will be plenty of snake-oil type operations, peddling nonsense as elixir.

            ** There will be many new areas of ethics under consideration. Sure, sure, we already have a lot of ethics issues surrounding genetics, but the new knowledge will almost certainly open issues that either haven’t been thought of, or at the very least haven’t received as much attention as necessary.

** The Wild West? Like the internet of the 1990s, there may be a phase where new knowledge and technologies become available faster than we (as humans) will know how to sort it all out in proper ways. The world will not slow down, though, so there will be many pioneering cases of new knowledge setting precedents that affect generations to come, especially in the early days. It could take a few decades to iron out all the details in a meaningful way (and, of course, there will be wrinkles upon wrinkles in the fabric of health care as the process evolves).

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

Perhaps I have misfired on some of the shrapnel that the Translation Gap will create. However, I do not doubt that genetics will cause a revolution in practical medicine, and I do not doubt that the average patient will have little idea what it all means. Interestingly, improvements to technology have allowed mankind this great leap forward, but how well we respond to it will largely depend on the social abilities of health care professionals and patients alike.

From my point of view, there are two appropriate responses. One is to learn some genetics. You have some time, but you definitely want in on this medical revolution and the sooner the better. This is definitely a case where knowledge for the sake of knowledge now will bear significant fruit later. The second appropriate response is to talk to people about it. Talk to everyone about it; your doctor, your friends who are doctors, your friends, your teachers, your families, your colleagues…everyone.  The two points are related, of course – If you have a solid understanding of genetics, you will be of use to your elderly uncle if he develops a condition which has a new treatment.

Really, the crisis I predict here should not actually happen, because it is absolutely no mystery that the revolution is coming. If my estimates above are correct, we probably have a decade or two to get everyone wise. That should be enough time. In the long run, the world will adapt to this knowledge. However, if this crisis occurs, it will cause a great deal of heartache (not to mention losses of money and progress) that should have been avoided.

Color me skeptical, though. I mentioned climate change earlier, which is another instance of a problem that we know is coming, that we understand very well, and that humankind is not addressing in a meaningful way. I fully expect this issue to hit us like we never saw it coming. It would be nice to be wrong on this one, but I doubt if I am.

Begin with the End in Mind

By Mac Daddy, Family Matters

I’d like to start with parable. In the interest of full disclosure, I didn’t come up with this parable (more on that in a moment). In my opinion, it is the most important lesson I could teach anyone, and one I try to share with anyone who will listen.

Imagine you have a bucket, and you fill it with golf balls. Is the bucket full?

No, you could add some small pebbles, and they would trickle down through the empty spaces between the golf balls.

Does this look full to you?

Is it full now?

No, you could add some sand, and it would trickle down through the empty spaces between the small pebbles.

Is it full now?

No, you could add water, and it would trickle down through the empty spaces between the particles of sand.

So, what is the moral of the story, in a grand-scheme-of-life sense of things? The answer after the break…

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The parable I am describing comes from Stephen Covey’s book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. I didn’t hear the parable there first, though – it was years later that I discovered its origin. I hope Dr. Covey doesn’t mind my using a form of his parable here. In my opinion, it is a good read and provokes the kind of thoughts that can drive a person to real self-improvement, if taken to heart.

While the book in general focuses on how to be effective in all aspects of life, the parable here isn’t limited to efficiency or productivity – in fact, I feel it is better taken personally. With that in mind…onto the moral of the story….

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When I was first told this story, I thought about it briefly and concluded that the moral was that you can always do more. I may think that I’ve done a lot, but there is always more that could be done if I just got off my keister and did it. Furthermore, this has (by far) been the most common response from listeners in the countless times I have told this story. However, it’s something else.

The moral of the story is that if you want to get the golf balls into the bucket, you damned well better put them in first. Once you put in the pebbles, sand and water, you won’t be able to get all of those golf balls to fit in the bucket – some will have to be left out. As Dr. Covey puts it at other times, put first things first.

I've been to the Eiffel Tower, but it was never really a golf ball...

Of course, those golf balls (being the biggest items in the parable) represent those aspects of your life that are most important to you, whatever they may be. Faith, marriage, children, parents, career, philanthropy, visiting the Eiffel Tower, running a marathon, writing that novel, meeting Ben Affleck – to each his/her own. Only you can decide what those golf balls are. Make sure you do them while you can. To quote Kenneth Patton, “By labor we can find food and water, but all of our labor will not find for us another hour.”

I didn't meet him, as there were a zillion other people around, but there are his eyes behind 1,285 other arms holding up cameras at the Toronto International Film Festival. (BTW, this wasn't a golf ball either)

 If you fill your life with smaller things – paying the bills, renewing your passport, finishing the report on the Anderson deal that your manager has been asking for since last Thursday – you’ll find that the years have passed and you never got around to becoming a regular blood donor.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Stephen Covey relates this parable in describing one of the seven habits that he feels highly effective people possess: They begin with the end in mind. In other words, they consider their course of action from the vantage point of how things will look in hindsight. When all is said and done, how will I reflect on what actually went down?

Dear reader, this post is about you, your life and specifically the legacy you are building at this very moment (it’s also about me, though more indirectly). Are you tending to your legacy? Have you thought about it? Have you thought on how you will look back on your career at your retirement party? Or how your life will look from your death bed? If you got hit by a bus tomorrow, how would you feel about the time you’ve been spending? What are your thoughts? Have you challenged those thoughts recently? If so, are you challenging them as frequently as you should?

This is what it is all about!

I mentioned time just now – make no mistake, this is all a question of time, because time is what limits us. This is especially true as we get closer and closer to fulfilling the legacy we hope to achieve. I feel I’ve always done a good job of keeping my priorities straight and making use of my time in a way that is consistent with what matters most to me. However, fatherhood really jolted my thought process on thinking about my legacy. It was clear to me that things were going to be busy – VERY BUSY – from now on. There are a lot of things I would like to think of when I think of my life idealistically. I knew (and still know) that if I don’t work those things in, I’ll wake up one morning and my career will be mostly done, my children grown, my hair turned grey (if it’s still there) and many of those ideals would only be good ideas rather than proud memories. And so I set about trying to be that man I would like to think I could be. A man of action, who matches his work in various arenas with the qualities he feels are important in a man.

Speaking personally, I think I can place my finger on those qualities, as I think a lot about them. In a spiritual sense, I want my general conduct to reflect what I feel are good values, regardless of what sense of spirituality one might embrace. I want to have done right by my marriage, to make the kind of effort I feel a man should make to do right by his partner. I want my actions to allow me to feel as though I have been a superlative father, to my dying breath. I want the time I invest in my career as a teacher (and as a parent of students) to reflect my belief in the tremendous importance of the education of children. I want to feel that I have used whatever financial success I have had in ways that always recognize that the common run of humankind are not nearly as fortunate as I have been in ways of money. I also want to spend that money in responsible ways that promote the values I hold rather than contributing to inequality and suffering. In short, I want to have done right by everyone I can possibly do right by, and I want to do it in exemplary fashion.

I hope I don’t sound arrogant when I say that I am proud of who I am, what I’ve accomplished, and what I continue to do. I’m not satisfied (nor should any individual who wishes for their legacy to be as full as possible), and I know I fall short in many ways I would prefer not to (hey, I’m still not a regular blood donor – one of many examples). I hope I can fill my life with more and more meaning as it continues….but I know I will continue to strive to do so, and I will keep keeping my end in mind. The jock inside of me thinks about it like the big game: When the final buzzer sounds, I want to have given it everything I’ve got.

How’s your legacy?

Seeing the Baseball Hall of Fame vote through the lens of RBI Baseball

The Start Menu - Glorious

By Chunk-Style, SuperJock

Perhaps the greatest baseball video game of all time was RBI Baseball, created by Tengen and released in 1987 for the Nintendo Entertainment system. If you have a few hours to waste, why don't you go play a few games and party like it's 1989. The game features 10 teams – two All-Star teams and 8 Major League Baseball teams. With the Hall of Fame vote coming out yesterday, and the ongoing discussions about it that have been floating around the web, I got to thinking that a lot of the “debate” about players from that era could be resolved by looking at how useful they were in that game. So, let’s take them case-by-case, alphabetically.

Roger Clemens, Boston

Clemens is a beast in this game, with one of the best fastballs and movement. When you then recognize that he kept being this good for a couple decades, it is an absolute travesty that he was shut out of the real-life Hall of Fame yesterday. Of course, they kept him out on the character clause, because he was such a colossal asshole (having affairs with 15-year-olds is not the fastest path to having a grammar school named after you). Either that or the voters thought that his use of greenies* helped him too much on the field. 

(Oh wait, that's why they kept Hank Aaron out. Ooops, I'm all confused with which drugs are acceptable and which aren't. Ahem...moving on....)

Julio Franco, American League All-Stars

Franco is a nice little player off the bench for the AL All-Stars. He hits for average with good speed, but you would only use him if you needed to pinch hit for a pitcher and you had already used McGwire, Seitzer and Molitor. No wonder his real-life Hall of Fame support is poor. I have a weak spot for him, though, as the best player on some of those awful Indians teams I rooted for as a kid growing up in Cleveland. His batting stance is unforgettable, and completely ignored in the video game. Sigh.

Franco's rookie year with the Indians was mired by his insistence on having a snake wrapped around his left arm at all times.

Mark McGwire, American League All-Stars

McGwire is a god in this game, hitting for average and with more power than anyone else. His speed is pretty good too. Playing this game, you would think he was one of the greatest players of all time. I think his real-life Hall of Fame case is generally understated – he is portrayed as a one-trick pony who could only hit homers. It’s not really true, as the guy had an amazing batting eye…and he was better at that one trick than anyone else who has ever played.

Jack Morris, Detroit

Perhaps the most controversial of actual candidates, Morris’ advocates like to point out that he started more Opening Day games than anyone else. While that sounds good, it would be nice if his actual body of work could be used to support his case. But the real question here is about how useful Morris was in RBI Baseball. Already, things don’t look good for Morris when you go to select him, as he is the #2 starter. His pitches are pedestrian – not bad, but certainly not amazing. It’s clear to me that Morris is not a superstar, and perhaps not even a top 10 pitcher in RBI Baseball. Many of the pitchers I would rank higher than Morris in the video game are not in the Hall of Fame, so I think this seals the deal of Morris’ real-life candidacy. 

Morris is the #2 starter on a team known primarily for its offense. Ergo, he stinks.

Dale Murphy, National League All-Stars

Murphy is a poor man’s McGwire in this game, hitting for slightly less average and power, but still being a mega-talent. Murphy’s problem in real life was that his career outside his amazing peak was weak by Hall of Fame standards, but RBI Baseball does a nice job representing how awesome Murphy was in his awesome years.

Tim Raines, National League All-Stars

Raines leads off for the NL All-Stars and is clearly one of their best players. He has an amazing combination of good power and amazing speed. Raines is one of the best players in the video game, so he clearly belongs in the Hall of Fame. His low levels of support in the voting are mind-boggling.

Alan Trammell, Detroit

Trammell leads off for the Tigers and is the best shortstop in the game. That is saying something when you consider that the game includes Hall of Famers Ozzie Smith and Cal Ripken. Smith isn’t much of a player, with no power yet good speed. Trammell has power that is similar to Ripken’s, but a huge advantage in speed and batting average (.343 vs .289). Trammell is getting shafted in real life by a short-sighted electorate – perhaps the voters should be made to play a few games of RBI Baseball and reconsider how awesome Trammell was in his heyday.

Frank Viola could expect to see his sparkling 2.90 ERA rise if stats ever changed in this game.

Some other players I wanted to mention:

Wade Boggs, Boston

Jack Clark, St. Louis Cardinals

Doc Gooden, NY Mets

Reggie Jackson, California

Kirby Puckett, Minnesota

Jim Rice, Boston

Nolan Ryan, Houston

Daryl Strawberry, NY Mets

Boggs and Rice are mediocre in the game for the Red Sox. Boggs’ high average isn’t very useful with minimal power, and Rice’s power is meh. As this is one of Rice’s good years, it’s still a head-scratcher that they let him into the Hall of Fame…Jack Clark and Reggie Jackson are studs in this game – frightening power….Doc Gooden and Daryl Strawberry are both amazing and the game does a nice job of showing what awesome talents they were before they let their demons overcome them. The Mets of the 90’s could have been so much different…Unlike Rice, Puckett holds up nicely in this game. His power production is not great, but he makes up for it with great speed….Ryan kinda sucks, with a great fastball but no movement, making him pretty easy to hit. I think it nicely mirrors how he was in real life - a bulldog of a pitcher, but not a superlative one.

Shitstorm in Ontario: One idea on how the provincial government can make good with the teachers

Miniter of Education Laurel Broten does not appreciate that attitude, young man. Now spit out your gum!

                                                          by Travis Jaxon, Math and Science Educator

I’m not a very political guy….so it seems odd to be writing my first blog post on a political situation. However, this particular political situation affects me in very personal way insofar as it concerns something about which I care deeply; the education of children.

To recap, the provincial government of Ontario and the teachers’ unions have been tearing each other apart for the last year. This past fall, the government passed Bill 115, which established guidelines for negotiations that laid out significant slashes to teacher contracts (as a best-case scenario), removed the right of teachers to take job action, and gave the government the power to permanently impose these terms if teachers and boards could not agree to them on their own by the beginning of 2013. The government did just that when the new year arrived.

As this has played out, things have not gone well for the government or the unions. The government has become increasingly unpopular in the face of this legislation, even shooting themselves in the foot by naming the aggressively anti-teacher legislation the “Putting Students First Act” as though the public were stupid. It could be reasonably said that Bill 115 – in combination with a failed power grab in a by-election – pushed Premier Dalton McGuinty into resigning. Liberal candidates to become the next premier are all facing questions on how they can salvage the crappy situation with teachers, and few have any idea how to go about it.

Meanwhile, the unions also look terrible. After four years of labour peace leading up to this drama, they sat on their hands and were caught wholly unprepared. They have fumbled through the past few months, misjudging and mishandling negotiations with the government and the sentiments of their own membership. For example, the OSSTF negotiated drastically slashed contracts for a few boards within the limits of Bill 115 and recommended ratification to their memberships. To their surprise, they were left with egg on their face as membership rejected them. Then, in an attempt to recuperate some of the face they lost at the negotiating table, they cancelled extra-curricular activities in all schools in all boards, angering students and parents. The unions like to think that parents and students understand why their basketball teams and jazz ensembles were pulled, but anyone paying attention to the community protests can see that students and their parents feel they are being punished because the education community can’t get itself together. I can hardly blame them for such feelings.

As a teacher, I was really upset when extra-curriculars were pulled because there was no direct reason to pull them at the time. In fact, nothing in my entire teaching career has made me quite this angry. The correct time to pull them was after the contracts were permanently imposed at the beginning of 2013, as parents and students would then be sympathetic to the fact that there is really no other way that teachers can register their dissatisfaction.

So, how does the next premier make things right with the public and with teachers? Repealing Bill 115 is already in motion, so that’s a start….but not much of one. It’s like passing a law making it legal to rob a bank on December 28^th, then robbing the bank on December 28^th, then cancelling the law. I suggest a few ways the new Liberal leadership can save face without inordinately compromising their position.

1. Apologize for Bill 115, and pledge to negotiate rather than legislate from now on, in all organized labour situations.

            ** This buys goodwill not just with teachers but with unionfolk in general. Chances of re-election rise dramatically by making good with labour, even without a full promise to give back some of the gains they have achieved by this flexing of their political muscles.

2. My biggest idea: Discard the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) and all of the standardized tests they run. This may come with some controversy but consider the benefits…

** Tons of education research suggest that there is no value to these tests.

** It is expensive: The Office itself and other affiliated offices draw $100 million each year.

            ** Educators hate these tests (check out the video Is EQAO failing our children?). Mainly, this is because the tests are biased culturally and across socioeconomic classes, because so much pressure is put on them for results when the results themselves are not good for much of anything, because teachers have to sacrifice other types of teaching and learning to prepare kids for the tests, and because the enormous amounts of resources that are used in conjunction with this test could be put to better use in so many different ways. Most teachers are aware that research indicates that there is little or no value to these tests. I could go on, but I won’t for your sake, but my own opinion of the tests is that they are diabolical…….anyways, you score a big point with teachers by killing EQAO off

            ** EQAO is not the Liberal Party’s baby – it was formed under NDP leadership. Furthermore, the NDP no longer supports EQAO – NDP Leader Andrea Horwath recently said that EQAO “throws a monkeywrench into the works of real teaching and real learning.”

            ** In “these times” of economic hardship, cutting this program can be seen as casting away a luxury that has run its course. Indeed, EQAO scores would seem to indicate that there has been sufficient improvement in the 15+ years it has run to conclude that the tests are no longer vital. Most people in Ontario recognize the fact that we have one of the finest education systems in the world.

**The savings can be passed on to points #3 (and maybe 4) below and the budget deficit in general.

3. Tear up imposed contracts and negotiate new ones with (very) minor concessions to teachers. As the unions have publicly bragged that they will accept the wage freeze, let them do so and ease up on the sick day cutbacks by either allowing some banking of sick days, or increasing the number of sick days per year.

4. Learning to teach is a lifelong process, and most teachers know this. Once you accept this principle, there is no avoiding the critical importance of professional development. PD is not expensive and could be done in MUCH more meaningful ways in schools without even spending more money (for example, more PD days with greater structure for their use, with that structure originating from the teachers themselves).

By taking these steps, the provincial government will go a long way towards making things better with teachers. They also will not compromise their position greatly in future negotiations. Teachers will still grumble, but they won’t have much to grumble about when compared to what they have been saddled with at the moment.

Author Introductions: Zoltan Cadet

Name: “Zoltan Cadet”

Defining Characteristic: Dude who is batshit insane

It’s hard growing up poor, not to mention 23,815 light years from home. As a young mantis, I recall the gentle, soothing whir of yellow just outside our summer elevator. While our transition to human form was relatively dilapidated and fat-free, the visions of nefarious toasters have not completely disappeared from my night visions. A few thousand centuries later. the omnipresent government-controlled doctors have all had their say. Toothbrush, australopithecine, incendiary pigs, and so on…

(editor's note: Zoltan Cadet is one of many fake names I made up for myself by the age of 8) 

Author Introductions: Dale C. McGregor

Name: “Dale C McGregor”

Defining Characteristic: White Guy

Having grown up in a quaint New England suburb and attended a very expensive private liberal arts university, I have spent my entire life becoming something of an aficionado on the finer points of white culture. Mock me at your own peril: White folks have a lot to offer, and I have a particularly keen ability to separate that which is worthy from that which is bland and banal.

(editor's note: Dale C McGregor is one of many fake names I made up for myself by the age of 8)

Author Introductions: Mr. Prius Bizarre

Name: "Mr. Prius Bizarre”

Defining Characteristic: Environmentalist

You’d think an author of two children’s books on endangered species would be a rabid tree-hugger. It would be closer to the truth to say that I care about the environment, In some ways, this caring manifest conventionally, in others, not so much.

(editor's note: Prius Bizarre was a suitably odd nickname made up for me by a former student) 

Author Introductions: Disco Sterenslovsky

Name: "Disco Sterenslovsky”

Defining Characteristic: Current events

As a superhero with an amazing combination of superpowers (the ability to make anyone dance, and the ability to gelatinize anything within two to three hours), you can imagine my chagrin when I discovered that my application to The Justice League was recently denied. Seriously, you’re telling me they need Gleek for something? At any rate, this gig was the next best offer on the table, so here I am. Bask in the glory of my all-encompassing aptitudes.

Anyways, as a Julliard-trained, genuine-article superhero, I tend to stay on top of what’s going on.

Author Introductions: Hu Flung Pu

Name: “Hu Flung Pu”

Defining Characteristic: Globetrotter

For a white guy originally from suburban Cleveland, I’ve made my way around the world pretty well. I’ve been to over a dozen countries and many dozens of cities. Travelling is one of my favorite things to do. I’ll include you in my various adventures.

(editor's note: Hu Flung Pu is my pen name when I am trying to remain anonymous)