November 10, 2010
November 3, 2010
I Learned Something
It's everywhere you turn. On the nightly news, on the cover of magazines, talk radio, podcasts, the Internet. The headlines scream it out, "Schools Failing", "Can the Education System be Fixed?", "America Falling Behind". NBC recently dedicated a whole week with numerous news programs focusing on education. And this may be one of the rare times when the media is actually correct that things are bad. Obviously, not every student in America is flunking out, but the problems are real and large.
However, while this may be news, it is not exactly new. These problems have been discussed for decades. Numerous solutions proposed. Spending increased. New standards adopted. Yet, here we are, still looking for a true fix to the problem. Most recently, there has been the widespread call for a better means of evaluating teachers. We must pay good teachers more, and get rid of the slackers. Only, we can't seem to agree that this is a good idea, nor on how you actually evaluate a "good teacher." So we keep arguing, and thinking, and debating.
Recently I had an experience that may shed a little bit of light on the situation. Every other Saturday I teach a class on parenting. This seminar is a court-ordered class and the majority of those attending are doing so because they are in the midst of divorce proceedings and they have children still living at home. Needless to say, many of those ordered to attend are not so happy to spend half a Saturday doing this. To lighten the mood, I start off with a quip about how this class is going to be way more fun and interesting than defensive driving. This is typically received with nervous laughter.
Last class I taught began even worse than normal. A monsoon came that morning, and everyone was drenched. There was a mix-up with the key to the building and people had to wait outside in the downpour. If it was possible, those attending were even less enthused than usual. But, believe it or not, four hours later several people told me as they were leaving how much they appreciated the class and that they really learned some things to help their parenting. One man even admitted that he came in not expecting much, but was pleasantly surprised by the material.
Now, according to the debate raging in this country, I must be an excellent teacher. I took a tough crowd, made tougher by circumstances, and convinced them to learn some new things. Some people actually enjoyed the class! And I will admit that I felt it was one of my better classes. Some days you just have it. However, on the evaluations participants fill out, a couple of people seemed to believe it was the worst experience of their lives. One person, when asked what they learned wrote, "Not a damn thing!"
So, if I'm such a good teacher (and I am!) then how did these few people get so little out of class, while others raved about what they had learned? Most people I know would say, "well, they had such bad attitudes, they weren't gonna learn anything no matter what." I agree. The problem in this case was not the teacher or the material, but rather the student (at least I hope). But then the question must be asked, "How do we evaluate education if the problem is sometimes the students themselves?"
It seems the one thing we refuse to consider when discussing education in America is that the problem may lie with the students. Specifically, that many students are unmotivated to learn. We all know of students (Abraham Lincoln being our favorite example) who seek to learn no matter the barriers placed before them. How do they learn without good teachers? Determination and motivation. Those traits seem to be conspicuously lacking in many students today.
Now please understand, I am not blaming seven year-olds for our educational woes. I am blaming the motivation and determination of many students for crippling the educational system in our country. There was a time when education was seen as a privilege that allowed you to seek a better life. It is still that way in many countries. In some developing countries there is an almost violent struggle to get your child into a school, because education is so valuable. But in America, many kids don't see the value in it. Many (including parents and children) assume that prosperity is some kind of right that just happens. So while our kids play video games and disrespect their teachers, they assume that in the end it will all work out. Meanwhile, kids in other countries know the real score and are passing our kids by.
So how do we build in some motivation for our students? How do you create a love of learning and a thirst for knowledge? Let's start by getting one thing out of the way. Good teachers make a difference. But, how much? A good teacher can probably take a student on the borderline and push them toward motivated learning. The better the teacher, I am sure the farther over that line they can reach. But only the rarest teacher can reach well beyond the line. So we can't count on a rare occurrence. We should get rid of terrible teachers (teachers that make kids who are interested in learning lose interest) but that still leaves us with our problem.
I am also sure that improvements in classroom management, better curriculum, etc... can have some sort of positive effect. But, can any of this overcome a student who is dead set against being there and learning? And can it even make a dent when that student is put in a classroom with several other students who are also determined to not learn?
At some point we must look at the student directly. The key to learning may be the learner! There is debate about how much difference a good verses great teacher makes. But we all know that someone really determined to learn is almost impossible to stop. A decent teacher with a student who is a voracious learner equals lots of learning.
So how can we motivate a large population that does not seem to care about their own education? Economists would say we must find the incentives. Something drives people to learn. There is some kind of payoff. As mentioned earlier, if you are in a poor, third world environment the incentive for learning may be survival, or drastic improvement of life. On the heels of this comes family pressure, since you may be the only one fortunate enough to have the opportunity of education. But what are the incentives in America? Should we pay students for attendance and grades? (Before you scoff, this is being tried with some success in a few school districts, and besides it kind of fits the idea that you have a job and there is a pay-off for showing up and doing it well.) How big a role do parents and family play in providing incentive? I'm thinking beyond a quarter for every A, but rather a family providing both examples of learning and incentives. Why should a seven year old learn to read if mom and dad know how but never pick up a book? Are parents viewed by their children as learning and growing even beyond "school"? What role does society play? Have we removed incentives for learning by focusing on screen-based entertainment? (You don't have to read or use algebra to play your Wii and watch Jersey Shore.) Have we elevated technology as the answer to the point that students believe if they can use Facebook and Twitter they are de facto computer scientists? Do the safety nets we place around people rob them of the motivation to improve their existence through education?
The bad news is that the problem may lie with the students. The good news is that the answer lies with the students. That class I taught had a couple of really unmotivated learners. But most of the people, even while struggling through a difficult time in their lives, seemed to interact with the material and at least made an attempt to apply it to their life. Of course they have a big motivation. I was teaching a parenting class. Most of them are about to become single parents. That could be considered quite an incentive to learn.
However, while this may be news, it is not exactly new. These problems have been discussed for decades. Numerous solutions proposed. Spending increased. New standards adopted. Yet, here we are, still looking for a true fix to the problem. Most recently, there has been the widespread call for a better means of evaluating teachers. We must pay good teachers more, and get rid of the slackers. Only, we can't seem to agree that this is a good idea, nor on how you actually evaluate a "good teacher." So we keep arguing, and thinking, and debating.
Recently I had an experience that may shed a little bit of light on the situation. Every other Saturday I teach a class on parenting. This seminar is a court-ordered class and the majority of those attending are doing so because they are in the midst of divorce proceedings and they have children still living at home. Needless to say, many of those ordered to attend are not so happy to spend half a Saturday doing this. To lighten the mood, I start off with a quip about how this class is going to be way more fun and interesting than defensive driving. This is typically received with nervous laughter.
Last class I taught began even worse than normal. A monsoon came that morning, and everyone was drenched. There was a mix-up with the key to the building and people had to wait outside in the downpour. If it was possible, those attending were even less enthused than usual. But, believe it or not, four hours later several people told me as they were leaving how much they appreciated the class and that they really learned some things to help their parenting. One man even admitted that he came in not expecting much, but was pleasantly surprised by the material.
Now, according to the debate raging in this country, I must be an excellent teacher. I took a tough crowd, made tougher by circumstances, and convinced them to learn some new things. Some people actually enjoyed the class! And I will admit that I felt it was one of my better classes. Some days you just have it. However, on the evaluations participants fill out, a couple of people seemed to believe it was the worst experience of their lives. One person, when asked what they learned wrote, "Not a damn thing!"
So, if I'm such a good teacher (and I am!) then how did these few people get so little out of class, while others raved about what they had learned? Most people I know would say, "well, they had such bad attitudes, they weren't gonna learn anything no matter what." I agree. The problem in this case was not the teacher or the material, but rather the student (at least I hope). But then the question must be asked, "How do we evaluate education if the problem is sometimes the students themselves?"
It seems the one thing we refuse to consider when discussing education in America is that the problem may lie with the students. Specifically, that many students are unmotivated to learn. We all know of students (Abraham Lincoln being our favorite example) who seek to learn no matter the barriers placed before them. How do they learn without good teachers? Determination and motivation. Those traits seem to be conspicuously lacking in many students today.
Now please understand, I am not blaming seven year-olds for our educational woes. I am blaming the motivation and determination of many students for crippling the educational system in our country. There was a time when education was seen as a privilege that allowed you to seek a better life. It is still that way in many countries. In some developing countries there is an almost violent struggle to get your child into a school, because education is so valuable. But in America, many kids don't see the value in it. Many (including parents and children) assume that prosperity is some kind of right that just happens. So while our kids play video games and disrespect their teachers, they assume that in the end it will all work out. Meanwhile, kids in other countries know the real score and are passing our kids by.
So how do we build in some motivation for our students? How do you create a love of learning and a thirst for knowledge? Let's start by getting one thing out of the way. Good teachers make a difference. But, how much? A good teacher can probably take a student on the borderline and push them toward motivated learning. The better the teacher, I am sure the farther over that line they can reach. But only the rarest teacher can reach well beyond the line. So we can't count on a rare occurrence. We should get rid of terrible teachers (teachers that make kids who are interested in learning lose interest) but that still leaves us with our problem.
I am also sure that improvements in classroom management, better curriculum, etc... can have some sort of positive effect. But, can any of this overcome a student who is dead set against being there and learning? And can it even make a dent when that student is put in a classroom with several other students who are also determined to not learn?
At some point we must look at the student directly. The key to learning may be the learner! There is debate about how much difference a good verses great teacher makes. But we all know that someone really determined to learn is almost impossible to stop. A decent teacher with a student who is a voracious learner equals lots of learning.
So how can we motivate a large population that does not seem to care about their own education? Economists would say we must find the incentives. Something drives people to learn. There is some kind of payoff. As mentioned earlier, if you are in a poor, third world environment the incentive for learning may be survival, or drastic improvement of life. On the heels of this comes family pressure, since you may be the only one fortunate enough to have the opportunity of education. But what are the incentives in America? Should we pay students for attendance and grades? (Before you scoff, this is being tried with some success in a few school districts, and besides it kind of fits the idea that you have a job and there is a pay-off for showing up and doing it well.) How big a role do parents and family play in providing incentive? I'm thinking beyond a quarter for every A, but rather a family providing both examples of learning and incentives. Why should a seven year old learn to read if mom and dad know how but never pick up a book? Are parents viewed by their children as learning and growing even beyond "school"? What role does society play? Have we removed incentives for learning by focusing on screen-based entertainment? (You don't have to read or use algebra to play your Wii and watch Jersey Shore.) Have we elevated technology as the answer to the point that students believe if they can use Facebook and Twitter they are de facto computer scientists? Do the safety nets we place around people rob them of the motivation to improve their existence through education?
The bad news is that the problem may lie with the students. The good news is that the answer lies with the students. That class I taught had a couple of really unmotivated learners. But most of the people, even while struggling through a difficult time in their lives, seemed to interact with the material and at least made an attempt to apply it to their life. Of course they have a big motivation. I was teaching a parenting class. Most of them are about to become single parents. That could be considered quite an incentive to learn.
September 29, 2010
September 22, 2010
September 20, 2010
Concert Time Baby!
This blog post is more of a selfish advertisement than anything else. If you happen to be in Abilene on Saturday October 2, you really should come check out "It Ain't Easy Being Decent." That's what we are calling the evening, which consists of two decent bands playing some music. We don't claim to be great, but hey it's free, and you get what you pay for. So come on out. If I could be anything besides a preacher, it would be a rock musician. Well, for one night, here we go!
By the way, just in case you aren't sure, this is a concert. Not a church service. We will be playing music by the Who, Joan Jett, etc...
September 7, 2010
When Chippy Met Salsa
Last night I was at the church building getting ready for band practice (yes, I am in a rock band called "Something With Mustaches"). My boys and I were eating some hot dogs when I came upon a jar of salsa in the fridge. I brought it out since salsa goes with anything (except ice cream, found this out the hard way). As soon as I walked out with it, Grant said "Hey, are there any tortilla chips?" It's just a given that if you have salsa you need tortilla chips and if you have tortilla chips you need salsa.
Some foods just have to go with a particular other food. It's like each food may be decent or good, but they haven't found a true home until they are combined. Then, it is like marriage, the two become one.
Now, I am not talking about combining ingredients. Eggs and flour and sugar making a cake doesn't count. It must be foods that really stand on their own, but have become married to another in way that is wonderful.
So what follows is my list of the greatest food get-togethers in all of history.
10. Mashed potatoes and gravy. Don't want to think about what's in gravy (grease and milk) but can't imagine mashed potatoes without it. Add chicken-fried steak to the mix and your talking an all-time classic meal. I mean, isn't Grandy's existence based solely on the fact that we like chicken-fried steak, mashed potatoes, and gravy so much that we will occasionally purchase a cheap, fast, sub-par facsimile.
9. Bacon and eggs. Especially a couple of fried eggs over medium.
8. Beans and rice. Most underrated on the list. Usually thought of as the pairing that poor college students live on, but a really well made red beans and rice is delicious.
7. Butter and cranberry sauce. This is personal. Most of you have never tried it. But every Thanksgiving I take some cranberry sauce (must be shaped like the can) and smash some butter up in it. Put it on a roll or eat it alone. I also enjoy a flour tortilla with melted butter and salsa on it.
6. Rotel and Velveeta. As close to breaking my rule about separate ingredients rather than separate foods. But come on. These two items existed separately first. Velveeta invented in 1918 (is it a food if it is "invented"?) while Rotel didn't appear until the 1940's. I would love to see a sales chart for each of these products. My bet is that nobody bought them. Then you see a gigantic spike. Somebody accidentally got them together. Now, I am sure that if one went out of business the other would cease to exist almost immediately.
5. Cheeseburger and French Fries. Now we know that eating a lot of this is bad for us. Too bad eighty-four percent of America consumes only this. (That is a true fact, I read it on the Internet)
4. Peanut butter and Frito's. Parker men dig this. My dad, my brothers and I can stand around the kitchen with a jar of creamy Jif (all other peanut butter brands are horrible and stupid, I don't care what you like, there is only one, and it is Jif, all others must bow before it) on the counter with an open bag of Frito's. Let the dipping begin. Have spent more time with my Dad doing this than any other activity. And for all you "crunchy" fans just know that if you dip enough Frito's the shrapnel eventually leaves the Jif (bow down) crunchy.
3. Cookies and milk. Whoever the first person was who said "you know, that Oreo should not just be eaten with the milk, it should be swimming in it", should be the fifth head on Mt. Rushmore. If they marketed a gallon of milk that came with a package of Oreos already in it I would so by it. And hide it in the church fridge so my wife wouldn't know it.
2. Peanut butter and jelly. In the lunch sack. Every day. For like ten years. And I still love it. Proof that the phrase "you can have too much of a good thing" is moronic.
1. Chips and salsa. The Brangelina of food couplings. Whenever this became big in America (late seventies, early eighties) caught me right as I was developing my own personal food tastes. Yes the eighties may have given us bad hair, parachute pants and Twisted Sister, but it was all worth it for the discovery that a fried tortilla dipped in a fiery tomato-based sauce will be the appetizer sitting on the table when God throws His great banquet.
Some foods just have to go with a particular other food. It's like each food may be decent or good, but they haven't found a true home until they are combined. Then, it is like marriage, the two become one.
Now, I am not talking about combining ingredients. Eggs and flour and sugar making a cake doesn't count. It must be foods that really stand on their own, but have become married to another in way that is wonderful.
So what follows is my list of the greatest food get-togethers in all of history.
10. Mashed potatoes and gravy. Don't want to think about what's in gravy (grease and milk) but can't imagine mashed potatoes without it. Add chicken-fried steak to the mix and your talking an all-time classic meal. I mean, isn't Grandy's existence based solely on the fact that we like chicken-fried steak, mashed potatoes, and gravy so much that we will occasionally purchase a cheap, fast, sub-par facsimile.
9. Bacon and eggs. Especially a couple of fried eggs over medium.
8. Beans and rice. Most underrated on the list. Usually thought of as the pairing that poor college students live on, but a really well made red beans and rice is delicious.
7. Butter and cranberry sauce. This is personal. Most of you have never tried it. But every Thanksgiving I take some cranberry sauce (must be shaped like the can) and smash some butter up in it. Put it on a roll or eat it alone. I also enjoy a flour tortilla with melted butter and salsa on it.
6. Rotel and Velveeta. As close to breaking my rule about separate ingredients rather than separate foods. But come on. These two items existed separately first. Velveeta invented in 1918 (is it a food if it is "invented"?) while Rotel didn't appear until the 1940's. I would love to see a sales chart for each of these products. My bet is that nobody bought them. Then you see a gigantic spike. Somebody accidentally got them together. Now, I am sure that if one went out of business the other would cease to exist almost immediately.
5. Cheeseburger and French Fries. Now we know that eating a lot of this is bad for us. Too bad eighty-four percent of America consumes only this. (That is a true fact, I read it on the Internet)
4. Peanut butter and Frito's. Parker men dig this. My dad, my brothers and I can stand around the kitchen with a jar of creamy Jif (all other peanut butter brands are horrible and stupid, I don't care what you like, there is only one, and it is Jif, all others must bow before it) on the counter with an open bag of Frito's. Let the dipping begin. Have spent more time with my Dad doing this than any other activity. And for all you "crunchy" fans just know that if you dip enough Frito's the shrapnel eventually leaves the Jif (bow down) crunchy.
3. Cookies and milk. Whoever the first person was who said "you know, that Oreo should not just be eaten with the milk, it should be swimming in it", should be the fifth head on Mt. Rushmore. If they marketed a gallon of milk that came with a package of Oreos already in it I would so by it. And hide it in the church fridge so my wife wouldn't know it.
2. Peanut butter and jelly. In the lunch sack. Every day. For like ten years. And I still love it. Proof that the phrase "you can have too much of a good thing" is moronic.
1. Chips and salsa. The Brangelina of food couplings. Whenever this became big in America (late seventies, early eighties) caught me right as I was developing my own personal food tastes. Yes the eighties may have given us bad hair, parachute pants and Twisted Sister, but it was all worth it for the discovery that a fried tortilla dipped in a fiery tomato-based sauce will be the appetizer sitting on the table when God throws His great banquet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
