I'm a teacher. I admit it. I go into classrooms every school day and try to transmit information which I believe is important: facts, skills and methods of understanding. I try to transmit it in a way which is interesting, engaging and which keeps in mind the mindset of a high school student. I work hard at it and take pride in what I do. That's why I get offended when people from outside the profession come around and try to tell me how to improve my field. Introduce technology, they say. Work towards standards, they insist. Increase relevance, they advise. The fact is, no one knows my students and what works for them any better than I do. And I will argue that "experts" WITHIN the education field are hard pressed to give me any advice.
Teacher education is like handing an archer a quiver with 100 different arrows. The archer has to know which one to choose in any given case. Others can suggest that he get more arrows, but no one can tell him that a particular one is the magic arrow that will work. I recall my first time being observed. The administrator criticized my class because I didn't use the board enough. Sure, I understand the value of writing key words, or addressing the visual learners, but the fact is, nothing I did necessitated using the board that day. Forcing a medium for the sake of saying I am using the medium is not the answer. Smartboards in the classroom are a resource, but not one that I need to use every day, week or month. The responsibility for transmitting the info rests on the teacher's shoulders.
So what makes a good teacher? I have written extensively about this elsewhere but I'll go on record here as saying "good teachers can be made; better teachers can be made; great teachers are born". Quality teaching is about that ever changing blend of content mastery, empathy and the temperament to connect with students. Can that be taught? Well, someone can tell me that to be a good doctor I have to tie a good knot and not faint at the sight of blood. I'll still faint. A good teacher can take 25 strangers, build trust, have them in rapt attention and begging for more and go home and not feel like their time was wasted. It isn't easy and the demands change day to day, but that's what makes teaching a profession and not a rote series of steps that anyone can do.
So to all the business people who think teaching is easy...to all the lawyers who think teaching is easy...it is. But good teaching is really tough, and which would you like for your kid: a teacher or a good teacher?
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Change we can't believe in
Someone asked me a question last night and then accused me of not answering when I asked for clarification, context and other defining elements. The truth is, I find questions difficult to answer because I see complexity in them. The motivation of the asker plays a large role as does the meaning of particular words and ideas. Men know this intuitively -- when a woman asks "does this dress make me look fat?" or "I don't know; what do YOU want to do?" we know that there is more than meets the eye.
See, the thing is, everything is more complex that it seems and only simple people don't understand that. So when simple people ask a question, they may sincerely mean it as a simple question, so they expect a simple answer. But simple answers are almost always wrong. Is the quest for complexity to problematic because it injects a mode of confusion in everyday discourse? Sure, but it is more honest.
The same holds true for protestable moments. Are we concerned about the 1% who have all that cash and the 99% who have less? Yes. Is there a simple answer that a protest can bring about? No. Are we being foolish wasting our resources on "occupying" a city park? Yes. Is there a better way to bring about change? No.
The thing is, change is difficult if it is to be real. Change is upheaval. Change is revolution. Change means a real shift in an underlying paradigm. And we don't want that kind of change. We want a simple alteration which will solve everything. If we don't like how are system has ended up, then we need to revamp, nay remove the ENTIRE SYSTEM. Our system of capitalism and corruption has worked just fine for so long. If we now turn around and say "hey! How come no one ever tried to bribe ME?" then what we have to say, in order to be honest, is "the entire system is flawed and we need to abandon it and start over. I'll still be poor, our entire economy and culture will crumble but if we start over, in 250 years, we won't be in this mess."
And I don't want that. It is nice to say change, but we can't stand the pains of starting over which real change would require.
I was in the store today and I saw some eco-friendly drain cleaner. I happen to be in the market for some drain cleaner as I have a drain which needs cleaning. My brand of choice is rife with nasty chemicals and harsh products which blast the clog out, beat it up and go after its family. But those chemicals, once loosed on the pipes, do the job. So this eco stuff claims that it is not harmful to the pipes or nature or furry animals. So I started reading the bottle, thinking globally, but willing to act septicly. The instructions indicated that I should pour a quarter of the bottle into the drain every night for 5 nights. Ignoring that this would mean that I have to buy 2 bottles, it meant that the drain would not be unclogged until next week. It even cautioned me that the drain would run slower in the short term. This is proof that the product is working.
So if I want to save the earth, I have to lose the convenience of a product which gets the job done on my schedule. It is the same for so many other "healthy" options. If I want organic food, I have to pay more. If I want to go to an organic cleaner, I have to drive farther from my house, or have a longer turn around time on my clothes. Drive an electric car? Find a plug, have less acceleration and shorter range. These are trade offs because, for there to be real change, we have to abandon our time honored practices and make do with less.
Are we really ready to go through rebirthing pangs and growth pains again? We would be crippled in the world market, vulnerable to our enemies and not nearly as cool in the eyes of the hot girls.
True fact.
So I say "yay for the 1%! May I have my bribe now?"
See, the thing is, everything is more complex that it seems and only simple people don't understand that. So when simple people ask a question, they may sincerely mean it as a simple question, so they expect a simple answer. But simple answers are almost always wrong. Is the quest for complexity to problematic because it injects a mode of confusion in everyday discourse? Sure, but it is more honest.
The same holds true for protestable moments. Are we concerned about the 1% who have all that cash and the 99% who have less? Yes. Is there a simple answer that a protest can bring about? No. Are we being foolish wasting our resources on "occupying" a city park? Yes. Is there a better way to bring about change? No.
The thing is, change is difficult if it is to be real. Change is upheaval. Change is revolution. Change means a real shift in an underlying paradigm. And we don't want that kind of change. We want a simple alteration which will solve everything. If we don't like how are system has ended up, then we need to revamp, nay remove the ENTIRE SYSTEM. Our system of capitalism and corruption has worked just fine for so long. If we now turn around and say "hey! How come no one ever tried to bribe ME?" then what we have to say, in order to be honest, is "the entire system is flawed and we need to abandon it and start over. I'll still be poor, our entire economy and culture will crumble but if we start over, in 250 years, we won't be in this mess."
And I don't want that. It is nice to say change, but we can't stand the pains of starting over which real change would require.
I was in the store today and I saw some eco-friendly drain cleaner. I happen to be in the market for some drain cleaner as I have a drain which needs cleaning. My brand of choice is rife with nasty chemicals and harsh products which blast the clog out, beat it up and go after its family. But those chemicals, once loosed on the pipes, do the job. So this eco stuff claims that it is not harmful to the pipes or nature or furry animals. So I started reading the bottle, thinking globally, but willing to act septicly. The instructions indicated that I should pour a quarter of the bottle into the drain every night for 5 nights. Ignoring that this would mean that I have to buy 2 bottles, it meant that the drain would not be unclogged until next week. It even cautioned me that the drain would run slower in the short term. This is proof that the product is working.
So if I want to save the earth, I have to lose the convenience of a product which gets the job done on my schedule. It is the same for so many other "healthy" options. If I want organic food, I have to pay more. If I want to go to an organic cleaner, I have to drive farther from my house, or have a longer turn around time on my clothes. Drive an electric car? Find a plug, have less acceleration and shorter range. These are trade offs because, for there to be real change, we have to abandon our time honored practices and make do with less.
Are we really ready to go through rebirthing pangs and growth pains again? We would be crippled in the world market, vulnerable to our enemies and not nearly as cool in the eyes of the hot girls.
True fact.
So I say "yay for the 1%! May I have my bribe now?"
Monday, October 10, 2011
On Being a Writer
I was looking at a couple of reader responses posted in an online forum today -- we, as a school use online sites to allow students to post material and interact with the teacher and each other in a way both complementary and supplementary to the classroom experience. Neat stuff.
One student wrote a by-the-numbers response with a topic sentence, some supporting facts and a conclusion. The content was serviceable and the argument, sound if uninteresting. Another student began with a hook sentence: seemingly unrelated, grammatically jarring and on the whole, disarming. She then moved from this unexpected statement into a subtle and interesting discussion of a topic which, it just so happens, turns out to be tangentially related to the assigned topic. By the end, she wrapped up an elegant statement and a complex but orderly paragraph which informed and entertained.
These are high school freshmen. Ninth graders. Fourteen year olds. No one taught the second student how to write; she naturally saw this mode as the best way to engage with and speak to her audience. It seems that those people who find writing "easy" do so because they naturally already have something they want to say. They explore and turn ideas over and the ideas bubble out into words. Give them a concrete question, and you'll get a long and intricate response. Give them an open ended essay and you'll either get brilliance or a free-flowing fountain of everything and nothing.
It seems that good and natural writing cannot be taught, only refined. And those people who don't naturally write can't be taught the skill -- it either develops out of reading and a maturation of thought, or it has to be replaced by the workmanlike and competent writing which is the end product of direct instruction. We cannot teach inspiration and passion, just a satisfactory replacement.
One student wrote a by-the-numbers response with a topic sentence, some supporting facts and a conclusion. The content was serviceable and the argument, sound if uninteresting. Another student began with a hook sentence: seemingly unrelated, grammatically jarring and on the whole, disarming. She then moved from this unexpected statement into a subtle and interesting discussion of a topic which, it just so happens, turns out to be tangentially related to the assigned topic. By the end, she wrapped up an elegant statement and a complex but orderly paragraph which informed and entertained.
These are high school freshmen. Ninth graders. Fourteen year olds. No one taught the second student how to write; she naturally saw this mode as the best way to engage with and speak to her audience. It seems that those people who find writing "easy" do so because they naturally already have something they want to say. They explore and turn ideas over and the ideas bubble out into words. Give them a concrete question, and you'll get a long and intricate response. Give them an open ended essay and you'll either get brilliance or a free-flowing fountain of everything and nothing.
It seems that good and natural writing cannot be taught, only refined. And those people who don't naturally write can't be taught the skill -- it either develops out of reading and a maturation of thought, or it has to be replaced by the workmanlike and competent writing which is the end product of direct instruction. We cannot teach inspiration and passion, just a satisfactory replacement.
Monday, September 26, 2011
some recipes
With the holiday season upon us, I feel it appropriate to share some of my culinary gifts. TPTB have graced me with skills galore in the kitchenette so I would like to spread the wealth like so much chunky peanut butter.
The first rule -- Fry, baby, fry. Nothing there is that doesn't like a deep fryer. A bath in hot oil makes everything better, from chicken legs to chicken thighs. And poems by Frost. But for heaven's sake, use canola.
Rule number 2 -- if you wash all your dishes BEFORE you use them, you don't have to wash them afterwards. True fact.
Third -- there are two secret ingredients, depending on whether what you are making is meat or dairy. The ingredients are butter and schmaltz. The details are simply commentary.
Rule the fourth -- you need NOT preheat the microwave.
Number five -- choose your shirt to match the sauce.
Six -- regardless of what the name indicates, a side of beef actually has 2 sides.
Seventh -- many people have asked me about using wine to cook with. I prefer to stew the cook starting 3 hours before you begin. Wine? Wine not?
Rule number 8 -- cookbooks are a good place to start. Write the phone number of places that deliver in the margins of the cookbook. Only later should you consult a phone book.
Number nine -- you don't have to wear that cool white hat but if you don't, you're a loser.
The tenth rule -- once the food can get up and walk around by itself, it is no longer safe to eat. It IS safe to serve, and occasionally, clear and wash dishes.
The first rule -- Fry, baby, fry. Nothing there is that doesn't like a deep fryer. A bath in hot oil makes everything better, from chicken legs to chicken thighs. And poems by Frost. But for heaven's sake, use canola.
Rule number 2 -- if you wash all your dishes BEFORE you use them, you don't have to wash them afterwards. True fact.
Third -- there are two secret ingredients, depending on whether what you are making is meat or dairy. The ingredients are butter and schmaltz. The details are simply commentary.
Rule the fourth -- you need NOT preheat the microwave.
Number five -- choose your shirt to match the sauce.
Six -- regardless of what the name indicates, a side of beef actually has 2 sides.
Seventh -- many people have asked me about using wine to cook with. I prefer to stew the cook starting 3 hours before you begin. Wine? Wine not?
Rule number 8 -- cookbooks are a good place to start. Write the phone number of places that deliver in the margins of the cookbook. Only later should you consult a phone book.
Number nine -- you don't have to wear that cool white hat but if you don't, you're a loser.
The tenth rule -- once the food can get up and walk around by itself, it is no longer safe to eat. It IS safe to serve, and occasionally, clear and wash dishes.
Friday, September 9, 2011
A 9/11 thought
I'm not a political being and I don't try to understand most major issues, but one interesting subtlety in terms of the upcoming commemoration of the 9/11 anniversary has caught my attention.
This year (on Sunday) we will be marking 10 years since the country was attacked. 10 Years. I have been working to put that into context for a while, now. What I am left with is a comparison to other such horrors.
I won't compare this to events in other countries, especially ones where, sadly, terrorist attacks are more frequent and the per capita equivalent mortality statistic is significantly higher. I'm comparing this to the US. The only similar situation I can think of is Pearl Harbor. True, it isn't identical for SO many reasons, but it will serve my purposes for this post.
Ten years after Pearl Harbor, the world had changed markedly. WWII had been over for 6 years and the US was already focusing on another area of the world. The 50's had descended in all their pea soup green Father Knows Best glory. Everything had changed.
Ten years after 9/11, we are still living, daily in its shadow. Technologically we are in a similar place. Emotionally we are in a similar place. Geo-politically we are in a similar place. Some of these don't change because the nature of the event was different. Different bad guys, location, methodology. But maybe WE are part of the equation and we react differently now. I don't know.
I just wonder if in 1951, Pearl Harbor seemed as fresh and raw as 9/11 does now.
This year (on Sunday) we will be marking 10 years since the country was attacked. 10 Years. I have been working to put that into context for a while, now. What I am left with is a comparison to other such horrors.
I won't compare this to events in other countries, especially ones where, sadly, terrorist attacks are more frequent and the per capita equivalent mortality statistic is significantly higher. I'm comparing this to the US. The only similar situation I can think of is Pearl Harbor. True, it isn't identical for SO many reasons, but it will serve my purposes for this post.
Ten years after Pearl Harbor, the world had changed markedly. WWII had been over for 6 years and the US was already focusing on another area of the world. The 50's had descended in all their pea soup green Father Knows Best glory. Everything had changed.
Ten years after 9/11, we are still living, daily in its shadow. Technologically we are in a similar place. Emotionally we are in a similar place. Geo-politically we are in a similar place. Some of these don't change because the nature of the event was different. Different bad guys, location, methodology. But maybe WE are part of the equation and we react differently now. I don't know.
I just wonder if in 1951, Pearl Harbor seemed as fresh and raw as 9/11 does now.
Monday, September 5, 2011
An Open Memo to the Good Folks at VH1
Recently, I found myself in Israel. I was taller than I expected but that's not my point. While wasting some time in my mini junior suite I worked through the TV stations and found myself watching VH1 Classic. It led me to some questions which I will now pose. These are aimed specifically at the people who run VH1 classic, and by extension, those with some expertise in the field.
1. What exactly defines "classic"? A segue from Dylan's "Subterranean Homesick Blues" into something by Fine Young Cannibals ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwK_lMZBxBw ) is jarring -- I can't see any category which includes them both other than "songs by people who breathe air."
2. Do you think that the director of the Miami Sound Machine's "Dr. Beat" really believes that the video he directed is either effective story telling, or a reasonable representation of "good" video work? [If you have stumbled upon this and have never seen the video, watch the video here http://youtu.be/GQ0Drtft8-I
or even better, watch the "first version" which I guess wasn't even good enough to be considered the official one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzPzoVIg5iM ]
3. At what point did the video for the Pretenders "Back on the Chain Gang" turn into Yes's "Owner of a Lonely Heart"?
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
1. What exactly defines "classic"? A segue from Dylan's "Subterranean Homesick Blues" into something by Fine Young Cannibals ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwK_lMZBxBw ) is jarring -- I can't see any category which includes them both other than "songs by people who breathe air."
2. Do you think that the director of the Miami Sound Machine's "Dr. Beat" really believes that the video he directed is either effective story telling, or a reasonable representation of "good" video work? [If you have stumbled upon this and have never seen the video, watch the video here http://youtu.be/GQ0Drtft8-I
or even better, watch the "first version" which I guess wasn't even good enough to be considered the official one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzPzoVIg5iM ]
3. At what point did the video for the Pretenders "Back on the Chain Gang" turn into Yes's "Owner of a Lonely Heart"?
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
There is nothing under the sun
I am sitting and trying to separate the good chaff from the bad chaff at a meeting and I find that the best way is to ignore content completely and assume that anything of value will be repeated by my peers later on. So I get to thinking and a bunch of random thoughts pop into my head.
First off -- is it wrong that when listening to the "Top 1001 rock songs" on the radio this morning, I get angry at the relative placements of numbers 999 and 1000?
Second thought -- when we look at history and we worry that our material to teach history is somehow outmoded is it possible that history never was the way we imagine it but is always some artifical construct that we teach? Do we worry about "accuracy" when we might never have been accurate, only true to that same artifical construct?
Next idea has to do with rearing my kids. What will they be like when they grow up? Am I trying to turn them into what a "success" was defined as in earlier generations? The thing is, if I try to turn my kids into what I have become, I am missing an important variable -- I became what I am because of the time, and the parents. The times have shifted, and the direct causal "parent" influence is different. No two generations can be identical because there are too many variables. We need to continually reevaluate our goals and try to figure out what we want and what we think is proper.
I know these ideas aren't well thought out, but that's because the speaker is making me angry with the stuff he says so I can't effectively ignore it. That's a rant for another day.
First off -- is it wrong that when listening to the "Top 1001 rock songs" on the radio this morning, I get angry at the relative placements of numbers 999 and 1000?
Second thought -- when we look at history and we worry that our material to teach history is somehow outmoded is it possible that history never was the way we imagine it but is always some artifical construct that we teach? Do we worry about "accuracy" when we might never have been accurate, only true to that same artifical construct?
Next idea has to do with rearing my kids. What will they be like when they grow up? Am I trying to turn them into what a "success" was defined as in earlier generations? The thing is, if I try to turn my kids into what I have become, I am missing an important variable -- I became what I am because of the time, and the parents. The times have shifted, and the direct causal "parent" influence is different. No two generations can be identical because there are too many variables. We need to continually reevaluate our goals and try to figure out what we want and what we think is proper.
I know these ideas aren't well thought out, but that's because the speaker is making me angry with the stuff he says so I can't effectively ignore it. That's a rant for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)