It's back to school time, and everywhere I turn, I find an edublogger lamenting some problem or concern they will have to face this year. While I certainly empathize with their worries/fears, I also would like to grab them by the shoulders and shake the hell out of them.
Good teaching comes with a sense of responsibility that eclipses many other professions. To stand before a classroom, means to tilt against an impossibly powerful opponent. It is an endless battle, and one which is predominantly beyond your control. You will be blamed for every failure, by critics at large and the one within. You will ask yourself, "Did I do enough? Did I ask the right questions? Could I have pushed harder? Did I push too hard?" You will beat yourself up over everything, agonizing over each lesson plan, focus in on excruciating details, in the hopes that the self-flagellation will make you a better educator. And when it's all said and done, it really isn't, because you get to do it all again in a few months.
What kind of self-loathing lunatic would sign on for this? Well, me for one. I know it's easy for me to be critical, safely on the outside looking in. Maybe I'll feel differently in a few years, but right now I am desperate to charge full speed into the fight.
I am a sucker for cheesy sports movies, especially underdog stories. I would say to my edublogger friends what those coaches say to their teams at half-time, when the deck is stacked against them, and winning seems impossible. The other team will always be bigger and stronger, more talented, better equipped, and have many more reserves. They will inevitably win 99 times out of a hundred. But that still leaves the one time. That one student on the verge of dropping out, the kid who doesn't think college is for kids like her, the child with the undiagnosed learning disability. A good teacher gets to win big every once in a while. They get to point to a child and say," There, that one right there. I helped that one." They may not earn a decent wage or get the thanks they deserve, but they know in their hearts that the world is a little better because they were willing to fight a battle when others said it couldn't be won.
That sounds like the job for me. Put me in Coach. I'm ready to play.
Showing posts with label saving the planet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label saving the planet. Show all posts
Monday, August 27, 2007
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Tilting at Windmills
I wanted to respond to the following comment that appeared on a recent post.
The list of books is the only part of this comment that I do not take issue with. It comes from the American Library Association, and it is actually the list of challenged authors. According to the ALA, a challenge occurs when a book is recommended for removal, whereas a ban is a successful censoring. I searched their website for a breakdown of public vs. private schools, but they don't separate the data that way.
The distinction seems trivial to me, especially considering the fact that it in no way records books that were never made available in the first place. I suspect that if fewer books are banned in private schools, it is only because private schools give parents much more control in curriculum selection. I found many stories of parents switching to private schools because they had lost a challenge to a book in a public school, and especially considering that most private schools are still religiously affiliated, I am willing to bet that as a group, they offer far less intellectual freedom.
I will assume that the schools referenced in this comment are purely secular. Even so, I have no desire to teach at those institutions. Since I decided to devote myself to education, many people have recommended that I go the private school route. I don't see the point. The types of students that attend private schools are as varied as their reasons why, but they all have one thing in common- parents that care about their education. This is a better predictor of success than any IQ test. Private school students are probably going to succeed in life regardless of how competent the particular school is. To me, it would feel like a fireman rushing to save a baby from a building that isn't burning.
As far as the allegedly superior success rates of private schools, I think the evidence is dubious at best. These schools have the luxury of hand-picking students. Whether specializing in troubled students, gifted students, or religiously conservative ones, the schools get to choose the niche in which they will be most effective. Public schools teach everyone. They turn no one away, and their finished product suffers accordingly.
I am getting into this to make a difference, and the place where I can affect the most change is in the trenches of public education. Sure I could find a school that perfectly compliments my convictions, where my career would be trouble-free, but again, I really don't see the point.
The following authors have been banned in some public school classrooms:
1. Alvin Schwartz
2. Judy Blume
3. Robert Cormier
4. J.K. Rowling
5. Michael Willhoite
6. Katherine Paterson
7. Stephen King8. Maya Angelou
9. R.L. Stine
10. John Steinbeck
If you stick to private schools you will not only be able to teach the classics but be called by your first name!
The list of books is the only part of this comment that I do not take issue with. It comes from the American Library Association, and it is actually the list of challenged authors. According to the ALA, a challenge occurs when a book is recommended for removal, whereas a ban is a successful censoring. I searched their website for a breakdown of public vs. private schools, but they don't separate the data that way.
The distinction seems trivial to me, especially considering the fact that it in no way records books that were never made available in the first place. I suspect that if fewer books are banned in private schools, it is only because private schools give parents much more control in curriculum selection. I found many stories of parents switching to private schools because they had lost a challenge to a book in a public school, and especially considering that most private schools are still religiously affiliated, I am willing to bet that as a group, they offer far less intellectual freedom.
I will assume that the schools referenced in this comment are purely secular. Even so, I have no desire to teach at those institutions. Since I decided to devote myself to education, many people have recommended that I go the private school route. I don't see the point. The types of students that attend private schools are as varied as their reasons why, but they all have one thing in common- parents that care about their education. This is a better predictor of success than any IQ test. Private school students are probably going to succeed in life regardless of how competent the particular school is. To me, it would feel like a fireman rushing to save a baby from a building that isn't burning.
As far as the allegedly superior success rates of private schools, I think the evidence is dubious at best. These schools have the luxury of hand-picking students. Whether specializing in troubled students, gifted students, or religiously conservative ones, the schools get to choose the niche in which they will be most effective. Public schools teach everyone. They turn no one away, and their finished product suffers accordingly.
I am getting into this to make a difference, and the place where I can affect the most change is in the trenches of public education. Sure I could find a school that perfectly compliments my convictions, where my career would be trouble-free, but again, I really don't see the point.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
When in the Course of Human Events...
I searched far and wide for just the right topic or story to discuss on America's birthday. There's a lot to pick from these days. There's the commutation and probable pardon of convicted Bushie Scooter Libby. There's the on-going war in Iraq, where an apparently unforseeable counter-insurgency is being compared to our own upstart beginnings. And since this is a forum devoted to education, there's always the continuing debate over accountability or the increasingly polarizing "math wars." But none of that really captures the then-and-now dichotomy of our great nation as well as this.
What is this uniquely American event? Why it's Nathan's Famous hot dog eating contest, of course. In a world where myriad people starve to death each day, no city represents the spectrum of wealth better than the Big Apple. While people live in the shadows of the subway tunnels or lie helpless in alleyways, a few iron-stomached hopefuls gather at Coney Island in celebration of gluttony, where the sin which may well prove deadliest for our American empire will unleash itself approximately 4 hours after this posting.
The over-eating metaphors abound. In a country where despite medical advances, the current generation may have a shorter life-expectancy than the last due to the epidemic of obesity, our figurative fattiness threatens to undermine this experiment in democracy. We thumb our noses at the famished as we choke down our hot dogs. We laugh in the face of the energy deprived, as we root for stock cars besplattered with the emblems of capitalistic excess as they drive in circles to our delight. When will it be enough? At what point will we be able to push back from the table and say when?
It's hard not to be a hypocrite. Like everyone else, I've grown accustomed to having what I want, when I want it, and more of it than I could possibly need. But if ever I need to be reminded of where that line of selfish behavior leads, I can always take the D, F, Q, or N trains to Coney Island, where the swallowing whole of processed beef entrails is now considered athletic, and the smell of sweat and frankfurters barely masks the scent of Rome burning.
“I think it represents actually, well, America — what New York is. It’s something you expect from a city like this.”
What is this uniquely American event? Why it's Nathan's Famous hot dog eating contest, of course. In a world where myriad people starve to death each day, no city represents the spectrum of wealth better than the Big Apple. While people live in the shadows of the subway tunnels or lie helpless in alleyways, a few iron-stomached hopefuls gather at Coney Island in celebration of gluttony, where the sin which may well prove deadliest for our American empire will unleash itself approximately 4 hours after this posting.
“Independence Day is a wonderful time to celebrate our freedoms,” the mayor said, looking rather summery in boat shoes and lightweight slacks. “Now I don’t know what the founding fathers ever thought about this, but the right to eat as many hot dogs as possible — although not expressly named in the Bill of Rights — was no doubt on the minds of the framers.”
The over-eating metaphors abound. In a country where despite medical advances, the current generation may have a shorter life-expectancy than the last due to the epidemic of obesity, our figurative fattiness threatens to undermine this experiment in democracy. We thumb our noses at the famished as we choke down our hot dogs. We laugh in the face of the energy deprived, as we root for stock cars besplattered with the emblems of capitalistic excess as they drive in circles to our delight. When will it be enough? At what point will we be able to push back from the table and say when?
It's hard not to be a hypocrite. Like everyone else, I've grown accustomed to having what I want, when I want it, and more of it than I could possibly need. But if ever I need to be reminded of where that line of selfish behavior leads, I can always take the D, F, Q, or N trains to Coney Island, where the swallowing whole of processed beef entrails is now considered athletic, and the smell of sweat and frankfurters barely masks the scent of Rome burning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)