Ever since the Penn State trial ended, I tried to wrap my head around how this could happen. I kept a keen ear out for the news and read every article pertaining to the scandal in hopes of understanding what Sandusky was thinking, what the coaches and administrators motives for not reporting, and why the cover up. While I believe I have enough info to answer those questions, (based solely on news that was reported. I am sure much more info has been kept under wraps) I still feel uneasy and can't seem to allow today's punishment handed down by the NCAA to provide me with closure for those feelings. What I have concluded about myself is that in some small way, I, along with millions of others, are slightly responsible for this scandal.
Let me explain.
I love sports. I have loved it since the very first time when I was five years old and picked up a baseball bat. From the first time I shot an airball. From the first time I played backyard football. I was over competitive, played as hard as I could and took it way to hard if I lost. Sports was a referendum of who I was as a person. It was much more than just a game in my mind.
It is easy to assume that any sports team I followed, I had the same insane and unhealthy vigor for. I love college athletics. I worshipped them since as early as I can remember. I can remember the best ever Duke-UNC basketball games in the 80's or just about any ACC game or player from the 80's for that matter. My two favorite football teams as a kid were Virginia Tech (still fav) and University of Florida. I can still remember the Steve Spurrier era of the "Fun and Gun" offense. My sole purpose in life as a kid was Saturday afternoon, especially when it came to these two teams. My whole week revolved around Saturday. Any game of significance commanded my full concentration. Naturally as a kid I would engage anyone in an argument as to who was the best team and all that other nonsense that as I look back on now, had no bearing on anything. All it did was make us look like a bunch of jackasses to our teachers who knew we had no clue as to how irrelevant we sounded.
I never owned jerseys or much apparel of my teams. Maybe a hat or a t shirt. But my loyalty to my teams was so deep, I would have run through hell with them if need be. When I see the PSU students guard the statue or defend Paterno, I don't judge them, because I know they know not what they are doing. I will bet in ten years those students who defended him will have a different take. I am sure when they are in their 30's with children they will regret what they did, hopefully understand why they did it, and swear to never hold anyone in such high regards again.
I look back now and feel ashamed that while I bear no responsibility for any of the actions of Penn State I share responsibility along with millions of others for feeding into the frenzy of college athletics over the past twenty years. I share responsibility by allowing wins and loses of teams for which I have no control over to define who I was. Because of this irrational assessment of self worth I can see why others would have done their best to deny themselves the reality that their schools, coaches, and administration can let them down. A winning program will stay that way to keep the money coming in. A fan of a winning program will stay that way to keep his self image in tact.
Shame on me. Thank goodness time has provided me with perspective but now I realize that not only does Penn State have to rebuild, so do I.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Mixed Signals
Mixed messages. Say one thing, do another. Its gets confusing.
As elementary physical education teachers, my teaching partner and I also mix in a lot of teachings about good healthy habits and proper nutrition. My teaching partner, who does a great job researching information on what really goes into our foods, is a staunch advocate of teaching kids how to make healthy decisions even when most of the time that flies in the face of popular opinion.
At school mixed messages are given quite often which sometimes when I hear them I wonder how the kids keep up with it all. Even more challenging is when a message in school is directly in conflict with social norms outside of school.
A few examples that we have noticed in our school:
1. When it comes to healthy choices, the government dictates what types of foods fit the food pyramid or the most recent initative, My Plate, yet then does not provide school cafeterias with food that falls under the nutritional values that it touts. When the government claims that pizza is a vegetable I want to do a hand smack to the face.
2. Candy for prizes or rewards. Yet again, goes against the nutritional info spouted by just about anybody.
3. Kids need to exercise/play for at least an hour a day. Every adult in the world will agree with this yet in school recess is being reduced and the older the child gets the more structured their day becomes with less emphasis on exercise and more on academics.
4. Outside corporate ploys to get parents to buy unhealthy foods so the school can reap less than 5% of the total revenue which usually adds up to nothing more than enough money to buy new toner for a printer!
Box Top for Kids comes to mind for this. Not only that but then the parent who is head of this fundraiser committee at the school bribes kids to make unhealthy food choices with an ice cream party to the class who can raise the most money.
5. What about the idea of competition? In school we want to reduce the amount of competition. As a P.E. teacher I have found that providing a program that allows all to succeed and work at their own speed has become a successful teaching plan. Sometimes, however I wonder if we are setting them up for failure. Not too many places outside of school operate on the "get it when you get it" model. Its very competitive outside of school. I don't advocate for win at all costs nor ranking students but can we at least let kids know that school is the only place where people have to consider other's self esteem. The job I worked before I became a teacher demonstrated this very point. Also I have a friend in finance who told me stories about how early in his career his boss was always yelling and demeaning workers when they screwed up.
Along with the mixed messages in school kids also receive many contradictions between what they are taught in school and what their parents tell them. Homework comes to mind as the leading issue.
There is no utopia and nothing ever is perfect but the transition from the school world to the working world might be a bit smoother with more consistency.
My views are from the lens of a Health and P.E. teacher. If you have any mixed message experiences from another area please leave a comment.
As elementary physical education teachers, my teaching partner and I also mix in a lot of teachings about good healthy habits and proper nutrition. My teaching partner, who does a great job researching information on what really goes into our foods, is a staunch advocate of teaching kids how to make healthy decisions even when most of the time that flies in the face of popular opinion.
At school mixed messages are given quite often which sometimes when I hear them I wonder how the kids keep up with it all. Even more challenging is when a message in school is directly in conflict with social norms outside of school.
A few examples that we have noticed in our school:
1. When it comes to healthy choices, the government dictates what types of foods fit the food pyramid or the most recent initative, My Plate, yet then does not provide school cafeterias with food that falls under the nutritional values that it touts. When the government claims that pizza is a vegetable I want to do a hand smack to the face.
2. Candy for prizes or rewards. Yet again, goes against the nutritional info spouted by just about anybody.
3. Kids need to exercise/play for at least an hour a day. Every adult in the world will agree with this yet in school recess is being reduced and the older the child gets the more structured their day becomes with less emphasis on exercise and more on academics.
4. Outside corporate ploys to get parents to buy unhealthy foods so the school can reap less than 5% of the total revenue which usually adds up to nothing more than enough money to buy new toner for a printer!
Box Top for Kids comes to mind for this. Not only that but then the parent who is head of this fundraiser committee at the school bribes kids to make unhealthy food choices with an ice cream party to the class who can raise the most money.
5. What about the idea of competition? In school we want to reduce the amount of competition. As a P.E. teacher I have found that providing a program that allows all to succeed and work at their own speed has become a successful teaching plan. Sometimes, however I wonder if we are setting them up for failure. Not too many places outside of school operate on the "get it when you get it" model. Its very competitive outside of school. I don't advocate for win at all costs nor ranking students but can we at least let kids know that school is the only place where people have to consider other's self esteem. The job I worked before I became a teacher demonstrated this very point. Also I have a friend in finance who told me stories about how early in his career his boss was always yelling and demeaning workers when they screwed up.
Along with the mixed messages in school kids also receive many contradictions between what they are taught in school and what their parents tell them. Homework comes to mind as the leading issue.
There is no utopia and nothing ever is perfect but the transition from the school world to the working world might be a bit smoother with more consistency.
My views are from the lens of a Health and P.E. teacher. If you have any mixed message experiences from another area please leave a comment.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Better late than never!
Many times when anyone is referenced to as an early or late bloomer it is usually in the context of physical development or when first noticing the opposite sex! Not to often is it conceptualized that someone can be an early or late bloomer cognitively. This doesn’t mean that a late bloomer’s brain isn’t fully developed by a certain age but more so of how a person views a goal and how quantify that goal being achieved.
Who are the early bloomers in school? The ones who when the teacher asks the class to create or write something, that student seems to put pen to paper or brush to canvas rather quickly. They have a vision and know how to turn that vision into a nice project or eloquent writing sample in a relatively quick period of time (or at least within the timeline of the assignment).
I would think many teachers run into students who have ideas but are not sure how to make them work right away. It takes many trial and errors before a direction is determined. This can take longer than the assignment period, which can make completing work by a deadline difficult (might even water down creation to fit the time allotted).
When people succeed early in either their childhood or early adult life the prodigy or genius label is used. When really what needs to be considered is how creativity flourishes inside all of us.
A University of Chicago economist named David Galenson decided that creativity can be split into two groupings: conceptual and experimental.
This would help explain to early bloomer student model. They can conceptualize what they want, which helps them figure out how they want to perfect it. A late bloomer is most likely an experimental type. They will start out in one direction and finish in a completely different place. Their goals are not always focused and there are many stop and starting over periods. Not only does this take much more time but it also gives the appearance of failure. Galenson notes in his book “Old Masters and Young Geniuses” about late bloomers: “The imprecision of their goals means that they rarely feel they have succeeded and their career pursuits are often dominated by the pursuit by one single objective… They consider the production a process of searching, in which they aim to discover the image in the course of making it; they typically believe that learning is a more important goal than the finished product.”
Being a late bloomer doesn’t mean being a late starter. Many people who are better later in their careers most likely have been at their craft for quite a while. There are many people who fit this category but one immediate actor comes to my mind. That actor is George Clloney. (Clooney did make it big on TV at age thirty three with his role on ER but it wasn’t until seven years later when he was 40 that he got his major breakthrough roles on the big screen. In 2000 and 2001 he had back to back to back hits with The Perfect Storm, O Brother, Where Art Thou? And Oceans Eleven. He became an A-list actor who commands more money now than when he was younger. )
Some historical examples of early bloomers:
-Mozart wrote his masterpiece Piano Concerto No. 9 at twenty-one,
-Herman Melville wrote Citizen Kane at 25, Moby Dick at 31,
-Picasso painted Evocation: The Burial of Casagemas at 20.
Some historical examples of late bloomers:
-Alfred Hitchcock directed Dial M for Murder, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, The Trouble with Harry, Vertigo, North by Northwest and Psycho between ages fifty four and sixty-one.
-Mark Twain published Adventures of Huckleberry Finn at forty-nine
-Daniel Defoe wrote Robinson Crusoe at fifty-eight.
Why this resonates with me is because I know that I am a late bloomer. Although I do not begin to imagine I am on the same level as any of the great achievers I have referenced in the piece, I do feel though that as time has passed I can agree with the objective of “searching” for an undetermined answer rather than “finding” a finished product.
For kids, school is the most important and all encompassing aspect of their lives. They operate on a carefully researched, evidence-based schedule which seems to be at times a one size fits all model. Development doesn’t happen on a socially engineered timetable.
I tell my wife many times when I am either reading something or learning about something new, that I don’t have expectations to grasp the concept immediately. Rather I prefer to read it, take it in and “let it swirl around a bit” (my own words). I know that testing is rigorous, and on a timetable. My hope is that for the late bloomers, the ones who are searching for understanding, that teachers can encourage and support those minds.
For the early bloomers who “get it”, my hope is that their teachers can help keep their shinning star from burning out too early; that they will know that while graduating from college is a noble goal, its not the finished product.
Reference:
Gladwell, Malcolm, “What the dog Saw: and other adventures” pgs. 295-305. 2009
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
A few good men
A question was asked to me and other male teachers on twitter this morning of why are there so few male teachers in elementary school. I think many male teachers all have their opinions of why but I am sure a repeating theme would deal with low pay, low status, or appearing weak. Teachers are already dogged by the dumb "those who can, do, those who can't, teach" saying (worse yet, "those who can't teach, teach gym") and anything that appears inferior might not be the career choice a male is looking for.
Before I was a teacher, I worked as a retail manager of a small business. (I was a year or two removed from college and wasn't sure if I wanted to be a teacher. I had been swayed by all these ideas put in my head that we were all going to start off making a million dollars and live the lifestyle that we took for granted from which our parents provided for us. We were going to drive Beamers, live the country club life and vacation all over the world. That was waiting for us. The only catch -you can't be a teacher and do that. So all my housemates and other friends all went into the business administration field. Some concentrated in Finance, others Economics, whatever. I chose Physical Education.) One thing I learned from that experience was whether five or fifty, if you tell a customer "no" they will throw a fit. Most of my customers were men. This witness their behavior was so confusing to me. The grown ups who made hurtful comments to me when I wasn't able to give them a product that they seem they should get for a huge discount was mind blowing to me. I thought adults were supposed to be more mature than that!
I left that job to become a teacher because I figured if I work with five and six year olds and they throw a fit, I can chalk it up to one reason that makes perfect sense: they are five and six years old.
The three most popular reasons men don't go into elementary education according to Corrine Hess are:
1. Low social status
2. Low pay
3. Appearing Weak
Low Social Status
Social status is one of those tricky areas. Working in an elementary school, I love that young kids are in love with the idea of growing up to be a policeman, firefighter, nurse, teacher, etc. Their reason for wanting to do so is because they want to help others. My question is, where in the course between the age of five and twenty do they stop wanting to do jobs that help others and why does that change? How is that decision influenced? Social status wouldn't be important in choosing a career if it wasn't made to be so important in this country; the land of "if some is good, more is better."
I really struggle with those who view teachers as second class citizens. Not to be morbid, but in the history of the world, there are only but a handful of people who were so unique that we remember their accomplishments. What does a mortgage lender, financial advisor, or business owner do that is so much more deserving of social acclaim? Guess what, there were business owners and bankers in colonial times in this county and I bet no one reading this can name one.
Low Pay
What I have a problem most about this is not the pay, as much as the cost of the degree proportional to the the pay. A four year teaching degree will cost the same as a four year business degree, yet a business degree major has the opportunity to earn a living that can far exceed the costs of obtaining said degree.
Why not get a master's degree in education then and make more money? True, but any worthwhile increase in pay to validate purchasing more education would mean moving into administration or higher and leaving the classroom. What if you don't want to leave the classroom? Being a teacher then becomes a job with no upward mobility.
When my friends and I were in our mid twenties, we made similar starting pay jobs, but in just five years many of their salaries have more than doubled while while my pay is maybe a thousand or two thousand dollars higher than when I started. I enjoy what I do but there are times when I think I should look for a different career with a higher pay grade to help ensure that my kids get the same advantages that their peers in western Albemarle county will have. After all, a real man provides for his family. In this day and age that translates directly to one word: money
Woman's work
Men don't want to appear unmanly. And no matter what people say, there is still a perception that elementary education is for women and is glorified babysitting.
Teaching did used to be a male dominated profession. Before public school became the norm, wealthy families would hire tutors who were usually male, to educate their children. Private schools were taught by men as well. Although some things never change, they were not paid a lot but many used their teaching career as a stepping stone to become a college professor. The advent of the industrial revolution is where you have men leaving the profession seeking higher paying, higher status jobs, leaving women to fill the void.
Teaching young children is not viewed very highly because of low pay and the nurturing of young children is not as valuable of a skill. A macho attitude towards what is a man's job is still rampant and teaching young children isn't viewed as macho.
These stereotypes are misguided and confusing to young men. Men these days are not nearly as industrious as their fathers and grandfathers. What it means to be a man is different that what it was in the past. The social definition of what it is to be a man lies increasingly in what job they have and their status in the community. This has been the case for a long long time but with suburban sprawl, media, and internet, this image gets perpetuated even in the most remote places in America, leaving men and boys to think this is the way everyone everywhere does it. Eliminating the jack of all trades image and replacing it with the man who makes enough money to pay someone to do these jobs is the new norm.
A male teacher doesn't make the money a perceived "real man" makes. Playing with children all day is not macho. A status as a second class citizen is the mark of an inferior man. Why are there no male teachers again?
Before I was a teacher, I worked as a retail manager of a small business. (I was a year or two removed from college and wasn't sure if I wanted to be a teacher. I had been swayed by all these ideas put in my head that we were all going to start off making a million dollars and live the lifestyle that we took for granted from which our parents provided for us. We were going to drive Beamers, live the country club life and vacation all over the world. That was waiting for us. The only catch -you can't be a teacher and do that. So all my housemates and other friends all went into the business administration field. Some concentrated in Finance, others Economics, whatever. I chose Physical Education.) One thing I learned from that experience was whether five or fifty, if you tell a customer "no" they will throw a fit. Most of my customers were men. This witness their behavior was so confusing to me. The grown ups who made hurtful comments to me when I wasn't able to give them a product that they seem they should get for a huge discount was mind blowing to me. I thought adults were supposed to be more mature than that!
I left that job to become a teacher because I figured if I work with five and six year olds and they throw a fit, I can chalk it up to one reason that makes perfect sense: they are five and six years old.
The three most popular reasons men don't go into elementary education according to Corrine Hess are:
1. Low social status
2. Low pay
3. Appearing Weak
Low Social Status
Social status is one of those tricky areas. Working in an elementary school, I love that young kids are in love with the idea of growing up to be a policeman, firefighter, nurse, teacher, etc. Their reason for wanting to do so is because they want to help others. My question is, where in the course between the age of five and twenty do they stop wanting to do jobs that help others and why does that change? How is that decision influenced? Social status wouldn't be important in choosing a career if it wasn't made to be so important in this country; the land of "if some is good, more is better."
I really struggle with those who view teachers as second class citizens. Not to be morbid, but in the history of the world, there are only but a handful of people who were so unique that we remember their accomplishments. What does a mortgage lender, financial advisor, or business owner do that is so much more deserving of social acclaim? Guess what, there were business owners and bankers in colonial times in this county and I bet no one reading this can name one.
Low Pay
What I have a problem most about this is not the pay, as much as the cost of the degree proportional to the the pay. A four year teaching degree will cost the same as a four year business degree, yet a business degree major has the opportunity to earn a living that can far exceed the costs of obtaining said degree.
Why not get a master's degree in education then and make more money? True, but any worthwhile increase in pay to validate purchasing more education would mean moving into administration or higher and leaving the classroom. What if you don't want to leave the classroom? Being a teacher then becomes a job with no upward mobility.
When my friends and I were in our mid twenties, we made similar starting pay jobs, but in just five years many of their salaries have more than doubled while while my pay is maybe a thousand or two thousand dollars higher than when I started. I enjoy what I do but there are times when I think I should look for a different career with a higher pay grade to help ensure that my kids get the same advantages that their peers in western Albemarle county will have. After all, a real man provides for his family. In this day and age that translates directly to one word: money
Woman's work
Men don't want to appear unmanly. And no matter what people say, there is still a perception that elementary education is for women and is glorified babysitting.
Teaching did used to be a male dominated profession. Before public school became the norm, wealthy families would hire tutors who were usually male, to educate their children. Private schools were taught by men as well. Although some things never change, they were not paid a lot but many used their teaching career as a stepping stone to become a college professor. The advent of the industrial revolution is where you have men leaving the profession seeking higher paying, higher status jobs, leaving women to fill the void.
Teaching at one point, on one social level in this country was also viewed as a job that provided a second income. It was never viewed as a "real job" but a job that a woman did which wasn't necessarily needed for the family finances. It was something to do.
Teaching young children is not viewed very highly because of low pay and the nurturing of young children is not as valuable of a skill. A macho attitude towards what is a man's job is still rampant and teaching young children isn't viewed as macho.
These stereotypes are misguided and confusing to young men. Men these days are not nearly as industrious as their fathers and grandfathers. What it means to be a man is different that what it was in the past. The social definition of what it is to be a man lies increasingly in what job they have and their status in the community. This has been the case for a long long time but with suburban sprawl, media, and internet, this image gets perpetuated even in the most remote places in America, leaving men and boys to think this is the way everyone everywhere does it. Eliminating the jack of all trades image and replacing it with the man who makes enough money to pay someone to do these jobs is the new norm.
A male teacher doesn't make the money a perceived "real man" makes. Playing with children all day is not macho. A status as a second class citizen is the mark of an inferior man. Why are there no male teachers again?
Friday, December 2, 2011
What purpose did all the failing serve
During my first year of teaching physical education, I had a kindergartner three times a week without fail always ask me "why are we doing this?" His question was rooted in genuine curiosity, not to necessarily bring attention to himself. When I think about this student, I smile at that memory because it made me a better teacher. I learned from him that whatever I teach, to whomever I teach it to, there needs to be a practical reason for it. If I have to stretch for an answer or cannot give an immediate real world application to them, then I need to improve my lesson.
As a student I hated hearing my elementary school teachers telling me that we need to know something because "we might need to use it someday." Is telling a fourth grader that they need to know fractions because they "might need to use it someday" a great motivating tactic? How is it relevant to them today (other than for the standardized test)? Why would they want to try to learn about fractions?
Too many classes in my time at school were required. A required course in my experience seemed to be set in isolation. You learn about grammar in English, how to spell, punctuation, etc but what is the immediate application? When I was in school it was implied that learning proper English was necessary so that people wouldn't judge you as poor. As an adult who has held a job of some sort since in I was sixteen, I can tell you that I have heard some of the most eloquent bullshit come out of people's mouth. What does that mean? Which is better for society, a well spoken liar or an honest person who makes the mistake of using "who" when it should be "whom?"
-----------------------
I had a dream recently that I was back in my high school Trigonometry class, but instead of being sixteen again, I was my current age of thirty-one. In this dream I was sitting at my desk listening to the teacher talk over my head about sine, cosine, and tangent. As I was sitting there I was very much trying to follow the teacher, like I did when I was sixteen. However this was not the nightmare I was used to having as a struggling student. I was aware of one very important thing: I already have a job and I do not need to be an expert at trig to do my job. That defies the "one day you are going to need to know this" argument. Not only that, I use very little if any Spanish in my daily activities. That was another "one day you are going to need to know this" class. In reality, I use Latin in my life more than Spanish and ITS A FREAKIN DEAD LANGUAGE!
Just about every word we use is a derivative of Latin. Because of my knowledge of Latin, I am able to use context clues better when I come to a word I am not sure of while reading; something I do everyday.
When I woke up from this dream it dawned on me, as poor of a student that I turned out to be, was all this failing necessary? What was the point of taking and subsequently failing classes that I didn't even need in the first place? Why was I (and others) required to take so many classes that translated very little into adult life? Of all the education I have received, my elementary education has served me the most as an adult. There were some higher level classes along the way that were beneficial however. I have found relevance from my history and geography classes. Taking economics and personal finance classes have served me very well too, for obvious reasons.
I reflect about my educational experiences often because I have two girls who one day will go to school. I have fears that they will be like me in the fact that they will have to struggle needlessly throughout their entire educational career in courses not necessarily germane to real world experiences and then made to feel inferior only to realize how smart they are once they step out of the school doors.
My other fear is that they will do SO well that their identity will be solely linked to academics and feel like the only place they fit in is school. If humans are living to be about seventy-six years old, two thirds of their lives will not be spent in school, the only place they identify with. What will they do then when their GPA's mean nothing?
As a student I hated hearing my elementary school teachers telling me that we need to know something because "we might need to use it someday." Is telling a fourth grader that they need to know fractions because they "might need to use it someday" a great motivating tactic? How is it relevant to them today (other than for the standardized test)? Why would they want to try to learn about fractions?
Too many classes in my time at school were required. A required course in my experience seemed to be set in isolation. You learn about grammar in English, how to spell, punctuation, etc but what is the immediate application? When I was in school it was implied that learning proper English was necessary so that people wouldn't judge you as poor. As an adult who has held a job of some sort since in I was sixteen, I can tell you that I have heard some of the most eloquent bullshit come out of people's mouth. What does that mean? Which is better for society, a well spoken liar or an honest person who makes the mistake of using "who" when it should be "whom?"
While in college I noticed that each major had its own set of required courses. This makes sense when one is eighteen, nineteen or twenty for a parent, professor, or advisor to inform the student that if you want to follow a certain major you will need to achieve a designated level of math or science or whatever else to attain such a degree. There is a seemingly tangible reason as to why the student would want to learn the material.
I am very aware of the mantra from high school students today to take certain classes to get into a good college. To take a class to get into college is not really a real world application other than the application of being obedient. According to the students chronicaled in the book "The Overachievers" by Alexandra Robbins, some of these high achieving kids are more interested doing whatever it takes (including cheating on assignments they view as a waste of time) to receive an "A" than gaining actual knowledge.
-----------------------
I had a dream recently that I was back in my high school Trigonometry class, but instead of being sixteen again, I was my current age of thirty-one. In this dream I was sitting at my desk listening to the teacher talk over my head about sine, cosine, and tangent. As I was sitting there I was very much trying to follow the teacher, like I did when I was sixteen. However this was not the nightmare I was used to having as a struggling student. I was aware of one very important thing: I already have a job and I do not need to be an expert at trig to do my job. That defies the "one day you are going to need to know this" argument. Not only that, I use very little if any Spanish in my daily activities. That was another "one day you are going to need to know this" class. In reality, I use Latin in my life more than Spanish and ITS A FREAKIN DEAD LANGUAGE!
Just about every word we use is a derivative of Latin. Because of my knowledge of Latin, I am able to use context clues better when I come to a word I am not sure of while reading; something I do everyday.
When I woke up from this dream it dawned on me, as poor of a student that I turned out to be, was all this failing necessary? What was the point of taking and subsequently failing classes that I didn't even need in the first place? Why was I (and others) required to take so many classes that translated very little into adult life? Of all the education I have received, my elementary education has served me the most as an adult. There were some higher level classes along the way that were beneficial however. I have found relevance from my history and geography classes. Taking economics and personal finance classes have served me very well too, for obvious reasons.
I reflect about my educational experiences often because I have two girls who one day will go to school. I have fears that they will be like me in the fact that they will have to struggle needlessly throughout their entire educational career in courses not necessarily germane to real world experiences and then made to feel inferior only to realize how smart they are once they step out of the school doors.
My other fear is that they will do SO well that their identity will be solely linked to academics and feel like the only place they fit in is school. If humans are living to be about seventy-six years old, two thirds of their lives will not be spent in school, the only place they identify with. What will they do then when their GPA's mean nothing?
Sunday, October 16, 2011
My take on the Occupy Wall Street movement
I would like to express that I am very proud of those who are occupying Wall St. and other streets across the country. Those who are occupying Wall St. are people who are tired of being sold out by the banks and government, tired of being unemployed and unemployable because they are "overqualified." They are tired of being called lazy and free loaders and accused of sitting on unemployment, collecting a government check. What makes this movement give me hope is that it is not one group rallying for their own personal gain and all others be damned. This is a movement of people from all walks, industries, and cultures of life rallying under one common theme: equality. As Americans we are being told metaphorically to "go to the back of the bus" by our politicians and upper one percent. Equality is a fundamental right that people will let bend, but maybe we are seeing that we won't let that right break.
Aside from the idealistic nature of the rally, another key ingredient of why I believe this movement will be successful is that it is a movement started and maintained by employed or formerly employed adults. This is not a handcuff yourself to a tree, or spray red paint on everyone who passes you who is wearing an animal product protest. This is not a college cause of the week, stage a protest and then go back to class. This is a protest that is born out of survival. When most people lose their jobs, survival skill number one is to find another job. These unemployed adults are up against something in finding a job that I might guess many have never experienced before in their life: discrimination. They can't be hired because they are too old, been unemployed for too long, or require too high of a salary based on their industry skills. For those that do have jobs, we are witnessing corporations and governments fighting to reduce pay and take away workers rights.
From my young perspective, he is how I see this as different from the times of the sixties. These working adults are fighting for their and their families economic survival. The silent majority of those times were the working Americans who were annoyed with the antics and displays of young people who had no life experiences who supposedly felt they reflected their communities of which the majority if its citizens disagreed with. Today's silent majority is comprised of working adults who can see the corruption, disillusionment, and flat out lies in government to the point where they feel they have to do something about it.
The overarching theme that ties this movement to the times of the sixties is money. While college kids of the sixties might not have had the financial aide that is given now, they also didn't have all the college debt. As a young employee with no debt, perhaps it might have been easier to disagree with the boss without fearing the loss of your job? Could that have possibly been an unofficial "checks and balance" in the workplace? Fast forward to today, where students are averaging 20-25k or more in college debt before even finding their first job, how much leverage is now controlled by the employer? Young workers are expected to put in 60-70 hours on low salaries and have very little voice. Because of student loan debt (which cannot be defaulted on in bankruptcy) a college grad must take any job they can. In the process, they lose their voice. They must make their payments on debts and speaking out at work could affect that. Thus corruption, worker's rights violations, or harassment, can run rampant (which we know is true with the implementation of the "whistleblower" law).
The protesters of today still have loads of debt, unlike their young counterparts of the sixties. However the one common thread they share is the idea of equality. No amount of money in the world can adequately substitute for the lack of transparency, justice, or fair treatment of individuals.
I hope this movement will allow us to come to certain conclusions:
1. Consumerism didn't work. It dumbed us all down with thinking that products will make us smarter rather than depending on critical thinking.
2. Our economy cannot stand on a service industry. The service industry requires few people selling to many. Many cannot buy when only a few have jobs. Production/manufacturing industry serves the needs of our citizens best.
3. Education cannot be taken lightly, nor does paying tens of thousands of dollars to a college or university secure you enlightenment.
Aside from the idealistic nature of the rally, another key ingredient of why I believe this movement will be successful is that it is a movement started and maintained by employed or formerly employed adults. This is not a handcuff yourself to a tree, or spray red paint on everyone who passes you who is wearing an animal product protest. This is not a college cause of the week, stage a protest and then go back to class. This is a protest that is born out of survival. When most people lose their jobs, survival skill number one is to find another job. These unemployed adults are up against something in finding a job that I might guess many have never experienced before in their life: discrimination. They can't be hired because they are too old, been unemployed for too long, or require too high of a salary based on their industry skills. For those that do have jobs, we are witnessing corporations and governments fighting to reduce pay and take away workers rights.
From my young perspective, he is how I see this as different from the times of the sixties. These working adults are fighting for their and their families economic survival. The silent majority of those times were the working Americans who were annoyed with the antics and displays of young people who had no life experiences who supposedly felt they reflected their communities of which the majority if its citizens disagreed with. Today's silent majority is comprised of working adults who can see the corruption, disillusionment, and flat out lies in government to the point where they feel they have to do something about it.
The overarching theme that ties this movement to the times of the sixties is money. While college kids of the sixties might not have had the financial aide that is given now, they also didn't have all the college debt. As a young employee with no debt, perhaps it might have been easier to disagree with the boss without fearing the loss of your job? Could that have possibly been an unofficial "checks and balance" in the workplace? Fast forward to today, where students are averaging 20-25k or more in college debt before even finding their first job, how much leverage is now controlled by the employer? Young workers are expected to put in 60-70 hours on low salaries and have very little voice. Because of student loan debt (which cannot be defaulted on in bankruptcy) a college grad must take any job they can. In the process, they lose their voice. They must make their payments on debts and speaking out at work could affect that. Thus corruption, worker's rights violations, or harassment, can run rampant (which we know is true with the implementation of the "whistleblower" law).
The protesters of today still have loads of debt, unlike their young counterparts of the sixties. However the one common thread they share is the idea of equality. No amount of money in the world can adequately substitute for the lack of transparency, justice, or fair treatment of individuals.
I hope this movement will allow us to come to certain conclusions:
1. Consumerism didn't work. It dumbed us all down with thinking that products will make us smarter rather than depending on critical thinking.
2. Our economy cannot stand on a service industry. The service industry requires few people selling to many. Many cannot buy when only a few have jobs. Production/manufacturing industry serves the needs of our citizens best.
3. Education cannot be taken lightly, nor does paying tens of thousands of dollars to a college or university secure you enlightenment.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Experience is a must
*Bloggers note*
this is a long post but please stay with me. I hope the point will become clear at the end. Enjoy!
An excerpt from "John Wooden: A Lifetime of Observations and Reflections, On and Off the Court."
The gym is a classroom.
I felt that running a practice session was almost like teaching an English class in that I wanted to have a lesson plan. I knew the detailed plan was necessary in teaching English, but it took a while before I understood the same thing was necessary in sports. Otherwise you waste an enormous amount of time, effort and talent.
I would spend almost as much time planning a practice as conducting it. Everything was listed on three- by-five cards down to the very last detail.
Everything was planed out each day. In fact, in my later years at UCLA I would spend two hours every morning with my assistants organizing that day's practice session (even though the practice itself might be less than two hours long). I kept a record of every practice session in a looseleaf notebook for future reference.
My coaches and managers also had three-by-five each day so they knew-to the exact minute- when we would need two basketballs at one end of the court for a drill, or five basketballs at mid court for a different drill, or three players against two players at a certain place and time, or the dozens and dozens of variations I devised.
I kept notes with the specifics of every minute of every hour of every practice we ever had at UCLA. When I planned a day's practice, I looked back to see what we'd done on the corresponding day the previous year and the year before that.
By doing that I could track the practice routines of every single player for every single practice session he participated in while I was coaching him. In those days freshmen were ineligible. Otherwise I would have gone back three years in reviewing the drills.
It was very important that I learn about each player and then study that player so I would know if he needed a little more time on this or that particular drill. I needed to know which drill had greater application to this player or that player because individuals vary.
So I devised drills for both individuals and the group and studied and analyzed them. Some drills would be good for all and some drills would be good for just certain players.
I needed to understand how to apply these drills in practice. I learned I must not continue them too long. I must know as the season progressed how they were going to change and then devise new ones to prevent monotony, although there would be some drills we must do every single day of the year.
All those things I had a responsibility to do to the utmost of my ability because they were things over which i had control.
The pressure I created during practices may have exceeded that which opponents produced. I believe when an individual constantly works under pressure, he or she will respond automatically when faced with it during competition.
I engaged in very little discussion. I'd talk while drills were going on, mostly to individuals rather than to the group. I did more individual coaching in that sense.
Following the drills, I would make notes. Perhaps we needed two more minutes on this drill or less time to complete that drill.
By reviewing and analyzing everything, we were able to get the very most out of our practice time. That was necessary to reach our goal: getting the very most our of our abilities.
Then I would say, "Young men, you have a responsibility for the attainment and 'maintainment' of all the little details that we do in practice. Your responsibility begins each afternoon when practice ends, because you can tear down more between practices than we can possibly build up during practices. So please practice moderation in what you do"
But it all began with attention to, and perfection of, details. Details. Details.
Develop a love for details. They usually accompany success.
-end
I am moved by this because of a recent statement by Education Secretary Arne Duncan that he is worried about losing "great young talent" and view this passage as a great opportunity to voice why I think he is wrong.
While, I am only entering my seventh year of teaching, each year that passes I get further away from my first days, with it I bring in more experiences, more management techniques, more teaching techniques and more confidence.
I know it is popular to blame older teachers right now. They are at the higher end of the pay scales and young teachers are cheaper. No politician has proven yet that an older teacher is a hinderance to learning and that younger teachers are the answer.
In Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" he talks in great length about the "10,000 hour rule". It states that in the pursuit of acquiring a specific skill set, it takes in the ballpark of 10,000 hours of practice to master such skills. He goes on to demonstrate this with the efforts of the Beatles before they broke onto to scene. He chronicled Bill Gates' routine as a teenager of spending hours and hours of writing computer code also.
10,000 hours generally falls into the ball park of 9-11 years of working at that skill. Compare the 15-20 year employee to the 5th year and it might be no contest who has the most expertise.
To dump a teacher who has over 10,000 hours of experience and expertise in favor of a teacher with little or no hours of professional experience clearly shows the disconnect and hypocrisy of politicians who want "highly qualified teachers." Non of these pols would hire a person without any experience for their private company, but think that non experienced teachers will move education forward? This flip flop thinking is much like how an elected official will tout his/her level of public service experience when running a campaign against a younger opponent.
I am not saying people don't deserve a shot to get that first job. We all have to get our start somewhere. But to claim the young and inexperienced are better teachers is not always true and officials must know that.
To tie John Wooden into this whole mix, he was the greatest college basketball coach ever. This passage is proof of his level of competency and skill as a coach and teacher. However, John Wooden was hired in 1949, but didn't win his first national championship until 1964. For the math majors, that is a time span of fifteen years. His opportunity to gain expertise, and log in a multitude of hours over this time set him on the path for success for the rest of his career. In today's world he might have never made it that far in his contract, as he had a few seasons that were less than stellar. In continuing to pursue his craft, he turned his work ethic into something that will never be surpassed by any other college coach in my lifetime. (Im 31!)
What if he was released after year ten for a younger coach who was cheaper? The greatest run by a college basketball program might never have happened. His team's run of ten national championships in twelve years happened after his 15th year at UCLA.
This understanding of knowing the value of experience can be seen by looking at who UCLA hired in 1975 when Wooden retired: Gene Bartow. Years of head coaching experience prior to following Wooden: fifteen!
this is a long post but please stay with me. I hope the point will become clear at the end. Enjoy!
An excerpt from "John Wooden: A Lifetime of Observations and Reflections, On and Off the Court."
The gym is a classroom.
I felt that running a practice session was almost like teaching an English class in that I wanted to have a lesson plan. I knew the detailed plan was necessary in teaching English, but it took a while before I understood the same thing was necessary in sports. Otherwise you waste an enormous amount of time, effort and talent.
I would spend almost as much time planning a practice as conducting it. Everything was listed on three- by-five cards down to the very last detail.
Everything was planed out each day. In fact, in my later years at UCLA I would spend two hours every morning with my assistants organizing that day's practice session (even though the practice itself might be less than two hours long). I kept a record of every practice session in a looseleaf notebook for future reference.
My coaches and managers also had three-by-five each day so they knew-to the exact minute- when we would need two basketballs at one end of the court for a drill, or five basketballs at mid court for a different drill, or three players against two players at a certain place and time, or the dozens and dozens of variations I devised.
I kept notes with the specifics of every minute of every hour of every practice we ever had at UCLA. When I planned a day's practice, I looked back to see what we'd done on the corresponding day the previous year and the year before that.
By doing that I could track the practice routines of every single player for every single practice session he participated in while I was coaching him. In those days freshmen were ineligible. Otherwise I would have gone back three years in reviewing the drills.
It was very important that I learn about each player and then study that player so I would know if he needed a little more time on this or that particular drill. I needed to know which drill had greater application to this player or that player because individuals vary.
So I devised drills for both individuals and the group and studied and analyzed them. Some drills would be good for all and some drills would be good for just certain players.
I needed to understand how to apply these drills in practice. I learned I must not continue them too long. I must know as the season progressed how they were going to change and then devise new ones to prevent monotony, although there would be some drills we must do every single day of the year.
All those things I had a responsibility to do to the utmost of my ability because they were things over which i had control.
The pressure I created during practices may have exceeded that which opponents produced. I believe when an individual constantly works under pressure, he or she will respond automatically when faced with it during competition.
I engaged in very little discussion. I'd talk while drills were going on, mostly to individuals rather than to the group. I did more individual coaching in that sense.
Following the drills, I would make notes. Perhaps we needed two more minutes on this drill or less time to complete that drill.
By reviewing and analyzing everything, we were able to get the very most out of our practice time. That was necessary to reach our goal: getting the very most our of our abilities.
Then I would say, "Young men, you have a responsibility for the attainment and 'maintainment' of all the little details that we do in practice. Your responsibility begins each afternoon when practice ends, because you can tear down more between practices than we can possibly build up during practices. So please practice moderation in what you do"
But it all began with attention to, and perfection of, details. Details. Details.
Develop a love for details. They usually accompany success.
-end
I am moved by this because of a recent statement by Education Secretary Arne Duncan that he is worried about losing "great young talent" and view this passage as a great opportunity to voice why I think he is wrong.
While, I am only entering my seventh year of teaching, each year that passes I get further away from my first days, with it I bring in more experiences, more management techniques, more teaching techniques and more confidence.
I know it is popular to blame older teachers right now. They are at the higher end of the pay scales and young teachers are cheaper. No politician has proven yet that an older teacher is a hinderance to learning and that younger teachers are the answer.
In Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" he talks in great length about the "10,000 hour rule". It states that in the pursuit of acquiring a specific skill set, it takes in the ballpark of 10,000 hours of practice to master such skills. He goes on to demonstrate this with the efforts of the Beatles before they broke onto to scene. He chronicled Bill Gates' routine as a teenager of spending hours and hours of writing computer code also.
10,000 hours generally falls into the ball park of 9-11 years of working at that skill. Compare the 15-20 year employee to the 5th year and it might be no contest who has the most expertise.
To dump a teacher who has over 10,000 hours of experience and expertise in favor of a teacher with little or no hours of professional experience clearly shows the disconnect and hypocrisy of politicians who want "highly qualified teachers." Non of these pols would hire a person without any experience for their private company, but think that non experienced teachers will move education forward? This flip flop thinking is much like how an elected official will tout his/her level of public service experience when running a campaign against a younger opponent.
I am not saying people don't deserve a shot to get that first job. We all have to get our start somewhere. But to claim the young and inexperienced are better teachers is not always true and officials must know that.
To tie John Wooden into this whole mix, he was the greatest college basketball coach ever. This passage is proof of his level of competency and skill as a coach and teacher. However, John Wooden was hired in 1949, but didn't win his first national championship until 1964. For the math majors, that is a time span of fifteen years. His opportunity to gain expertise, and log in a multitude of hours over this time set him on the path for success for the rest of his career. In today's world he might have never made it that far in his contract, as he had a few seasons that were less than stellar. In continuing to pursue his craft, he turned his work ethic into something that will never be surpassed by any other college coach in my lifetime. (Im 31!)
What if he was released after year ten for a younger coach who was cheaper? The greatest run by a college basketball program might never have happened. His team's run of ten national championships in twelve years happened after his 15th year at UCLA.
This understanding of knowing the value of experience can be seen by looking at who UCLA hired in 1975 when Wooden retired: Gene Bartow. Years of head coaching experience prior to following Wooden: fifteen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)