Today's economy is, by no hidden secret, driven by the service industry. It started gaining traction in the 1970's and made significant strides in the 1990's once the manufacturing industry successfully packed up and left the country.
As a society we depend on services more and more in our daily lives. We pay for cable and internet service. Cell phone plans, bank "products" (i still don't know what those are), insurance, etc. We pay someone else to do something for us. We used to buy a lawnmower and cut grass every Saturday morning. Now you pay a HOA fee for someone to do it. Child care was a bartering system where parents took turns watching each others kids. Now, few let their kids get more than twenty feet away from them and pay a premium to a day care center to teach their one year old quadratic equations so they can "get ahead".
The idea behind service is "don't do it yourself, pay me to do it". From there competing services blossomed and you get where we are today. One drawback as a society from this is a service industry allows us to shift the blame. If our grass isn't cut, rather than do it ourselves, we call and complain that someone else didn't cut it. Instead of going for that evening walk after dinner, we pay for expensive gym memberships. When our waistlines bulge we still find a way to excuse ourselves from responsibility by either complaining that the machines are always taken or that I have no time to exercise, or the fitness classes are not offered when it fits my schedule.
Youth sports have taken to this as well. I have talked to parents who pay $150 for their three year old to play on a soccer team. My first question is "what can they teach your three year old about soccer that you can't teach them?" An afternoon with the child's friends in a backyard or park accomplishes the same thing. However, by paying, the parent is no longer liable for their child's perceived failure as a soccer player (lest we forget they're three year olds).
With our daily lives surrounded by paying for someone else to take care of it, it shines a perspective on the education field that is misguided and dangerous for kids and the future of the country.
When we count on someone else to do the work we get lazy as people and as parents. Too many times in the past two years education has been attacked by this attitude. When parents remind teachers that "we pay your salary" and "you work for me" it releases the parent from making sure their kid is educated. If a child comes out of school or even college with limited academic skills, from a non impoverished environment, my question is, how did the parent let that happen? By paying taxes and college tuition, that doesn't mean your job is done. Quite the contrary, if a parent does the work necessary to see that their child is properly educated, it might lessen that bill (no tutor fees, SAT Prep classes, possibly receive scholarship money,etc).
I have a twenty month old little girl and my wife and I know that her learning her ABC's and how to read and write are not the sole responsibility of her teachers just because we pay taxes. If my child is not ready for the world when she is done with her education, that is a failure on my part, not the education system. The education system is responsible for facilitating learning for each child. The great teacher can motivate and inspire but that is above and beyond what they are called to do. It is my job as a parent to motivate my child to learn and behave correctly. It is my job as a parent to know the curriculum . If I only know how my child is doing by looking at her report card every quarter, then I have failed as a parent to educate my child. Her teacher will teach skills, units, or subjects and then report on progress. The teacher wants the children to learn and will do a tireless job until that happens. However, if my child fails at learning the material, that is on me. A child cannot fail if the parent is devout in making sure their child knows the material. If a child goes out into the world not knowing their multiplication facts, that is the parent's fault. If a child cannot write a coherent sentence, the parent has failed the child.
Granted I will not expect my child to have to write like Hemmingway or be a math whiz, but if they cannot write an essay for their college admissions, or cannot do basic consumer math, I have set them up for failure as an adult.
Many reformers want to make education a private service based industry. Parents need to know that by paying for an education doesn't mean its someone else's job. It is a field that takes a collaboration of at least three people to achieve success (parent, teacher, child). In the service field, if something breaks or doesn't work, you call and someone fixes the broken product. Children are not broken products that you can reboot or recall. We cannot allow education to join the ranks of the service industry. If it does, we will just see kids as a commodity and mine their brains for that commodity and throw the rest away. I say as a parent, this is one job that is a do-it-yourself project!
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Imagine That!
Human brains are different from most other animals. Are you are now smarter for reading that last sentence? When comparing other animals, reptiles or amphibians brain structure, the differences are staggering. Not necessarily because of what exists but rather, what does not exist. Frogs have mainly just a brain stem. Their brains function on a survival only basis. A dog or cat brain is slightly larger allowing for functions of emotion.
It is no secret that a human brain and monkey brain are similar. When viewed from the hindbrain, both have almost identical form. Functions of survival, emotion and social interactions are characteristics of both species.
Human brains however, through evolution, became even more sophisticated.
One of the coolest and underrated ways our brains are more evolved deals with our imagination. As humans we can see things that are not there (picture a glass of water on a table in your house.... while you are reading this! I bet you can do it). If you are older and have lived in the same place for a while, I bet you can still see landscapes that have since disappeared to development.
What does this have anything to do with an educational blog? Plenty. First, in my experiences, I have found that all learning is sensory based. (I am disappointed that it has taken me thirty-one years before I learned this, but I was never mentally the first one to the party either!) However, in my pursuit to understand how students learn and how athletes think, I have found that when learning occurs through one of the senses, its sticks and develops meaning.
In the summer of 2005, I worked as an intern at IMG academies in Florida. The IMG academies house some of the best young athletes in their sport. The Nick Bolliteri tennis school is there along with the David Leadbetter Jr. Golf academy. The U.S. U-20 soccer team trains there as well.
While there I was exposed to seeing how the best athletes not only train physically, but also cognitively. Part of the players day always consisted of mental conditioning. This might consist of how to think positively, staying in the moment, and developing mental stamina.
One aspect that was hammered home hard with these players was imagery -especially with the golfers. When I got to sit down with one of the sport psychologists to discuss competitive psychology, I was blown away with his findings on imagery. He was telling me of a study he was conducting in conjunction with USC on imagery. He showed me print outs of experiments of when he would hook electrodes up to people to measure brain and muscle function. The people who were hooked up, were asked to imagine themselves running while they were in a sitting position. What the print outs showed was that many of his athletes leg muscles showed small amounts of twitching. The brain was firing the necessary muscles to do what it imagined!
As I continued my summer of work, I noticed how many teachers were instructing their students to see their shots (tennis, golf, basketball) until the ball stopped rolling, went in the hoop, or bounced on the other side of the net. They were teaching their students to "see". Their feedback was determined by what they saw and not what the coach said. These coaches were teaching them not only techniques on how to picture themselves succeeding, but also allowing the players to gain feedback from their senses. By teaching one how to use their senses, they were able to improve the training of a highly skilled athlete.
Lots of kinesthetic methods are used, but is there is more than just touch? Is there a way we can teach kids how to use all of their senses to learn?
It is no secret that a human brain and monkey brain are similar. When viewed from the hindbrain, both have almost identical form. Functions of survival, emotion and social interactions are characteristics of both species.
Human brains however, through evolution, became even more sophisticated.
One of the coolest and underrated ways our brains are more evolved deals with our imagination. As humans we can see things that are not there (picture a glass of water on a table in your house.... while you are reading this! I bet you can do it). If you are older and have lived in the same place for a while, I bet you can still see landscapes that have since disappeared to development.
What does this have anything to do with an educational blog? Plenty. First, in my experiences, I have found that all learning is sensory based. (I am disappointed that it has taken me thirty-one years before I learned this, but I was never mentally the first one to the party either!) However, in my pursuit to understand how students learn and how athletes think, I have found that when learning occurs through one of the senses, its sticks and develops meaning.
In the summer of 2005, I worked as an intern at IMG academies in Florida. The IMG academies house some of the best young athletes in their sport. The Nick Bolliteri tennis school is there along with the David Leadbetter Jr. Golf academy. The U.S. U-20 soccer team trains there as well.
While there I was exposed to seeing how the best athletes not only train physically, but also cognitively. Part of the players day always consisted of mental conditioning. This might consist of how to think positively, staying in the moment, and developing mental stamina.
One aspect that was hammered home hard with these players was imagery -especially with the golfers. When I got to sit down with one of the sport psychologists to discuss competitive psychology, I was blown away with his findings on imagery. He was telling me of a study he was conducting in conjunction with USC on imagery. He showed me print outs of experiments of when he would hook electrodes up to people to measure brain and muscle function. The people who were hooked up, were asked to imagine themselves running while they were in a sitting position. What the print outs showed was that many of his athletes leg muscles showed small amounts of twitching. The brain was firing the necessary muscles to do what it imagined!
As I continued my summer of work, I noticed how many teachers were instructing their students to see their shots (tennis, golf, basketball) until the ball stopped rolling, went in the hoop, or bounced on the other side of the net. They were teaching their students to "see". Their feedback was determined by what they saw and not what the coach said. These coaches were teaching them not only techniques on how to picture themselves succeeding, but also allowing the players to gain feedback from their senses. By teaching one how to use their senses, they were able to improve the training of a highly skilled athlete.
Lots of kinesthetic methods are used, but is there is more than just touch? Is there a way we can teach kids how to use all of their senses to learn?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Can you lead the way to achievement?
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/01/three-ways-to-help-people-get-things-done.html
Here is an article from a blog by Seth Godin. In it he refers to three different management styles that are commonly used to get people to achieve. You can read the article in its entirety but I also would like to interject some personal experience as well.
In Method 1 he refers to the old school sports coaching model. The days when yelling and screaming were seen as the effective ways to motive a person to succeed. A great point that Godin brings up with this model is, that perhaps while a player is on a team with a coach who applies a Bob Knight or Vince Lombardi-like model, he might achieve but only in the short term. When a player no longer is playing, there has been no foundation set for that player to achieve after the season is over. Players are more likely to be motivated by fear which allows them do learn "just enough" not to get yelled at. So much more learning and understanding is left on the table.
In Method 2, the idea is to create competition amongst the group. I don't have a huge problem with this but I can see where this is not always the best way. Where I have a problem with this model is when it becomes result based only. Learning is a process and sometimes competition incidentally rewards shortcuts, i.e. cheating.
Like the article also says, if a manager has one promotion to give between six people, five people will lose. One might say this is survival of the fittest. But what if there is not much difference that separates the first place winner and the second place winner? Do we really need to label one as a winner and one as a loser. Don't get me wrong, I am not an "everybody gets a trophy" person. If competition is done correctly it will have short term and long term incentives. This not only allows a person to improve and move up, but it also establishes personal measuring sticks for each one to be evaluated over the course of time.
Method 3 would seem like the model we all would want to strive for as a leader. To facilitate achievement and then let each one work it out for themselves at their own pace. The teacher sets the expectation but then steps back while the student works towards achieving.
From my experiences with participating in sports and coaching, I have seen all three models. Sports in many ways mirrors life. The competition can be fierce and many times yesterdays success is forgotten today. Coaches sometimes see players as pieces to be used to inflate their hopeful "hall of fame" careers.
The best leaders (coaches, teachers, supervisors) I have had in my life found a balance between methods two and three. My best teachers followed method three perfectly. Guidelines were set as to when comprehension needed to be achieved. How you solved that problem was up to you. There was no absolute wrong answer as long as you could give an adequate response to how you came to your conclusions. During this process the teacher was readily available to provide any support and guidance.
The best coaches I ever had were few and far between. The good ones, my 7th grade basketball coach, and my high school varsity basketball coach, each got involved in the process of achieving. I remember one coach saying to us all the time "If you get involved with the process of winning, the results will take care of themselves".
When competition was applied to any situation, it was designed in a way to see how well each one has grasped concepts.
The worst coaches I had, 9th grade JV basketball, 11th grade varsity basketball, college golf, applied methods one and two religiously and probably to this day have never heard of method three. Here are some sayings from these bad coaches
- "some of you won't get to play much this year because you have to pay your dues"
- "I'm not going to be positive with you guys until you give me something to be positive about"
- " You guys are awful. This is one of the worst teams I have ever coached" (his face was beet red and screaming)
While I was on those teams with those coaches, we never had winning record coincidentally. That made me a firm believer in method three. If we were going to lose each game, at least teach how to play. We might win a game or two more if we know why we suck, rather than just telling us we suck! One common trait of these teams: every player was utterly confused for the entire season as to what to do next. We were all on edge of hoping not to be the next one to make a mistake and get chewed out. Try learning when you are scared. Its hard to do.
Sports are sometimes a different animal than the classroom or office simply because the timeline for achievement is much shorter. But I think regardless, method one and method two teachers, coaches or employers need to look at a bigger picture. The teacher who berates the kid will grow up and possibly have kids who hate school because the parent shares their negative experience. The athlete who played sports no longer plays and loses an outlet for enjoyment as an adult. The employer who yells and pits employees against each other could lose his/her best employees out to a competitor.
Leading is not easy. Trying to get everyone to achieve is difficult. But if you can create an environment where people believe they are going to achieve, they will push themselves as far as they can go. This is what I want for myself as a teacher and a high school coach.
Here is an article from a blog by Seth Godin. In it he refers to three different management styles that are commonly used to get people to achieve. You can read the article in its entirety but I also would like to interject some personal experience as well.
In Method 1 he refers to the old school sports coaching model. The days when yelling and screaming were seen as the effective ways to motive a person to succeed. A great point that Godin brings up with this model is, that perhaps while a player is on a team with a coach who applies a Bob Knight or Vince Lombardi-like model, he might achieve but only in the short term. When a player no longer is playing, there has been no foundation set for that player to achieve after the season is over. Players are more likely to be motivated by fear which allows them do learn "just enough" not to get yelled at. So much more learning and understanding is left on the table.
In Method 2, the idea is to create competition amongst the group. I don't have a huge problem with this but I can see where this is not always the best way. Where I have a problem with this model is when it becomes result based only. Learning is a process and sometimes competition incidentally rewards shortcuts, i.e. cheating.
Like the article also says, if a manager has one promotion to give between six people, five people will lose. One might say this is survival of the fittest. But what if there is not much difference that separates the first place winner and the second place winner? Do we really need to label one as a winner and one as a loser. Don't get me wrong, I am not an "everybody gets a trophy" person. If competition is done correctly it will have short term and long term incentives. This not only allows a person to improve and move up, but it also establishes personal measuring sticks for each one to be evaluated over the course of time.
Method 3 would seem like the model we all would want to strive for as a leader. To facilitate achievement and then let each one work it out for themselves at their own pace. The teacher sets the expectation but then steps back while the student works towards achieving.
From my experiences with participating in sports and coaching, I have seen all three models. Sports in many ways mirrors life. The competition can be fierce and many times yesterdays success is forgotten today. Coaches sometimes see players as pieces to be used to inflate their hopeful "hall of fame" careers.
The best leaders (coaches, teachers, supervisors) I have had in my life found a balance between methods two and three. My best teachers followed method three perfectly. Guidelines were set as to when comprehension needed to be achieved. How you solved that problem was up to you. There was no absolute wrong answer as long as you could give an adequate response to how you came to your conclusions. During this process the teacher was readily available to provide any support and guidance.
The best coaches I ever had were few and far between. The good ones, my 7th grade basketball coach, and my high school varsity basketball coach, each got involved in the process of achieving. I remember one coach saying to us all the time "If you get involved with the process of winning, the results will take care of themselves".
When competition was applied to any situation, it was designed in a way to see how well each one has grasped concepts.
The worst coaches I had, 9th grade JV basketball, 11th grade varsity basketball, college golf, applied methods one and two religiously and probably to this day have never heard of method three. Here are some sayings from these bad coaches
- "some of you won't get to play much this year because you have to pay your dues"
- "I'm not going to be positive with you guys until you give me something to be positive about"
- " You guys are awful. This is one of the worst teams I have ever coached" (his face was beet red and screaming)
While I was on those teams with those coaches, we never had winning record coincidentally. That made me a firm believer in method three. If we were going to lose each game, at least teach how to play. We might win a game or two more if we know why we suck, rather than just telling us we suck! One common trait of these teams: every player was utterly confused for the entire season as to what to do next. We were all on edge of hoping not to be the next one to make a mistake and get chewed out. Try learning when you are scared. Its hard to do.
Sports are sometimes a different animal than the classroom or office simply because the timeline for achievement is much shorter. But I think regardless, method one and method two teachers, coaches or employers need to look at a bigger picture. The teacher who berates the kid will grow up and possibly have kids who hate school because the parent shares their negative experience. The athlete who played sports no longer plays and loses an outlet for enjoyment as an adult. The employer who yells and pits employees against each other could lose his/her best employees out to a competitor.
Leading is not easy. Trying to get everyone to achieve is difficult. But if you can create an environment where people believe they are going to achieve, they will push themselves as far as they can go. This is what I want for myself as a teacher and a high school coach.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
A man before his time
Click on the link to visit an interview with Issac Asimov. He was a writer and publisher of science fiction and history, among other genres. As well as being an author, he was a professor and an academic. In this interview from 1988 he shares what his vision of education for the future could be. What is truly amazing is that his vision for the future twenty three years ago is becoming a reality. His perspective on life after one's school career is complete is spot on. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJAIERgWhZQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJAIERgWhZQ
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Are we as bad as we are told?
Check out this link to an article that explains why American schools, no matter how much a politician will try to convince you otherwise, are still pretty good.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2011/tc20110112_006501.htm
We seem to have this need to want to be like China, Japan, Thailand when it comes to math scores and academic "progress." What is always left out of the discussion is the difference of culture. Asian countries are mostly hierarchical societies where moving up the social ladder is mostly unheard of. A poor family will stay poor and a wealthy family will remain wealthy. A lower or middle class student who performs well in school will most likely continue their station in that society. A "B" student in America will have more opportunities available simply because of the social structure here.
As pointed out in the article, the countries we compete against only report test results of a small population within their country and do not take into consideration all scores from across all socioeconomic backgrounds. We count the lowest of the low and highest of the high.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2011/tc20110112_006501.htm
We seem to have this need to want to be like China, Japan, Thailand when it comes to math scores and academic "progress." What is always left out of the discussion is the difference of culture. Asian countries are mostly hierarchical societies where moving up the social ladder is mostly unheard of. A poor family will stay poor and a wealthy family will remain wealthy. A lower or middle class student who performs well in school will most likely continue their station in that society. A "B" student in America will have more opportunities available simply because of the social structure here.
As pointed out in the article, the countries we compete against only report test results of a small population within their country and do not take into consideration all scores from across all socioeconomic backgrounds. We count the lowest of the low and highest of the high.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Are you plugged in or logged off?
Technology is something for the younger generation, right? With Xbox, Wii, iphones, social networking, smart cars, and the millions of other gadgets have some crowds feeling disconnected, out of touch and at times frustrated by the sense that life has changed faster than they can keep up. Frustration leads to cop outs such as "all this technology has ruined our society. Kids are lazy and they don't know how to interact with others because everything is digital and done for them."
Technology was destined to make all of us "lazy" in a way. That's why we invented it, to ease the stress and burden of everyday life and to enhance our living experiences. But before we scold people for being interested in gadgets and gizmo's, make sure everyone looks at technology in their daily lives. You might find so much technology you never considered because of the routine and ubiquitous nature of it.
For as long as there have been people, there has been technology. It is not a new concept. So when I read about a teacher posing a challenge to their students to go one week without technology, I was excited to hear about their experiences! Many of them equated it as to living an alien existence. A few quit before the week was up. Not having access to their iphone was just too much to bear!
My thought is, can you blame them? Has technology made us lazy? Perhaps -i no longer need to know how to spell anything anymore, thanks spell checker. Has technology increased our sedentary lifestyle which increases our overall health risks. Sure -but don't tell me that the mills, factories and coal mines of early 20th century industrialism provided a healthier work environment than sitting in a cubical staring at a screen.
I won't defend being lazy and unhealthy. I will however say there is hardly anything in our daily lives that isn't touched by technology. For the critics of technology, see if you can eliminate these three staples from your day.
1. Eliminate electricity. By doing so you now no longer can use:
TV, radio, dvd,blueray, stove, dishwasher, washer and dryer, hair dryer, curling iron, blender, mixer, ipod, camera, video camera, refrigerator, freezer, thermostat, hot water, lamps, lights, ceiling fans, toaster, waffle iron, panini press, vacuum, computer, alarm clock, microwave or anything else that runs on an alternating current. In your new world of no electricity, the term "plugged in" does not exist.
2. Eliminate the automobile. Hey at least this will save you gas and you will be doing your part to cut down on sprawl -if you live walking distance to work! If not, you might want to invest in a horse.
3. Eliminate the telephone. The original social networking device.
You might be able to do it for a day and might even find it to be a peaceful, but I would guess a day or two would be all you can do. There is no need to go backwards. There is technology for everyone. We don't have to embrace all of it. But to categorize it as wasted money, for kids, or detrimental to our health, is seeing the glass as half empty. Technology has also saved us money, provided adults to reconnect with childhood friends, and has saved lives.
Technology has been around forever, it will be around as long as there are people. As long as we continue to have imaginations we will have new creations. The cool thing is, if you have an idea for something - a project for work, a way to watch TV more clearly, finding a way to deliver a presentation- thanks to technology, there's an app for that!
Technology was destined to make all of us "lazy" in a way. That's why we invented it, to ease the stress and burden of everyday life and to enhance our living experiences. But before we scold people for being interested in gadgets and gizmo's, make sure everyone looks at technology in their daily lives. You might find so much technology you never considered because of the routine and ubiquitous nature of it.
For as long as there have been people, there has been technology. It is not a new concept. So when I read about a teacher posing a challenge to their students to go one week without technology, I was excited to hear about their experiences! Many of them equated it as to living an alien existence. A few quit before the week was up. Not having access to their iphone was just too much to bear!
My thought is, can you blame them? Has technology made us lazy? Perhaps -i no longer need to know how to spell anything anymore, thanks spell checker. Has technology increased our sedentary lifestyle which increases our overall health risks. Sure -but don't tell me that the mills, factories and coal mines of early 20th century industrialism provided a healthier work environment than sitting in a cubical staring at a screen.
I won't defend being lazy and unhealthy. I will however say there is hardly anything in our daily lives that isn't touched by technology. For the critics of technology, see if you can eliminate these three staples from your day.
1. Eliminate electricity. By doing so you now no longer can use:
TV, radio, dvd,blueray, stove, dishwasher, washer and dryer, hair dryer, curling iron, blender, mixer, ipod, camera, video camera, refrigerator, freezer, thermostat, hot water, lamps, lights, ceiling fans, toaster, waffle iron, panini press, vacuum, computer, alarm clock, microwave or anything else that runs on an alternating current. In your new world of no electricity, the term "plugged in" does not exist.
2. Eliminate the automobile. Hey at least this will save you gas and you will be doing your part to cut down on sprawl -if you live walking distance to work! If not, you might want to invest in a horse.
3. Eliminate the telephone. The original social networking device.
You might be able to do it for a day and might even find it to be a peaceful, but I would guess a day or two would be all you can do. There is no need to go backwards. There is technology for everyone. We don't have to embrace all of it. But to categorize it as wasted money, for kids, or detrimental to our health, is seeing the glass as half empty. Technology has also saved us money, provided adults to reconnect with childhood friends, and has saved lives.
Technology has been around forever, it will be around as long as there are people. As long as we continue to have imaginations we will have new creations. The cool thing is, if you have an idea for something - a project for work, a way to watch TV more clearly, finding a way to deliver a presentation- thanks to technology, there's an app for that!
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Politics, Religion, and .....Education????
The old rule while in a social setting is to avoid the topic of politics, religion and sex. The first two were, are, and always will be gunpowder looking for the spark of someone who has had too much wine. The last one would seem inappropriate as well.
However, with the cultural revolution that this country has endured over the past forty or so years, it would seem not much is left in the ways of imagination when it comes to sexual content. So much so that the taboo has lost much of its virtue.
But nature abhors a vacuum right? What will fill the void and become the next topic that will kill the mood at a dinner party? My guess is education.
You don't really have to be at a high class social function to find this out. Play a round of golf. Go fishing or hunting. Meet some friends for lunch. All the while, bring up the topic of education at some point and you are guaranteed to solicit thoughts and feelings one way or another about it. It gets even better when there is a generational gap amongst those involved!
Everyone generally agrees that education is valuable and should be taken seriously. But this is where the road then tends to fork. I am inclined to think, much like politics and religion, that people just don't know all the ins and outs of how the educational system works. It is because of this that people have the strongest opinions. If we all knew how things worked, then we can state everything as fact and move on to play corn hole in the back yard.
The evolving nature of education has provided just about every generation alive today with different educational experiences. From disciplinary measures, interscholastic athletics, to rigorous testing. Grandparents can't relate to their grandkids in these terms, and many parents are too busy trying to make sure their kid is doing the best they can, that they don't always take the time to reflect on their experiences as a student which could provide valuable insight and perspective for their child. When a child hears their successful parent talk about mistakes they made as kids, it can remove a lot of pressure we all felt as teenagers to be perfect.
One area that is always a stick of dynamite looking for a match, is the cost of public education. When the times were good (see economic progress) I heard many parents and community members express their view that teachers should be paid more. Those were definitely the "good ol days." Talk to people today and ask if teachers are paid enough. Those sentiments are gone with the wind. Read messageboards or online forums and an overwhelming majority will not only say that they are paid enough, but rather they are paid too much. Many comments are also made by taxpayers who don't want higher taxes to pay teachers. Fair argument to a point.
One last observation is that we don't really concern ourselves with other people's education as much as our own. Former college professor now author Ken Robinson, observed that when asked, people will talk days on end about their education. They are very interested in telling you what they know.
Education has become a divisive, economic and philosophic issue in which debaters will argue passionately in ways which they will strive to demonstrate their academic prowess in the process.
Regardless how you feel about it, try bringing up education amongst friends or at a social gathering and see how long the conversation goes for. It is a ship sinking iceberg and needs to be regarded as taboo to talk about. And if someone does bring it up, the next three rounds should be on him, because your night is about to be ruined!
However, with the cultural revolution that this country has endured over the past forty or so years, it would seem not much is left in the ways of imagination when it comes to sexual content. So much so that the taboo has lost much of its virtue.
But nature abhors a vacuum right? What will fill the void and become the next topic that will kill the mood at a dinner party? My guess is education.
You don't really have to be at a high class social function to find this out. Play a round of golf. Go fishing or hunting. Meet some friends for lunch. All the while, bring up the topic of education at some point and you are guaranteed to solicit thoughts and feelings one way or another about it. It gets even better when there is a generational gap amongst those involved!
Everyone generally agrees that education is valuable and should be taken seriously. But this is where the road then tends to fork. I am inclined to think, much like politics and religion, that people just don't know all the ins and outs of how the educational system works. It is because of this that people have the strongest opinions. If we all knew how things worked, then we can state everything as fact and move on to play corn hole in the back yard.
The evolving nature of education has provided just about every generation alive today with different educational experiences. From disciplinary measures, interscholastic athletics, to rigorous testing. Grandparents can't relate to their grandkids in these terms, and many parents are too busy trying to make sure their kid is doing the best they can, that they don't always take the time to reflect on their experiences as a student which could provide valuable insight and perspective for their child. When a child hears their successful parent talk about mistakes they made as kids, it can remove a lot of pressure we all felt as teenagers to be perfect.
One area that is always a stick of dynamite looking for a match, is the cost of public education. When the times were good (see economic progress) I heard many parents and community members express their view that teachers should be paid more. Those were definitely the "good ol days." Talk to people today and ask if teachers are paid enough. Those sentiments are gone with the wind. Read messageboards or online forums and an overwhelming majority will not only say that they are paid enough, but rather they are paid too much. Many comments are also made by taxpayers who don't want higher taxes to pay teachers. Fair argument to a point.
One last observation is that we don't really concern ourselves with other people's education as much as our own. Former college professor now author Ken Robinson, observed that when asked, people will talk days on end about their education. They are very interested in telling you what they know.
Education has become a divisive, economic and philosophic issue in which debaters will argue passionately in ways which they will strive to demonstrate their academic prowess in the process.
Regardless how you feel about it, try bringing up education amongst friends or at a social gathering and see how long the conversation goes for. It is a ship sinking iceberg and needs to be regarded as taboo to talk about. And if someone does bring it up, the next three rounds should be on him, because your night is about to be ruined!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)