Why do we argue? Why do we resist?

I’m not using the Victorian nosism “we” here to sound pretentious. I think I can speak on behalf of every author At the Chalk Face in this regard. And please, correct me if I’m wrong.

We get this all of the time, we are the naysayers, contrary for the sake of contrarianism. Don’t we have anything positive to say? Well, it sure does seem that we don’t and that is only because we have to spend so much time sifting through the nonsense and correcting misconceptions that we often cannot get to our visions.

Look, first and foremost, no one on this website has a grant or is making one red cent off anything that we do. Seriously. No one here gets paid for our views or commentary, so we are not beholden to a particular ideology. Our motives are pure. As educators, we are pro-child and pro-teacher. We are not necessarily pro-business, pro-market, pro-government, or pro-foundation.

As a matter of fact, we are scrutinized for our commentary in some instances. Our commentary here raises eyebrows or puts us on a radar because there are folks out there who do have grants, whose bills are paid by certain groups that we critique. But in our small ways, we continue to push, to ask questions, and resist because our motives are as nearly as unbiased and unfettered as humanly possible. We teach, in numerous settings. We have stood before children and young persons. We read, we’re thoughtful. As a matter of fact, folks who critique often have to read more and consume more information than those who blindly follow party lines.

We argue, we ask questions, and we resist because we care. We are pro-child, pro-teacher, pro-public school. We are not fanatics. We are not saboteurs. And that’s pretty much all I have to say about that.