feeling and thinking

Initial thoughts on emotion:

We like to think of ourselves as rational beings occasionally subject to emotional sway. I think we're actually emotional beings capable of rationalizing our feelings. What I mean is that we rarely use our intellect to arrive objectively at logical opinions; rather, we take opinions that have arisen unnoticed from our emotional core, and use intellect to justify them and make them seem logical.

My gut reaction is to condemn this (perceived) reality and rave against the damnable human ignorance that gives rise to it. But when I think about it, I'm not sure I know whether this emotional core (as opposed to rational core) is a good or a bad thing. After all, perhaps it is our unique combination of the emotional and the rational that makes us truly human. A purely rational, logical person would be an awfully boring friend. A whole society of such people would be, well, dead.

Now, as I process these ideas, I wonder if perhaps the development of emotional intelligence (wisdom?) is as important as that of rational intelligence--maybe even more so. Maybe that's the key--to stop pretending this emotional core doesn't exist, stop fighting tooth and nail to prove we're right about everything, and instead to engage our emotional core and work to make it smarter. I certainly think this is important for teachers; we clearly need both brains AND heart.

Albert Einstein said, "It has become appaulingly clear that our technology has outstripped our humanity."

Seth Bernard claims his mom said, "Feel! Feel, boy, feel! Make muscle in your head, and use it to fuel your heart..."

Perspective

There is a bill at hand that could give a huge boost to local agriculture and local economies.

Our economy continues to struggle, while the national debt is at a crisis point.

Corporate spending on elections has been utterly set loose.

Government agencies are preparing to set fire to the Gulf of Mexico.

It's finals week.

Among all these worthwhile topics, which one do you suppose has my nearly undivided attention?  What's really important? It always depends on how you look at it.

Reform and improvement?

At the beginning of February, the Obama administration released the new proposed budget for next year. We can take it for granted that almost anything involving politics and money will inevitably be controversial, and so I imagine every little detail of the proposal is probably getting heat from somewhere. What caught my attention, thanks to a recent NCTE newsletter, was a cut in funding for the National Writing Project, a highly successful nationwide professional development program that has been praised as "one of the big success stories in professional development" in Education Week. NWP funding, if any, will now have to come through states, who must engage in a competitive funding race for federal money that has already begun to create a cut-throat, antagonistic atmosphere amongst educational institutions. Now any given local NWP site can only hope that its state will win the funding race, and then hope that state officials will see fit to allocate some of those funds to NWP. For all intents and purposes, this will be the end of the "national" in the National Writing Project.

Of course we have limited funds to draw from, so of course we can't give unlimited funding to every educational program. But it seems to me that our efforts at redesigning educational budgets should be directed toward eliminating or reforming failing programs, those that use money poorly. If we eliminate the funding of successful programs, overall educational quality cannot help but suffer.

How to save the world, by Matt Fiocchi

For one of my classes I was supposed to write a quick blurb about my educational philosophy as it applies to students with special needs. I got a little carried away, and now I feel like sharing. Enjoy or ignore, as you please. Feedback always welcome.

Educational philosophy

My educational philosophy basically equates to my whole worldview. The main idea is to help. The best way to help is to teach. And the best thing to teach is life—knowing yourself, knowing the world, ultimately the same thing. Ours is a troubled world, yes, but most of our troubles we inflict on ourselves and on each other. We behave in ways that are harmful to ourselves and others and the world—that is, harmful to the whole. And we do this because of ignorance, because we don’t know any better; we wouldn’t have to hold rallies to protect the rain-forest if the people destroying it simply knew better (an extreme simplification, but it gets the point across). Thus, the problem is individual ignorance on a massive scale, and in my view the only realistic solution is individual awakening on an equally massive scale.

One very large and obvious complication with this is that you can’t manufacture genuine human awakening on an industrial scale; hence the term individual. And of course, you can’t force it on anyone. To force one’s own worldview on another is not awakening, it’s brainwashing, which is antithetical to awakening and leads to conformity and thence to violence in a self-perpetuating cycle. Awakening can’t be made to happen by force; all you can do is work to remain alert and compassionate and create appropriate circumstances—with prolonged contact and profound trust one can eventually hope to make a connection. Well, keeping company in the classroom day after day seems to fit the bill.

So the best way (in my humble opinion) to make the world a better place, long term, big picture, is to teach. To make contact with individual minds and help them learn how to learn about themselves and the world. I don’t want to put my ideas in students’ heads; I want to help them discover their own.

I’ve had this notion in my head for years, and it hasn’t changed much, so I figure either it’s an accurate reflection of my deepest motivations, or else I’m just very very stubborn.

As a learner, I feel like I’ve often fallen through the cracks or slipped by unnoticed. Because I did okay in school and didn’t make a fuss, it was easy for teachers to ignore me and focus on other things. I honestly think I could have gotten a lot more out of school if someone had looked into my eyes and noticed I was in there--curious, interested, watching--and taken the trouble to engage with me. I think I was a pretty special kid, and I could have been involved and inspired in school, and I wasn’t.

But here’s the more important thing: All kids are special. All kids can be involved and inspired. The whole point of teaching is to try to give all students the opportunity to engage and develop to their greatest potential.

So what about students with special needs? Every student has unique needs—some just have needs that are relatively unusual. The variety of individual personalities, requirements, and perspectives makes the classroom a richer and potentially more rewarding environment for all. As for how I will incorporate students with unusual needs into my classroom, I hope I’ll do it in the same way I’ll incorporate all of my students—with an understanding and appreciation of the unique needs and gifts of every single individual human being.

I must confess that one of my greatest fears is that I will apply my own quiet prejudices to my students without realizing it. All I can do to address this danger is try to keep paying attention to my students, to the classroom environment, to the community, and above all to myself.

Free internet?

A recent class discussion prompted me to consider the notion of 'free' internet service, which leads directly to the question: what services should be provided by our government?

The idea of 'free' is really a misnomer here, in my opinion; speaking literally, absolutely nothing is 'free.' If you have a fire in your house, you call 911, and a group of highly trained and well-paid professionals, with vehicles and equipment valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, comes rushing immediately to help. All of this is, for you in an immediate sense, free. Only not really. Actually, you are paying for that service in your property taxes, or the property taxes paid by your landlord from your rent. Of course you're not paying for it by yourself--it's a group effort.

Our government is based on the idea of a commonwealth, which means that we cumulatively use our common wealth to pay for certain products and services that we all then have access to when we need them. If someone breaks into my house, I don't have to cut a check for the cop who comes to investigate because his salary is provided by the commonwealth. We all cooperatively pay for fire-fighters, law enforcement, our court system, roads, schools, ect. So the question is, should internet service be included in this list?

I'm not entirely convinced one way or another, but I do think there are some interesting arguments to be made. For instance, one of the reasons for providing (and requiring) universal public education is as a social 'leveling' tool--to allow those who are not born with much wealth or advantage the opportunity to acquire more of these things.

These days, one might argue convincingly that lacking access to the internet could impose a financial disadvantage nearly as great as lacking access to a decent education. The modern marketplace is always online; how can you expect to find a good job if you don't know how to use a computer?

So I think the argument being made for 'free' (that is, sponsored by our tax dollars) internet is that it might provide more people with more equal access to the opportunities that abound in our nation. That strikes me as a good idea.

The only remaining question, then, is whether the benefits would outweigh the costs. How much this would cost, I do not know.

Strong convictions

My Einstein quotes are beginning to repeat themselves with disappointing regularity, so I added several other general quote gadgets to my google desktop thingy. And was it ever worth it! Some funny ones, some kind of silly ones, and then this: "Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies." -Nietzsche strikes again! I have very, very strong feelings about what I've always called Belief. I honestly think it can be seen as the most harmful of all human capacities.

Okay, apathy. But what's the foundation of apathy? The deep-seated belief, the conviction, that those other people aren't like us, that for all intents and purposes they aren't really people.

How about vengeance then? Or anger, or hate? These are all based on an ego-centric belief in one's own essential and exclusive rightness--that is, confidence in one's convictions, which amounts to self-righteousness.

Why is it that three-quarters of Americans say they oppose the current health care bill, when most of us actually like the components and ideas that make it up? I think it's because of a loud minority with few real productive ideas, but with lots of very strong convictions.

It seems to me that if we all cared more about the pursuit of real truth and justice than about defending our own convictions, the world, as they say, would be a better place.

And I really believe I'm right about that!

Standards

The biggest news in American education in at least the last few years is the current push toward nationwide standards in English and math. It's not happening through federal legislation, but is rather a voluntary and cooperative effort led by the governors and education chiefs of many states. Forty-eight are already on board; Texas and Alaska are the only exceptions.

Everyone, absolutely everyone, should be interested in the content of these new standards because they will be in effect for nearly every child in the country within a couple of years. The current draft is here: http://www.corestandards.org/Standards/K12/

How do you teach justice?

To this day, I don't know why I didn't fit in at school. I'm a fairly normal guy; I even excelled in some ways. But by the time I reached seventh grade, I was agonizingly aware that my "rep" (reputation) placed me at a very specific place in the rigid structure of the middle school social order. I wasn't at the bottom, but I was a long way from the top. Not that I wanted to be at the "top" of the pecking order; I would have preferred simply to do away with all the pecking.

So how do we do that? Is it even possible? Well, obviously it's none of the teacher's business how students treat each other outside the classroom. They have to work these things out among themselves. Kids will be kids. We can't legislate morality. What a bunch of bull!

We can, and we should, explicitly teach students not only to treat each other fairly and with respect, but also to interfere when they see others behaving inappropriately--in other words, to act as allies for those who are the targets of bullying or bigotry.

In her article "Acting for Justice," teacher Linda Christensen outlines a unit she developed for exactly this purpose. Her students read accounts of non-violent resistance from the civil rights movement and act out the part of the protesters. They analyze historic or literary situations by dividing the characters involved into four categories: ally (or intervener), victim (or target), witness (or bystander), and perpetrator. In this way, students learn to recognize consciously the roles, both active and passive, that they and their peers play in incidents of injustice.

Further, Christensen asks her students to write about their own experiences, sometimes with startling results.

I was astounded at how many students confessed to being perpetrators, victims, and witnesses, and how few acted as allies. One student offered that he was a "jackass" in middle school and regularly tormented other students. Many talked about making fun of younger, weaker students. Sometimes their abuse was physical. Few students had stories of acting as an ally. In our discussion, it was clear that students didn't feel good about their participation or their lack of intervention, but they didn't feel powerful enough to stop the racist, homophobic, or belittling behavior and comments.

By bringing these normally hidden power relationships into conscious light, and having students actively practice the role of ally, we can help them develop the compassion to treat each other well and the strength of character to intervene when they witness injustice in their everyday lives. Not only will this improve the lives of victims, it can make school a safer and happier place, and thus a better learning environment, for all students.

I encourage you to read Christensen's article. The link is:
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/15_02/Act152.shtml

the will to pay

I got a message from my dad this morning. Yesterday the people of Rhinelander, Wisconsin, passed a school referendum. Community leaders have been trying for years; previous ballot measures have been voted down; the version that finally passed is far smaller in scope and effect than earlier measures. Why?

Why did voters reject the measures presented in previous years? Why didn't they pass a more potent or far-reaching referendum this year? All together now: "MONEY"

Schools cost money; they are expensive to build and to maintain. Materials cost money; they are expensive to purchase and to replace, yet they must be replaced and updated periodically. Teachers cost money; modest though teacher salaries are, when you start to look at them in the dozens or hundreds or thousands, it really adds up. Education costs money, and the sad fact is that few communities possess the collective will to pay what it costs to give local children a good education.

A retired couple doesn't want to pay more taxes; they don't have kids in school. A bachelor doesn't want to pay more taxes; he feels he's already paying too much. A working family doesn't want to pay more taxes; they're struggling as it is.

But that retired couple will need health care and other services from this generation of school kids, and they will certainly want their providers to be well educated. That bachelor may have kids of his own some day, and he'll want them to have the best chance at success. That family hopes their kids will have a more comfortable life than they've had.

And of course, the key to all these long term needs and hopes is education, which requires adequate funding in the short term. If we want to be well cared for as we age, if we want our descendants to have a better life than we've had, if we want our society and our civilization to continue to improve, we need to muster the will to pay for education now.

"A significant factor"

A letter from the Michigan Education Association dated Dec. 7, 2009 describes the attitude of the MEA regarding Michigan's response to federal Race to the Top funding. The letter states:

"RTTT requires student growth data to be a 'significant' factor in assessing the performance of educators... Too often, this particular RTTT requirement gets translated into the notion that teacher success should be judged solely on test scores - MEA will steadfastly oppose efforts to characterize the RTTT student growth data requirements in this simplistic fashion."

So MEA wants to see legislation that actually reflects the language of RTTT with subtlety and balance, so that test scores really are just one of a number of factors taken into account in determining teacher pay. Sounds good to me; I actually wouldn't mind that, provided the 'other factors' are meaningful. My question is: what do you think the odds are of this ideal notion actually happening?

Imagine, law makers imbuing legislation with subtlety and balance to reflect the true spirit of the original intention, and bureaucrats implementing such laws reasonably and responsibly... Sounds wonderful, like a dream come true, like a fantasy. Just my opinion.

I recently installed Google Desktop so that I can actually find things on my own computer. One of the doodads (technically "gadgets," like the inspector) I added is a daily quote from my hero, Albert Einstein. The first few quotes have been nothing to rave about, but today's is an idea that I think is very important and severely under-appreciated:

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

I have conflicted feelings about the value we place on what we call patriotism because I'm not quite convinced patriotism isn't just a pretty word for nationalism. The politicians would have us believe they are completely different; patriotism is a genuine and noble impulse, not at all like the ignorant, destructive nationalism that those other countries feel... Sounds like propaganda to me.

For similar reasons, I also have very conflicted feelings about the micro-nationalism we so encourage among our students. Of course, again we don't call it that; it's "school spirit" or "home town pride." I must say, I don't feel any particular sense of pride over the town I grew up in, or for that matter the country where I was born. After all, it isn't as though being a citizen of the United States or of Rhinelander, Wisconsin, is some sort of accomplishment for me; I happened to be born to parents who lived there rather than Madrid or Benares. For that simple coincidence I feel fortunate and lucky, but not proud.

My concern over the encouragement of "school spirit" is that this kind of small scale nationalism (tribalism, selective apathy) may quietly serve as practice for the real thing. It prepares the mind for more serious business like killing people because someone tells you to, without confirming for yourself that they are truly dangerous to you or those you care about. In my view, the difference between the crazed fan in the stands screaming abuse at the opposing team and the brain-washed fanatic who picks up a rifle or straps on an explosive vest is not a difference of kind--only of degree.

testing, testing, one two

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/LA/0855-may08/LA0855Exchanging.pdf

I just read an article about a California school that was forced by NCLB to change its English curriculum. They had been using an authentic and holistic approach, including comprehensive assessments to determine exactly what each student needed. Now they are required to use a supposedly scientific but completely generalized curriculum imposed from the outside, involving tests whose purpose is to report on the school's "performance" rather than reveal the students' needs.

Interestingly, this change was not a universal catastrophe. Reading scores among English-fluent students jumped substantially in the first two years of implementation. But here's the catch: scores among English Learners were almost completely stagnant.

Furthermore, with their jobs on the line, teachers were forced to focus on the specific skills emphasized in the new assessments (ie, teach to the test), thus compromising the individualized instruction they used previously.

So the net result of this take-over was a dramatic increase in the existing performance gap between English-fluent students and English Learners. In other words, No Child Left Behind forced this school to take about a quarter of its students, and leave them behind.

what and when?

One of the (many) challenging questions we face in terms of technology in the classroom is, what to adopt and when. I might sink a load of money into a new development and discover the following year that it has been eclipsed by something cheaper and better. Obsolescence occurs so quickly, how do we decide what's really worth the investment?

overwhelming

I suspect (or at least hope) I'm not the only one who feels like, in the midst of massive and deep-rooted changes in curriculum requirements and testing regimens, trying to wrap my head around the prospect of also keeping up to date on the most productive implementation of technological innovations is quite intimidating. As an English teacher, I'm supposed to take kids who, in many cases, haven't developed the basic knowledge and competence they were supposed to in grade school and middle school, bring them up through several grade levels in terms of technical competence while simultaneously teaching them the more sophisticated skills of critical thinking and independent learning, continually maintain a working knowledge of current pedagogical research and apply it to my classroom practices, and while doing all this, keep abreast of the ever-faster evolution of educational technology, implementing it skillfully into my classroom practices.

Well, I guess that's what classes are for; I have really smart people who specialize in these various topics to guide me--thank goodness for professors.

Honestly, I never thought this day would come. Ah well--change is the only constant, after all.