With open eyes, engaged,
we travel through our younger days,
oblivion prevailing
in our narrow passageways.
Acuity is not the blind
as what we see is clear in mind.
Periphery recedes
and limits what we have to find.
Side streets and alleyways
become the vortex of a maze,
Epiphanies abounding
while we shuffle off the daze.
Our cognizance is not the core
of anything we struggle for,
our sentience expanding
as we come of age - unsure.
Then up to, through, our middle age
our certainty turns back the page.
internalization
bars us from objective gaze.
No time for what we do not know,
we hasten where we think we go.
scope degeneration
makes us puppets in the show.
In time, an empty feathered nest,
alerts to where we are bereft.
cumbersome omission
highlights everything that's left.
Thus only once we've run the race
comes consciousness of what we've faced,
illuminating ignorance
teaches Wisdom, Hope, and Faith.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Bipartisanship? Can the Gap be Bridged?
Over the past week, I happened upon a column by a local left leaner that bemoaned the recent Republican power play on tax cuts for the wealthy. According to the columnist, the Republicans agreed to the lifting of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provision, as well as other concessions, only after tax cuts were extended for the richest Americans. The implication of the column was that the right has no other motivation than in keeping the top 1% of the population obscenely wealthy. The upshot of that sentiment is that the right has no soul, no conviction. How could they abandon their narrow-minded hatred of homosexuals so casually or quickly, so long as the rich got richer.
I commented on the column using the newspapaer's comment feature, and the coulmnist, surprisingly, responded. What ensued was an interesting dialogue that I think is instructional.
Though the 'professional' was initially disrespectful and condescending in his response to my challenges, he ultimately engaged in a thoughtful exchange of information with me.
What I discovered is that although we will continue to disagree on the most compelling principles, we do have areas for agreement. For instance, we both object to the reprehensible money grab that the CEO's - the top 1% mentioned previously - engaged in after the completion of the multitudinous government bailouts. For him, the tax cut extensions recently approved served as validation for the greedy bastards. That the congressman were willing to swallow their principles for the other - rather than greater - good, was troublesome to the columnist.
I, on the other hand, have less trouble with the tax cut extensions, even though the greediness of the top 1% bothers me as well. You see, I suspect that the driving force,otherwise known as arm-twisting, wasn't attributable nearly so much to the top 1% as it was to the people in the top 2 or 3%. Those who are reporting incomes in the millions are less effected by the proposed increase than the people who stand at the $250,000, and higher range. Consequently, a tax increase for that slightly upper echelon is more significant. The tax increase won't necessarily change the lifestyle decisions of these wealthy people. It will, however, strongly influence their ability to build their wealth.
The larger point is this one: my right side point of view objects to the excesses as much as the columnist's left side point of view. We will not bridge the gap on the solution to the problem on a global scale, since he has faith that father government can effectively redistribute the wealth. I, on the other side, distrust the notion that the governemnt can ever do such a thing, nor even that they should.
What we can agree on is the principle that destructive greed of the kind exhibited by the CEO's should not be supported by law. I certainly don't think that the solution is to have all the people who have maximized their income foot the bill for those who cannot or will not adopt a work ethic that will allow them to manage their lives.
The other bridge-able gap, in my opinion, is the picture of the down-trodden that the columnist holds. He sees them, I think incorrectly, as victims of a system that denies them access to opportunities. I see many of them as lazy bastards who rely on the safety nets that we already provide. The truth lies somewhere, and I think rules, laws, and regualtions, can prevent my picture from being the true one, just as well as rules, laws, and regualtions can prevent his vision from being the true one.
So, can the people in charge similarly reach acress the aisle?
I commented on the column using the newspapaer's comment feature, and the coulmnist, surprisingly, responded. What ensued was an interesting dialogue that I think is instructional.
Though the 'professional' was initially disrespectful and condescending in his response to my challenges, he ultimately engaged in a thoughtful exchange of information with me.
What I discovered is that although we will continue to disagree on the most compelling principles, we do have areas for agreement. For instance, we both object to the reprehensible money grab that the CEO's - the top 1% mentioned previously - engaged in after the completion of the multitudinous government bailouts. For him, the tax cut extensions recently approved served as validation for the greedy bastards. That the congressman were willing to swallow their principles for the other - rather than greater - good, was troublesome to the columnist.
I, on the other hand, have less trouble with the tax cut extensions, even though the greediness of the top 1% bothers me as well. You see, I suspect that the driving force,otherwise known as arm-twisting, wasn't attributable nearly so much to the top 1% as it was to the people in the top 2 or 3%. Those who are reporting incomes in the millions are less effected by the proposed increase than the people who stand at the $250,000, and higher range. Consequently, a tax increase for that slightly upper echelon is more significant. The tax increase won't necessarily change the lifestyle decisions of these wealthy people. It will, however, strongly influence their ability to build their wealth.
The larger point is this one: my right side point of view objects to the excesses as much as the columnist's left side point of view. We will not bridge the gap on the solution to the problem on a global scale, since he has faith that father government can effectively redistribute the wealth. I, on the other side, distrust the notion that the governemnt can ever do such a thing, nor even that they should.
What we can agree on is the principle that destructive greed of the kind exhibited by the CEO's should not be supported by law. I certainly don't think that the solution is to have all the people who have maximized their income foot the bill for those who cannot or will not adopt a work ethic that will allow them to manage their lives.
The other bridge-able gap, in my opinion, is the picture of the down-trodden that the columnist holds. He sees them, I think incorrectly, as victims of a system that denies them access to opportunities. I see many of them as lazy bastards who rely on the safety nets that we already provide. The truth lies somewhere, and I think rules, laws, and regualtions, can prevent my picture from being the true one, just as well as rules, laws, and regualtions can prevent his vision from being the true one.
So, can the people in charge similarly reach acress the aisle?
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy
I have grown tired of the various shibboleths regarding the extended tax cuts and the Republican platform for limiting the taxes that people pay. People need to understand that the wealthiest Americans and the taxes they pay are sgnificant. In fact, the sliding tax rates guarantee that the wealthy pay more in taxes, individually, than the middle class people. The annoyance that I have concerns what has become the general consensus and popular opinion that the Right is motivated by indifference to the plight of lower income people. In fact, the stance that I take is that taxes need to be lower for everyone, including the wealthy.
I happen to fit into that middle class category, so I will pick a nice round number to illustrate my point. For the illustration of the wealthy example, I will pick a similarly round number, though excessivly high in fact, to make the picture clear, I hope.
If I start with a gross income of $100,000, and I usually have 20% discretionary income, then the increased tax burden hits that $20,000 directly. That disretionary income may go toward investments, college funds or costs for children, or large purchases such as cars and vacations. In short, I will spend less on some things than I would normally.
For a very wealthy person who faces a higher increase in tax burden, the cost cutting will not likely influence his personal spending habit. Instead, the cost cutting that must take place will involve finacnial investments, property purchases, or in the cases of self-employed business owners, capital expenditures or business expansions.
Let's say the the income for the very wealthy is $1,000,000. The discretionary income for this person is likely in the area of $400,000. Consequently, the personal effect of the tax increase on daily life is negligible. Instead, the response of the wealthy person will likely take plaace in the investment arena. Using the oft-mentioned 4.9% increase, which I will round off to 5%, we are talking about 5% of $400,000 or $20,000. The point is that the tax infringement will change the wealthy man's spending habits a bit, but the larger suppression will take place in the area of personal finance that affect the larger economy. When these larger sums of money are invested in money markets, stocks, bonds, and other areas, the effect is enormous, especially when people realize just how many millionaires there are out there.
In the case of the middle class effect, a higher volume or population means that a tax increase will suppress consumer spending. In the case of the increase for the wealthy, the effect will be a suppression of available money for business expansion. However, if no one is buying, then the businessman will have no impetus to expand anyway. Decreased expansion and investment in new business opportunities means the jobless rates will remain stagnant.
Republicans want less government and lower taxes. Of course, such is not a prescription for guaranteed success. The principle is that individual people, unburdened by taxes that suppress their ability to choose, will do things that benefit everybody. The Right believes that the concept extends to businesses and everybody else, regardless of income.
In summation, tax cuts for the wealthy MAY result in outcomes that effect everyone positively, the same way that tax cuts for everyone else has the potential to effect everyone else positively. The tax burden on the weatlhy is already higher, and has been for a long time. Why, during an economic crisis, would the government want to risk suppressing the expansion of and investment in businees?
I happen to fit into that middle class category, so I will pick a nice round number to illustrate my point. For the illustration of the wealthy example, I will pick a similarly round number, though excessivly high in fact, to make the picture clear, I hope.
If I start with a gross income of $100,000, and I usually have 20% discretionary income, then the increased tax burden hits that $20,000 directly. That disretionary income may go toward investments, college funds or costs for children, or large purchases such as cars and vacations. In short, I will spend less on some things than I would normally.
For a very wealthy person who faces a higher increase in tax burden, the cost cutting will not likely influence his personal spending habit. Instead, the cost cutting that must take place will involve finacnial investments, property purchases, or in the cases of self-employed business owners, capital expenditures or business expansions.
Let's say the the income for the very wealthy is $1,000,000. The discretionary income for this person is likely in the area of $400,000. Consequently, the personal effect of the tax increase on daily life is negligible. Instead, the response of the wealthy person will likely take plaace in the investment arena. Using the oft-mentioned 4.9% increase, which I will round off to 5%, we are talking about 5% of $400,000 or $20,000. The point is that the tax infringement will change the wealthy man's spending habits a bit, but the larger suppression will take place in the area of personal finance that affect the larger economy. When these larger sums of money are invested in money markets, stocks, bonds, and other areas, the effect is enormous, especially when people realize just how many millionaires there are out there.
In the case of the middle class effect, a higher volume or population means that a tax increase will suppress consumer spending. In the case of the increase for the wealthy, the effect will be a suppression of available money for business expansion. However, if no one is buying, then the businessman will have no impetus to expand anyway. Decreased expansion and investment in new business opportunities means the jobless rates will remain stagnant.
Republicans want less government and lower taxes. Of course, such is not a prescription for guaranteed success. The principle is that individual people, unburdened by taxes that suppress their ability to choose, will do things that benefit everybody. The Right believes that the concept extends to businesses and everybody else, regardless of income.
In summation, tax cuts for the wealthy MAY result in outcomes that effect everyone positively, the same way that tax cuts for everyone else has the potential to effect everyone else positively. The tax burden on the weatlhy is already higher, and has been for a long time. Why, during an economic crisis, would the government want to risk suppressing the expansion of and investment in businees?
Saturday, December 4, 2010
For Parents of School Children...
A conversation with an old friend who has a daughter in 9th grade, and a similar conversation with a teacher and parent has given birth to this monologue.
First, I will attempt to limit the educational jargon that is part of this discussion. I will not, however, apologize for educational jargon, though I have often made great fun of it. All jargons, regardless of the field or discipline that has coazed them into existence, are viable things. Medical professionals, for example, discuss a greater range of things with more clarity when they use appropriate jargon. The problem begins when the audience cannot possibly find the jargon clear or useful. In fact, the outsider is inhibited from understanding when he is ignorant of the jargon, and especially when he understands the jargon inaccurately.
The friend and parent complained about his daughter's geometry teacher. She has historically been an A student, they say, but now she is really struggling with geometry. Correspondence with the teacher has been non-productive. The teacher's primary - indeed, only - response to the parent's request for help has been to advise the student to attend a tutoring session that takes place after school. This session has been somewhat effective, but it has not helped the student to do any better at learning the material when it is initially taught.
The parents have also told me that the teacher explicitly told them that s/he doesn't teach. Instead, s/he described an inquiry-based (I will clarify later) approach that works as follows. Students are organized into groups and presented with a problem, which they are charged with solving. Relying on prior knowledge and creative thinking skills, the groups achieve consensus on a workable solution which is then presented to the whole class. [I am assuming that discussions/corrections which ensue during the presentation period provide a mechanism by which the teacher can remediate stragglers, clarify strategies, and identify critical concepts that are 'discovered' by the group problem solvers.]
Inquiry based learning is a great way to structure a lesson, but, like all strategies, it falls short when implemented poorly. Essentially, inquiry based learning presents the students with an issue or problem, provides access to resources by which the issue or problem can be attacked, then allows the teacher to define, identify, explain, and clarify the principles that students have used to achieve their solution. Done well, inquiry based learning is very efficient; done poorly, it almost guarantees that less learning is taking place.
How can parents know whether the situation is good or bad? This account isn't really meant to choose any presentational or instructional strategy over another. What parents need to know, in my opinion, is rather simple.
Every lesson should have a few major components, and parents can determine whether things are being done well regardless of the teacher's approach.
First, every lesson should have a clear objective that the instructor should clarify at some point in the lesson. That objective can be introduced at the beginning of the lesson, and the teacher can explain how the students are going to tackle the objective. In the inquiry approach mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the lesson objective may be revealed as late as the last few minutes of class.
Second, every lesson should have an activity that forces the student to employ the skill (practice problems?) or evaluate the information (discussion, lab report, written statement) that is at the center of the day's objective.
Third, every lesson must have a mechanism by which the teacher can monitor student progress and adjust instruction if necessary to provide remediation or enrichment. The translation for the last statement is simple: the teacher should have a way to respond to the discovery that the students haven't learned or have learned very well. If they haven't acquired what they ought, the teacher must have a way to try again. If they have grasped the material well, the teacher needs to have a way to challenge them further.
Unfortunately for parents, the means by which teachers can create lessons that meet these requirements are almost limitless. Gurus have written books that try to provide a manageable spectrum of possibilities, but the variability of clientele and teacher skill make it almost impossible to provide a range of approaches that really, truly covers all the possibilities.
In the case of the teacher mentioned at the beginning of this piece, I hypothesize two possibilities. The teacher is doing a competent to excellent job of using inquiry based learning but the student is not being responsible about asking for help in class, or isn't doing the work necessary to acquire the objective. The other possibility is that the teacher is doing a less than adequate job, and the parents need to find out why their daughter isn't learning the material in class.
I don't like the answer from the teacher, if it's true, that the student must attend a daily or regular tutoring session in order to function in the class. I certainly don't like the teacher saying, even in jest, that s/he doesn't teach. As a parent, I want to know how the teacher is monitoring the student's progress during the lesson. I want to know why, as reported by the teacher on conference night, students are not regularly asking questions during the lesson? If material is challenging and appropriate, students are going to have questions. If they are not comfortable asking questions, for whatever reason, the teacher needs to find out why.
The parents with whom I was talking need to be certain that their respective children are doing what they are supposed to be doing in the class. If the children are being responsible, and are still not learning, the parents need to urge school leaders to facilitate the necessary adjustments. Learning needs to take place every day, and teachers should have a good idea of individual student progress at all times. Of course, some students are going to learn at a faster pace than others, but none of the students who aren't learning at an appropriate pace should be allowed to coast on through.
First, I will attempt to limit the educational jargon that is part of this discussion. I will not, however, apologize for educational jargon, though I have often made great fun of it. All jargons, regardless of the field or discipline that has coazed them into existence, are viable things. Medical professionals, for example, discuss a greater range of things with more clarity when they use appropriate jargon. The problem begins when the audience cannot possibly find the jargon clear or useful. In fact, the outsider is inhibited from understanding when he is ignorant of the jargon, and especially when he understands the jargon inaccurately.
The friend and parent complained about his daughter's geometry teacher. She has historically been an A student, they say, but now she is really struggling with geometry. Correspondence with the teacher has been non-productive. The teacher's primary - indeed, only - response to the parent's request for help has been to advise the student to attend a tutoring session that takes place after school. This session has been somewhat effective, but it has not helped the student to do any better at learning the material when it is initially taught.
The parents have also told me that the teacher explicitly told them that s/he doesn't teach. Instead, s/he described an inquiry-based (I will clarify later) approach that works as follows. Students are organized into groups and presented with a problem, which they are charged with solving. Relying on prior knowledge and creative thinking skills, the groups achieve consensus on a workable solution which is then presented to the whole class. [I am assuming that discussions/corrections which ensue during the presentation period provide a mechanism by which the teacher can remediate stragglers, clarify strategies, and identify critical concepts that are 'discovered' by the group problem solvers.]
Inquiry based learning is a great way to structure a lesson, but, like all strategies, it falls short when implemented poorly. Essentially, inquiry based learning presents the students with an issue or problem, provides access to resources by which the issue or problem can be attacked, then allows the teacher to define, identify, explain, and clarify the principles that students have used to achieve their solution. Done well, inquiry based learning is very efficient; done poorly, it almost guarantees that less learning is taking place.
How can parents know whether the situation is good or bad? This account isn't really meant to choose any presentational or instructional strategy over another. What parents need to know, in my opinion, is rather simple.
Every lesson should have a few major components, and parents can determine whether things are being done well regardless of the teacher's approach.
First, every lesson should have a clear objective that the instructor should clarify at some point in the lesson. That objective can be introduced at the beginning of the lesson, and the teacher can explain how the students are going to tackle the objective. In the inquiry approach mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the lesson objective may be revealed as late as the last few minutes of class.
Second, every lesson should have an activity that forces the student to employ the skill (practice problems?) or evaluate the information (discussion, lab report, written statement) that is at the center of the day's objective.
Third, every lesson must have a mechanism by which the teacher can monitor student progress and adjust instruction if necessary to provide remediation or enrichment. The translation for the last statement is simple: the teacher should have a way to respond to the discovery that the students haven't learned or have learned very well. If they haven't acquired what they ought, the teacher must have a way to try again. If they have grasped the material well, the teacher needs to have a way to challenge them further.
Unfortunately for parents, the means by which teachers can create lessons that meet these requirements are almost limitless. Gurus have written books that try to provide a manageable spectrum of possibilities, but the variability of clientele and teacher skill make it almost impossible to provide a range of approaches that really, truly covers all the possibilities.
In the case of the teacher mentioned at the beginning of this piece, I hypothesize two possibilities. The teacher is doing a competent to excellent job of using inquiry based learning but the student is not being responsible about asking for help in class, or isn't doing the work necessary to acquire the objective. The other possibility is that the teacher is doing a less than adequate job, and the parents need to find out why their daughter isn't learning the material in class.
I don't like the answer from the teacher, if it's true, that the student must attend a daily or regular tutoring session in order to function in the class. I certainly don't like the teacher saying, even in jest, that s/he doesn't teach. As a parent, I want to know how the teacher is monitoring the student's progress during the lesson. I want to know why, as reported by the teacher on conference night, students are not regularly asking questions during the lesson? If material is challenging and appropriate, students are going to have questions. If they are not comfortable asking questions, for whatever reason, the teacher needs to find out why.
The parents with whom I was talking need to be certain that their respective children are doing what they are supposed to be doing in the class. If the children are being responsible, and are still not learning, the parents need to urge school leaders to facilitate the necessary adjustments. Learning needs to take place every day, and teachers should have a good idea of individual student progress at all times. Of course, some students are going to learn at a faster pace than others, but none of the students who aren't learning at an appropriate pace should be allowed to coast on through.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Gratitude on Thanksgiving Day.
I am not sure if sentimentality is a natural side effect of middle age, but I have found myself being easily choked up by various things. People send schmaltzy emails about God, country, babies, milestones, friendship, and all manner of other topics that I would generally dismiss, and I find myself reading them closely. Morevoer, I saw a touching commercial the other day and had to feign an allergy attack to disguise my embarassing reaction.
I read about the young Medal of Honor winner, SSgt. Salvatore Giunta, and I never made it to the end of the story. I am genuinely awed that we have young people so committed to their causes and their comrades that they will risk their own life to adhere to abstract principles and values. In fact, when I incline toward pessimism about the future of our country, I am psychologically galvanized by the stories of our soldiers, missionaries, and commmunity volunteers.
With that in mind, I turn my thoughts to this Thursday, November 25th, 2010.
I am grateful. Oh sure, I am also still concerned, worried, and often distressed, but I cannot deny my sense of gratitude any more than I can deny my loss of composure when I hear "Butterfly Kisses" on the emo radio station. Heaven help me when the "Christmas Shoes" ditty starts playing in a week or two.
The sense of gratitude is fueled by my realization that, despite all the baggage that is part of life, the most important elements are things I can count on: I love my wife and my kids, and my job still provides me with a chance to make a difference. I am healthy, appreciated by the people that matter, and I still find reasons to summon up an old-fashiioned belly laugh on a regular basis.
Lest i undermine a persona that took a lifetime to cultivate and grow to maturuty, let me declare that I still maintain the capacity to morph into a grumpy old man at a moment's notice. My default psycholigical state is still comprehensive dissatisfaction. The difference is that I think I hhave reached a point where the funks don't last so long, though they still tend to run as deep. (Maybe the next stage of evolution will diminish that tendency?)
So as Thanksgiving approaches, I am surprised to find myself focusing on the good things, not at the absolute exclusion of the sources of angst, but with a conscious conviction that these sources of gratitude, gratefulness - dare I say it, (Happiness?) are paramount. I think the holiday's preeminent invocation is to find the elements which are so critical, and to place the negative forces in solitary confinement for a few days.
I know it's trite, cliche`, and maudlin, but just suppose that you can armwrestle the forces that compromise your sense of hopefulness, and take a concerted look at the roses that are just waiting for your nose to smell.
Happy Thanksgiving, I say, and I don't know where this whole thing came from. I think I need to apologize.
I read about the young Medal of Honor winner, SSgt. Salvatore Giunta, and I never made it to the end of the story. I am genuinely awed that we have young people so committed to their causes and their comrades that they will risk their own life to adhere to abstract principles and values. In fact, when I incline toward pessimism about the future of our country, I am psychologically galvanized by the stories of our soldiers, missionaries, and commmunity volunteers.
With that in mind, I turn my thoughts to this Thursday, November 25th, 2010.
I am grateful. Oh sure, I am also still concerned, worried, and often distressed, but I cannot deny my sense of gratitude any more than I can deny my loss of composure when I hear "Butterfly Kisses" on the emo radio station. Heaven help me when the "Christmas Shoes" ditty starts playing in a week or two.
The sense of gratitude is fueled by my realization that, despite all the baggage that is part of life, the most important elements are things I can count on: I love my wife and my kids, and my job still provides me with a chance to make a difference. I am healthy, appreciated by the people that matter, and I still find reasons to summon up an old-fashiioned belly laugh on a regular basis.
Lest i undermine a persona that took a lifetime to cultivate and grow to maturuty, let me declare that I still maintain the capacity to morph into a grumpy old man at a moment's notice. My default psycholigical state is still comprehensive dissatisfaction. The difference is that I think I hhave reached a point where the funks don't last so long, though they still tend to run as deep. (Maybe the next stage of evolution will diminish that tendency?)
So as Thanksgiving approaches, I am surprised to find myself focusing on the good things, not at the absolute exclusion of the sources of angst, but with a conscious conviction that these sources of gratitude, gratefulness - dare I say it, (Happiness?) are paramount. I think the holiday's preeminent invocation is to find the elements which are so critical, and to place the negative forces in solitary confinement for a few days.
I know it's trite, cliche`, and maudlin, but just suppose that you can armwrestle the forces that compromise your sense of hopefulness, and take a concerted look at the roses that are just waiting for your nose to smell.
Happy Thanksgiving, I say, and I don't know where this whole thing came from. I think I need to apologize.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Patience
My great aunt used to like to say that patience is a virtue. I always assumed then that the opposite, impatience, would be a sin. Ironically, I have decided lately that both can be virtues or sins, and that the context is the determining factor in every case.
Naturally, to be inclined to exhibit patience, generally speaking, is a good thing and probably a virtue. Yet I am not so sure that exhibiitng patience when it's not warranted isn't akin to maintining silence when the circumstances scream for you to speak up.
Helping to crystallize this conclusion is a story told by my son's girlfriend. While conducting a tour at the zoo, she encountered a bratty kid and an ineffective parent. Excited, the boy in the scene was just a bit out of control. The parent told the 8 or so year old to stop his outbursts. The child retorted by telling the father to stop his outbursts, and added to the reaction by punching his father repeatedly in the midsection.
"What did you do?" I asked.
"Nothing, really," she said. "We all just had to wait for the kid to calm down."
The girl exhibited great patience, as the tantrum continued for some five to ten minutes. I am convinced, however, that her patience wasn't a virtue. I suppose I can't ask her to reprimand the parent, though I might have, but she could have politely requested that the father leave the tour so all the other patrons could move along.
I know she, the guide, is a young adult, and that confronting adults can be difficult, but she needs to be trained to handle such things. Furthermore, I think the implicit patience on the part of the other patrons, some of whom must have been adults, is clearly a sin. Why couldn't they have spoken up on behalf of all the people involved?
Perhaps the reader's immediate reaction is disagreement on the grounds that the innocent bystander has no business telling anyone how to parent, but I find this argument silly and unsupportable. The tour was the business of all the parties, and this one pair was compromising everyone else's time and creating a distresing environment.
The larger point to be made is that I am not content with having one of the imposed-upon patrons speak up to address the annoying scene; I think they all should speak up! An individual who speaks up may run the risk of having to deal with an embarassed, offended parent. That same person, who might create an even larger scene when challenged, is more than likely not going to choose to pick a fight with the whole crowd.
An anti-bullying program I have been reading about is centered on teaching young people to utilize this group approach. The plan is to have the mob work for right and good by teaching them how to demand that that bully stop bullying for fear of having the group turn against him. Of course, the program says that others should show support for the victim, rather than trying to shout the bully down. But i think the reason the tactic can and does work is that the crowd, by standing up for the victim, is really ostracising the bully.
Think about it. The bully gains his power by the silence of the crowd, and increases his power if members of the crowd laugh, join in, or otherwise seem to support the power play.
As noted earlier, silence isn't always golden, especially when it serves as an avenue for someone to infer support for an action. Likewise, patience in not a virtue when waiting promises not to lead to a more favorable set of circumstances. In fact, being patient in some cases is really just cowardice. The same is true with impotent silence.
Put the two main themes together and we happen upon a great piece of advice: speak up now!
Naturally, to be inclined to exhibit patience, generally speaking, is a good thing and probably a virtue. Yet I am not so sure that exhibiitng patience when it's not warranted isn't akin to maintining silence when the circumstances scream for you to speak up.
Helping to crystallize this conclusion is a story told by my son's girlfriend. While conducting a tour at the zoo, she encountered a bratty kid and an ineffective parent. Excited, the boy in the scene was just a bit out of control. The parent told the 8 or so year old to stop his outbursts. The child retorted by telling the father to stop his outbursts, and added to the reaction by punching his father repeatedly in the midsection.
"What did you do?" I asked.
"Nothing, really," she said. "We all just had to wait for the kid to calm down."
The girl exhibited great patience, as the tantrum continued for some five to ten minutes. I am convinced, however, that her patience wasn't a virtue. I suppose I can't ask her to reprimand the parent, though I might have, but she could have politely requested that the father leave the tour so all the other patrons could move along.
I know she, the guide, is a young adult, and that confronting adults can be difficult, but she needs to be trained to handle such things. Furthermore, I think the implicit patience on the part of the other patrons, some of whom must have been adults, is clearly a sin. Why couldn't they have spoken up on behalf of all the people involved?
Perhaps the reader's immediate reaction is disagreement on the grounds that the innocent bystander has no business telling anyone how to parent, but I find this argument silly and unsupportable. The tour was the business of all the parties, and this one pair was compromising everyone else's time and creating a distresing environment.
The larger point to be made is that I am not content with having one of the imposed-upon patrons speak up to address the annoying scene; I think they all should speak up! An individual who speaks up may run the risk of having to deal with an embarassed, offended parent. That same person, who might create an even larger scene when challenged, is more than likely not going to choose to pick a fight with the whole crowd.
An anti-bullying program I have been reading about is centered on teaching young people to utilize this group approach. The plan is to have the mob work for right and good by teaching them how to demand that that bully stop bullying for fear of having the group turn against him. Of course, the program says that others should show support for the victim, rather than trying to shout the bully down. But i think the reason the tactic can and does work is that the crowd, by standing up for the victim, is really ostracising the bully.
Think about it. The bully gains his power by the silence of the crowd, and increases his power if members of the crowd laugh, join in, or otherwise seem to support the power play.
As noted earlier, silence isn't always golden, especially when it serves as an avenue for someone to infer support for an action. Likewise, patience in not a virtue when waiting promises not to lead to a more favorable set of circumstances. In fact, being patient in some cases is really just cowardice. The same is true with impotent silence.
Put the two main themes together and we happen upon a great piece of advice: speak up now!
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Student Empowerment ?
I will do my best to make this as brief, as clear, and as applicable as possible.
A fine teacher I know was complaining about a troublesome student who chronically teeters on the edge of insubordination and disrepect. Often, the princess in question will try to camouflage a personal oversight or error of omission on her part by claiming that the teacher had failed to adequately explain, notify, or remind the student of her responsiblities.
"You should have reminded us," she will say - or - "if you had taught that better I would have understood."
In each case, the student is using a simple dynamic: blame someone else for her error.
I say, ignore the tendency to respond by being affronted by the disrespect lurking in the shadows, or even the defiance standing at full attention. Address the challenge head on.
"Well Susie," the teacher might say, "Let's test the theory."
"Class, I need you to answer the next few questions as honestly as possible? How many of you remember how I notified you that the homework/project/assignement was due today?"
"You told us Wednesday in class."
"It's on the board right behind you."
"Don't you have all the assignments posted on your web page?"
"I put it in my agenda book."
"Question two: Does anyone have an idea for how I might make it easier for everyone to remember their due dates and assignment schedule?"
"You could put in on a calendar."
"You could tell us to write it in our agenda books."
"You could send us an email or a text."
Now, of course, most teachers are not going to want to send out assignment alerts via email or text, but you get the idea.
I think early in the school year, teachers should review a small number of rules for classroom engagement. Something like this:
1. Bring required materials.
2. Copy assignments from the board during class warm-up or closure period.
3. Adrress absolutely everyone respectfully while in the confines of the classroom, including the teacher.
Then ask the students what other rules they think should be followed, and how they should be enforced. The funny thing is that invariably, the students know how school should work, and their mechanism for enforcement and penalties for irresponsibility are often mre severe than the teacher can or will enforce.
Also important: the class need not adopt all the suggestions. The teacher can simply explain where the suggestions are inappropriate, and offer alternatives to the unsupportable ideas. In the end, the teacher is still the authority for which rules and expectations will stand.
The value of the exercise at the early part of a year or semester is that academic indifference - or even the disrespectful comments noted in the intro. - can be bluntly and directly addressed when they occur.
The student who claims that notification was absent or ineffective cannot deny that notification methods have been common practice throughout the year. [Important warning here: in those instances where circumstances have prevented the teacher from notifying according to the plan, the teacher will need to make allowances. For instance, for an assignment that didn't make it to the teacher web page, or wasn't posted on the board, the teacher must give the student to the end of the day, or even allow for the item to be submitted a day late without penalty depending on the circumstances.]
For the comment critical of the teacher's instructional method, the student empowerment scheme can also help. Most teachers have systems in place for clarifying messages, instructions, or requirements. Make certain that remediation opportuities are also posted. "See me after school. Send me an email. Post on the discussion board. I will take questions during the last five minutes while the class reads independently, sets up the homework assignment, or reviews notes."
I know of a teacher who has a suggestion box of sorts. Students drop 3x5 cards with their question in a box at the door and the teacher posts the answers on the teacher web page.
One major point is this: no part of the learning process should be a guessing game. Students are going to screw up and neglect duties of one kind or another. The test of their commitment needn't be whether they copied the assignemnt, but whether they turned it in at the appointed time. Therefore, set up study buddies, or employ some of the ideas suggested in here. Make access to the necessary information routine, clear, and easy. The only excuses for not submitting something should be that the dog really did eat it, or the student didn't do his job. The student should never be able to claim that he couldn't overcome a momentary error or oversight.
After all, the measure of teacher success is student achievement. Teachers know that students are often lazy, indifferent, irresponsible, and careless. Why let expected student responsibility challenges be the reason for teacher failure. A student failure is a teacher failure, and teacher's want to have as few of those as possible.
The ultimate success occurs when the teacher can say, "Susie gets little parental support, does not engage consistently in her learning, socializes too frequently, and exhibits some definite knowledge and skill gaps, but she earned a legitimate B in my class."
Good job teach!
A fine teacher I know was complaining about a troublesome student who chronically teeters on the edge of insubordination and disrepect. Often, the princess in question will try to camouflage a personal oversight or error of omission on her part by claiming that the teacher had failed to adequately explain, notify, or remind the student of her responsiblities.
"You should have reminded us," she will say - or - "if you had taught that better I would have understood."
In each case, the student is using a simple dynamic: blame someone else for her error.
I say, ignore the tendency to respond by being affronted by the disrespect lurking in the shadows, or even the defiance standing at full attention. Address the challenge head on.
"Well Susie," the teacher might say, "Let's test the theory."
"Class, I need you to answer the next few questions as honestly as possible? How many of you remember how I notified you that the homework/project/assignement was due today?"
"You told us Wednesday in class."
"It's on the board right behind you."
"Don't you have all the assignments posted on your web page?"
"I put it in my agenda book."
"Question two: Does anyone have an idea for how I might make it easier for everyone to remember their due dates and assignment schedule?"
"You could put in on a calendar."
"You could tell us to write it in our agenda books."
"You could send us an email or a text."
Now, of course, most teachers are not going to want to send out assignment alerts via email or text, but you get the idea.
I think early in the school year, teachers should review a small number of rules for classroom engagement. Something like this:
1. Bring required materials.
2. Copy assignments from the board during class warm-up or closure period.
3. Adrress absolutely everyone respectfully while in the confines of the classroom, including the teacher.
Then ask the students what other rules they think should be followed, and how they should be enforced. The funny thing is that invariably, the students know how school should work, and their mechanism for enforcement and penalties for irresponsibility are often mre severe than the teacher can or will enforce.
Also important: the class need not adopt all the suggestions. The teacher can simply explain where the suggestions are inappropriate, and offer alternatives to the unsupportable ideas. In the end, the teacher is still the authority for which rules and expectations will stand.
The value of the exercise at the early part of a year or semester is that academic indifference - or even the disrespectful comments noted in the intro. - can be bluntly and directly addressed when they occur.
The student who claims that notification was absent or ineffective cannot deny that notification methods have been common practice throughout the year. [Important warning here: in those instances where circumstances have prevented the teacher from notifying according to the plan, the teacher will need to make allowances. For instance, for an assignment that didn't make it to the teacher web page, or wasn't posted on the board, the teacher must give the student to the end of the day, or even allow for the item to be submitted a day late without penalty depending on the circumstances.]
For the comment critical of the teacher's instructional method, the student empowerment scheme can also help. Most teachers have systems in place for clarifying messages, instructions, or requirements. Make certain that remediation opportuities are also posted. "See me after school. Send me an email. Post on the discussion board. I will take questions during the last five minutes while the class reads independently, sets up the homework assignment, or reviews notes."
I know of a teacher who has a suggestion box of sorts. Students drop 3x5 cards with their question in a box at the door and the teacher posts the answers on the teacher web page.
One major point is this: no part of the learning process should be a guessing game. Students are going to screw up and neglect duties of one kind or another. The test of their commitment needn't be whether they copied the assignemnt, but whether they turned it in at the appointed time. Therefore, set up study buddies, or employ some of the ideas suggested in here. Make access to the necessary information routine, clear, and easy. The only excuses for not submitting something should be that the dog really did eat it, or the student didn't do his job. The student should never be able to claim that he couldn't overcome a momentary error or oversight.
After all, the measure of teacher success is student achievement. Teachers know that students are often lazy, indifferent, irresponsible, and careless. Why let expected student responsibility challenges be the reason for teacher failure. A student failure is a teacher failure, and teacher's want to have as few of those as possible.
The ultimate success occurs when the teacher can say, "Susie gets little parental support, does not engage consistently in her learning, socializes too frequently, and exhibits some definite knowledge and skill gaps, but she earned a legitimate B in my class."
Good job teach!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)