One thing I love about Oregon is the long, slow spring. The crocus blossoms are starting to pop their heads up. Primroses, annuals nearly everywhere else, are starting to shake off their winter lethargy and prove that no, they didn't die. Pansies still bravely bloom on. Other bulbs are growing thicker on the ground.
We will pretty much have periods of rain and sun from now until late June with steadily warming temperatures.
First veggies can go in the ground in just a few weeks.
Oh Spring! Thou art hope restored every year.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Leavening in the Bread: February Edition
I am going to give up Facebook for Lent. I'll let you know how that goes. Maybe I'll get some real writing accomplished.
I would like to take a moment to honor somebody who has turned a horrible trial into something that will bless others.
Every now and then Elizabeth Smart pops up in news. I came across another article late last week. But this time, instead of being merely a human interest story (like details about her wedding) it is an article about the work she is doing now on the speaking circuit to raise money and awareness for violence against women.
Certainly nobody would fault Ms. Smart (or Mrs. Gilmour) if she wanted to disappear off the map for good and just move on. Her life then, as her life now, is not the public's business. Instead of disappearing again, however, she is taking her horrific trial and turning it into something that can, potentially, teach and bless untold thousands.
I found out today that there is to be a book published later this year, authorized by her but written by someone else, detailing both her kidnapping and her recovery. Again, this is not a story that belongs to anybody but Ms. Smart. But by freely sharing her experience she is attempting to help others see that there is life after the worst. She talked to this group in Florida about the thoughts that ran through her head that first night, in that filthy tent in the mountains. He raped her and she prayed for death. She wished she was dead. She wished it so much that he was able to control her and stop her will to run away.
But a new day dawns. Life is not forever on the ground in a filthy tent. Now she stands before women to say, "Don't let your perpetrator steal one more day of your life!"
Her message is one of hope and healing and beating impossible odds. She is lovely and remarkable. A strong LDS voice for stopping violence against women. If she moves again to the shadows, perhaps when her own children come?, I will absolutely respect her choice. For now I feel to honor her for speaking out in a way that only she can. God can use any circumstance for greater purposes if we will be tools in His hands. She is an example to women everywhere.
I would like to take a moment to honor somebody who has turned a horrible trial into something that will bless others.
Every now and then Elizabeth Smart pops up in news. I came across another article late last week. But this time, instead of being merely a human interest story (like details about her wedding) it is an article about the work she is doing now on the speaking circuit to raise money and awareness for violence against women.
Certainly nobody would fault Ms. Smart (or Mrs. Gilmour) if she wanted to disappear off the map for good and just move on. Her life then, as her life now, is not the public's business. Instead of disappearing again, however, she is taking her horrific trial and turning it into something that can, potentially, teach and bless untold thousands.
I found out today that there is to be a book published later this year, authorized by her but written by someone else, detailing both her kidnapping and her recovery. Again, this is not a story that belongs to anybody but Ms. Smart. But by freely sharing her experience she is attempting to help others see that there is life after the worst. She talked to this group in Florida about the thoughts that ran through her head that first night, in that filthy tent in the mountains. He raped her and she prayed for death. She wished she was dead. She wished it so much that he was able to control her and stop her will to run away.
But a new day dawns. Life is not forever on the ground in a filthy tent. Now she stands before women to say, "Don't let your perpetrator steal one more day of your life!"
Her message is one of hope and healing and beating impossible odds. She is lovely and remarkable. A strong LDS voice for stopping violence against women. If she moves again to the shadows, perhaps when her own children come?, I will absolutely respect her choice. For now I feel to honor her for speaking out in a way that only she can. God can use any circumstance for greater purposes if we will be tools in His hands. She is an example to women everywhere.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Guns II
Late last week I saw a clip from part of the Congressional hearing on new gun control legislation. In the clip, the president of the NRA made it clear that he believed assault weapons are necessary in the event that something (like a natural disaster) caused the breakdown of the social order. They could be used so a person could protect their food supply, home or shop against armed mobs.
A Republican senator ingratiatingly agreed with him adding that the Second Amendment gave citizens the right to protect themselves in such circumstances and that he felt comfortable knowing that in such a circumstance there would be people prepared to band together to keep the bad guys in check.
You know, like the National Guard is supposed to. Is a United States Senator really saying that the National Guard canNOT protect the citizens of this country? Or is he saying they won't?
The Second Amendment gives provision for a "well-regulated militia." Which militia do you think is more well-regulated? The National Guard? Or the type of counter-mob being advocated by the NRA? You know, there are places in America where sides have chosen up who is good and bad and they just shoot it out in the street. Now THAT is a great idea. The kind of social breakdown spoken about by the NRA is not just something that happens after a natural disaster. It is something that happens when people take law and justice into their own hands, subverting the system of checks and balances that is the true inspiration in our system, and put loyalty to a select group above the good of the whole group.
The NRA's position is a road to anarchy.
I just finished reading a book about the people of Appalachia in the early 1900's. Though fictionalized, the book is fascinating in the picture it paints of the Mountain Man. His proud Scottish ancestry gave him a profound love of freedom and an equally profound distrust of the government. Though in reasoned moderation, this love and distrust form the basis of free civilizations everywhere, taken to extremes, these same feelings replace civilization with ignorant and clannish grudge matches.
The social contract means that we give up a certain amount of freedom in exchange for communities lived in greater harmony. I know, I know, every dictator ever insisted that people give him greater power so that the people have fewer choices that might distress them. I know this. The difference in a democratic country is that the people agree on which freedoms we are willing to forgo. When the vast majority of Americans (even gun owners) support stronger regulation, more thorough background checks and, yes, even BANS on certain types of weapons, then what right have congressmen to prevent reasonable legislation because of the crazy fear-mongering of a single group?
For example, I recently heard of a man who had some weapons and tools stolen from his garage. He had a hunch about the responsible parties and went ARMED to the house to retrieve his property. The NRA's current position argues that this situation is preferable to notifying the police. They are advancing a position of "rights" and "freedom" that can only lead to terror for the vast number of Americans unwilling to believe that buying more guns will actually control gun violence. Escalation is not the same as prevention.
After the head-exploding comments by the esteemed Senator, I heard two news stories the following morning.
The first was out of the Washington State Office. Two employees have been pulled in to work full-time on back ground checks with the proliferation of requests to buy guns that has flooded the office. Other employees are working on these requests part-time. Two hundred requests are coming in every day. No proof of training in weapons use is required. So many have been pulled in to deal with the back log because if no answer is received within 7 days (the waiting period) of the time of submission, then they have to authorize the gun sale anyway. Really. Everyone likes to complain about how their tax dollars are being spent. Here is my complaint today: my tax dollars are being spent to hire people to perpetuate MORE gun ownership in society.
The second story, also out of Washington, was that a woman in a McDonalds accidentally shot her husband in the stomach when her Derringer fell out of her pocket. She is for sure the one I would elect for leading the well-regulated militia.
A Republican senator ingratiatingly agreed with him adding that the Second Amendment gave citizens the right to protect themselves in such circumstances and that he felt comfortable knowing that in such a circumstance there would be people prepared to band together to keep the bad guys in check.
You know, like the National Guard is supposed to. Is a United States Senator really saying that the National Guard canNOT protect the citizens of this country? Or is he saying they won't?
The Second Amendment gives provision for a "well-regulated militia." Which militia do you think is more well-regulated? The National Guard? Or the type of counter-mob being advocated by the NRA? You know, there are places in America where sides have chosen up who is good and bad and they just shoot it out in the street. Now THAT is a great idea. The kind of social breakdown spoken about by the NRA is not just something that happens after a natural disaster. It is something that happens when people take law and justice into their own hands, subverting the system of checks and balances that is the true inspiration in our system, and put loyalty to a select group above the good of the whole group.
The NRA's position is a road to anarchy.
I just finished reading a book about the people of Appalachia in the early 1900's. Though fictionalized, the book is fascinating in the picture it paints of the Mountain Man. His proud Scottish ancestry gave him a profound love of freedom and an equally profound distrust of the government. Though in reasoned moderation, this love and distrust form the basis of free civilizations everywhere, taken to extremes, these same feelings replace civilization with ignorant and clannish grudge matches.
The social contract means that we give up a certain amount of freedom in exchange for communities lived in greater harmony. I know, I know, every dictator ever insisted that people give him greater power so that the people have fewer choices that might distress them. I know this. The difference in a democratic country is that the people agree on which freedoms we are willing to forgo. When the vast majority of Americans (even gun owners) support stronger regulation, more thorough background checks and, yes, even BANS on certain types of weapons, then what right have congressmen to prevent reasonable legislation because of the crazy fear-mongering of a single group?
For example, I recently heard of a man who had some weapons and tools stolen from his garage. He had a hunch about the responsible parties and went ARMED to the house to retrieve his property. The NRA's current position argues that this situation is preferable to notifying the police. They are advancing a position of "rights" and "freedom" that can only lead to terror for the vast number of Americans unwilling to believe that buying more guns will actually control gun violence. Escalation is not the same as prevention.
After the head-exploding comments by the esteemed Senator, I heard two news stories the following morning.
The first was out of the Washington State Office. Two employees have been pulled in to work full-time on back ground checks with the proliferation of requests to buy guns that has flooded the office. Other employees are working on these requests part-time. Two hundred requests are coming in every day. No proof of training in weapons use is required. So many have been pulled in to deal with the back log because if no answer is received within 7 days (the waiting period) of the time of submission, then they have to authorize the gun sale anyway. Really. Everyone likes to complain about how their tax dollars are being spent. Here is my complaint today: my tax dollars are being spent to hire people to perpetuate MORE gun ownership in society.
The second story, also out of Washington, was that a woman in a McDonalds accidentally shot her husband in the stomach when her Derringer fell out of her pocket. She is for sure the one I would elect for leading the well-regulated militia.
Thursday, February 07, 2013
Agony and Ecstasy
Ideas in education abound, and I've learned a few over the last few years. There is one that especially resonates with me, however. The idea is generally referred to as "situated cognition." To people outside educational theory, however, this doesn't carry much meaning. The term I prefer is "enculturation," which makes much more sense with a little bit of explanation.
You see, the things we learn best are things in which we are immersed. Each of us exists as a part of a culture, and sometimes cultures. For example, I would say that my world view is most shaped by the fact that I'm a Mormon and an American. My order choice is deliberate. Smaller cultures within these exist--my background is as a Utah Mormon, and my upbringing is in the American west. In addition, the family in which I grew up has a distinct culture, and I still identify myself as an "Aggie" or a "Warrior" (school mascots), depending on the context. The cultures with which we identify, both help to shape us, but they also help to inform and color how we take in new information.
I see the major problem in modern schools being that they only equip us to attend more school. I became a teacher because I love the school environment; it is one of the cultures where I feel the most secure and competent. The disconnect, too often, is that school is totally divorced from the "real world." For students who don't connect to a school culture of knowledge for the sake of knowledge as a worthy pursuit, this is maddening. This is the kid in the front row who says, "But Miss, when will I ever use this??" The question is worthwhile, and too long unanswered by teachers and schools alike.
Obviously everything learned in school isn't later applicable to later life, and, just as obviously, it doesn't make this knowledge worthless. However, on balance, children at school should be acquiring both information and skills that can be transferred to other contexts. Motivation increases when people view the knowledge as important. When motivation increases, behavior problems decrease, and even more authentic learning can take place. Just as this positive feedback loop is the law of any well-run classroom, the opposite, negative feedback loop is the norm in poorly run classes.
For example, if scientists in the real world design and conduct experiments; collect and interpret data; publish and defend their findings; and view unexpected results as a starting place (instead of failure), then students in a science classroom should be doing the same thing. Children should be designing and carrying out experiments of varying complexity; they should publish on blogs and their own websites and in class wikis; they should prepare presentations and share their findings with the class, prepared to factually defend what they learned; when experiments go awry they should feel contemplative about their failures and determined to move forward. Otherwise children are stuck with the same kind of science education that I generally had--read the book, answer questions, listen to lecture. I learned a lot, and was highly engaged in that knowledge, but I never viewed myself as a scientist, and feel vastly more comfortable in front of the room teaching about science than in a laboratory doing science. How can we grow a generation of scientists if we only teach facts?
My blog post title is the same as the current book I've spent snatched moments engrossed in this week. Many of my friends read it in high school; I happened to have the other teacher. It is a historical novel based on Michelangelo. I see why they loved it so much, and I can see why many people developing schools and ideas about education are going back to the old Renaissance masters to try and understand how such people came into being. What kind of education did they have?
In Michelangelo's case the answer is plain: once he began really showing an interest in art, he did little else. He spent all of his non-sleeping hours beginning as a young teenager in an art studio where he quickly began working on sketches and painting for commissions that went to his master. While living with the Medici family in Florence, they supported him and gave him an allowance, but his time was his own to draw, sculpt, paint and carve. Just after leaving the Medicis he prepared to carve his first three-dimensional figure by traveling throughout the countryside painting (and illegally dissecting because of his obsessive interest in the human body and its workings). He also spent time studying and discussing the classics with the great scholars of the day. He was only 17.
This book has me deeply wondering if education can inspire genius, or, at best, cultivate it. Michelangelo seems to have something inside of him driving him to create. Is he unique? Or is this seed in all of us? What if proper education, based on principles about how people really learn, could truly help each person reach his or her potential. What could society look like in 10 years? 20 years? I don't think I discount God's influence when I push for this kind of reform . . . the scriptures tell us that the glory of God is intelligence. Not many years ago Elder Uchtdorf gave a talk about creativity, and how as gods-in-embryo it was the natural inclination of the human spirit to lean toward creation. I want to know what kind of education can unearth this seed that must reside in each of us.
I know . . . I know. . . for every Michelangelo churned out of Florence during the late Renaissance there were millions of nameless others for whom life was a daily drudge. I know. I've made the argument myself among other MEd students who pull out the examples of the great masters. But it is significant that some of the world's greatest art and most valuable early thinking emerged out of this time. The world had a printing press, some modern (for the time) advances that allowed for longer lives, a political system friendly to the expansion of ideas, etc. etc. We could be at the cusp of this time ourselves. We have an explosion in technology and access to it that rivals the press; our medical advances give people longevity for discovery unparalleled in the Renaissance world. Our political system? I don't know. I'm appalled by the number of voices who disdain learning, intellectualism and reasoned thought regarding any number of issues. Recent reports say that we spend more than 50% of our budget on the military (including pensions) and less than 5% on ALL public education (including colleges), federally. All other civilized countries spend just about equally on military and education--both numbers being in the teens. How can this great educational re-awakening happen without a concentrated commitment to make it better? The only way forward is to fund education at levels never seen before. In a single generation, just 20 to 30 years, we would reap the benefits.
My thoughts are heavy all around this week. Our three local districts here have graduation rates that clocked in at 62, 64 and 66%. Our district is the lowest. Classes are so crowded that high school students, unable to find a spot in required classes, are dropping out in droves. This is an epidemic of ignorance. An epidemic of apathy. We overlook the very real needs of schools at the peril to our whole society.
You see, the things we learn best are things in which we are immersed. Each of us exists as a part of a culture, and sometimes cultures. For example, I would say that my world view is most shaped by the fact that I'm a Mormon and an American. My order choice is deliberate. Smaller cultures within these exist--my background is as a Utah Mormon, and my upbringing is in the American west. In addition, the family in which I grew up has a distinct culture, and I still identify myself as an "Aggie" or a "Warrior" (school mascots), depending on the context. The cultures with which we identify, both help to shape us, but they also help to inform and color how we take in new information.
I see the major problem in modern schools being that they only equip us to attend more school. I became a teacher because I love the school environment; it is one of the cultures where I feel the most secure and competent. The disconnect, too often, is that school is totally divorced from the "real world." For students who don't connect to a school culture of knowledge for the sake of knowledge as a worthy pursuit, this is maddening. This is the kid in the front row who says, "But Miss, when will I ever use this??" The question is worthwhile, and too long unanswered by teachers and schools alike.
Obviously everything learned in school isn't later applicable to later life, and, just as obviously, it doesn't make this knowledge worthless. However, on balance, children at school should be acquiring both information and skills that can be transferred to other contexts. Motivation increases when people view the knowledge as important. When motivation increases, behavior problems decrease, and even more authentic learning can take place. Just as this positive feedback loop is the law of any well-run classroom, the opposite, negative feedback loop is the norm in poorly run classes.
For example, if scientists in the real world design and conduct experiments; collect and interpret data; publish and defend their findings; and view unexpected results as a starting place (instead of failure), then students in a science classroom should be doing the same thing. Children should be designing and carrying out experiments of varying complexity; they should publish on blogs and their own websites and in class wikis; they should prepare presentations and share their findings with the class, prepared to factually defend what they learned; when experiments go awry they should feel contemplative about their failures and determined to move forward. Otherwise children are stuck with the same kind of science education that I generally had--read the book, answer questions, listen to lecture. I learned a lot, and was highly engaged in that knowledge, but I never viewed myself as a scientist, and feel vastly more comfortable in front of the room teaching about science than in a laboratory doing science. How can we grow a generation of scientists if we only teach facts?
My blog post title is the same as the current book I've spent snatched moments engrossed in this week. Many of my friends read it in high school; I happened to have the other teacher. It is a historical novel based on Michelangelo. I see why they loved it so much, and I can see why many people developing schools and ideas about education are going back to the old Renaissance masters to try and understand how such people came into being. What kind of education did they have?
In Michelangelo's case the answer is plain: once he began really showing an interest in art, he did little else. He spent all of his non-sleeping hours beginning as a young teenager in an art studio where he quickly began working on sketches and painting for commissions that went to his master. While living with the Medici family in Florence, they supported him and gave him an allowance, but his time was his own to draw, sculpt, paint and carve. Just after leaving the Medicis he prepared to carve his first three-dimensional figure by traveling throughout the countryside painting (and illegally dissecting because of his obsessive interest in the human body and its workings). He also spent time studying and discussing the classics with the great scholars of the day. He was only 17.
This book has me deeply wondering if education can inspire genius, or, at best, cultivate it. Michelangelo seems to have something inside of him driving him to create. Is he unique? Or is this seed in all of us? What if proper education, based on principles about how people really learn, could truly help each person reach his or her potential. What could society look like in 10 years? 20 years? I don't think I discount God's influence when I push for this kind of reform . . . the scriptures tell us that the glory of God is intelligence. Not many years ago Elder Uchtdorf gave a talk about creativity, and how as gods-in-embryo it was the natural inclination of the human spirit to lean toward creation. I want to know what kind of education can unearth this seed that must reside in each of us.
I know . . . I know. . . for every Michelangelo churned out of Florence during the late Renaissance there were millions of nameless others for whom life was a daily drudge. I know. I've made the argument myself among other MEd students who pull out the examples of the great masters. But it is significant that some of the world's greatest art and most valuable early thinking emerged out of this time. The world had a printing press, some modern (for the time) advances that allowed for longer lives, a political system friendly to the expansion of ideas, etc. etc. We could be at the cusp of this time ourselves. We have an explosion in technology and access to it that rivals the press; our medical advances give people longevity for discovery unparalleled in the Renaissance world. Our political system? I don't know. I'm appalled by the number of voices who disdain learning, intellectualism and reasoned thought regarding any number of issues. Recent reports say that we spend more than 50% of our budget on the military (including pensions) and less than 5% on ALL public education (including colleges), federally. All other civilized countries spend just about equally on military and education--both numbers being in the teens. How can this great educational re-awakening happen without a concentrated commitment to make it better? The only way forward is to fund education at levels never seen before. In a single generation, just 20 to 30 years, we would reap the benefits.
My thoughts are heavy all around this week. Our three local districts here have graduation rates that clocked in at 62, 64 and 66%. Our district is the lowest. Classes are so crowded that high school students, unable to find a spot in required classes, are dropping out in droves. This is an epidemic of ignorance. An epidemic of apathy. We overlook the very real needs of schools at the peril to our whole society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)