The teacher of the year in the Springfield, MO school district (largest school district in the state) said that she believed that education is built on good relationships with the students. Interestingly enough, I talked to a principal today who said that what he looks for in a teacher is someone who builds good relationships with students. I agree wholeheartedly with both sentiments.
As a teacher, I strive to build relationships with my students. These relationships need not be friendly, or close, but they should be based, as the best relationships are, on trust. I want my students to trust that I am giving my best effort, and that they are safe, and that I do have their best interests at heart. On my part, I would like for my students to do their best, and be courteous, and respectful of my wish to help them and their classmates achieve. I understand that they may come from a place where trust does not come easily. My role in the relationship is to overcome this reluctance. This is what is difficult, and also rewarding, in being a teacher.
Strangely enough, I can't help but believe that this belief is part and parcel of the reason the administration at my last teaching position released me. They probably would not view it that way, but since my intents and goals were not a part of any dialogue I was involved in, I really am unsure how they would have viewed it.
The long and the short of it was, I had a student who could be difficult. He was likeable in many ways, and intelligent, but events in his life had given him some trust issues which I had to overcome as a teacher. This student was very interested in the military. He asked me one day if I had any tattoos from my time in the service. I said yes, and he asked to see it. This was in class. My tattoo is on my chest, visible when I wear a tank top (if I were to wear tank tops, which I don't). I had shown my tattoo in previous classes, and didn't think anything of it. Apparently, however, one of the students in class reported that I had shown my chest in class to a member of the elementary faculty, who told the superintendent. The next day, I received an e-mail from my principal, asking if I had "bared my chest" in class. I told him it only required me to pull down my collar slightly, and yes, I had shown my tattoo. Nothing more was said, but several months later, my contract was not renewed. The principal felt it was the tattoo incident which had lead to this state of affairs. So be it, I thought.
Fast forward several more months, almost a year. I encountered the student to whom I had shown the tattoo at a gas station. He told me I had been his favorite teacher, and that he had decided after being in my class that he wanted to be an English teacher. I am unsure he will follow through on this career path, but his willingness to even consider it shows me a high level of engagement in what I was trying to teach, which was my goal in the first place.
I do believe that good education is founded on relationships. Before true education can occur, a positive, trusting relationship must be in place. A good analogy (and I love analogies) would be that before a plant can grow, before a seed is planted, the ground must first be prepared in order to ensure the fullest bloom and the finest fruits. Without the relationship, the students will do only the bare minimum necessary. Mediocrity will be the result, and while I have not mastered the ability to foster a good relationship with each and every student, at least I am trying.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
The Nature of Human Pleasure
I started thinking the other day about human pleasure. I'm not talking strictly physical, although that is a part of of it. I'm talking about the general idea of actions and a state of being that allows us to describe ourselves with the broad adjective "happy."
In my mind, I divided pleasuree into three areas. These divisions are physical pleasure, social pleasure, and then existential pleasure.
Physical pleasure is obvious. Sex, eating, scratching an itch, a cool drink on a warm day...all these and much, much more are the lowest form of pleasure in my mind. This sense of pleasure is brought about primarily by satisfying our own needs, our physical needs, our basic survival needs. This level of pleasure is usually enhanced by our bodies telling us "Good job, you did something necessary for survival." Our bodies do this in the form of endorphins. Unfortunately, our bodies are stupid. When we eat, endorphins are released. Every time. So if nothing else is making us happy, we eat and then overeat. The results of giving in completely to physical pleasures are never good. When we try to find our happiness chemically, be it through a state of euphoria from chemicals naturally occurring in our bodies or if we introduce artificial chemicals for the same result, we are damaging ourselves.
The next level of pleasure is social pleasure. This can be directed inward or outward. We receive pleasure from recognition of our peers, and also for contributing to our peers' well-being. We are happy when we are well thought of, or when we are thinking of others and doing for others. In this context, we often are happy when we are doing "right." Doing right generally means acting in a way that strongly promotes proper social interaction. I'm not sure if there is a chemical correspondence in this area, but since people are essentially hardwired to be gregarious and seek out the company of others, it is essentially the same. I think this kind of happiness is often felt by the religious; those who are happiest in religious settings. Of course, too much of this pleasure can also be harmful. We can strive too hard for peer recogition. We can also give too much of ourselves for others. As a society, we point to those who give selflessly as being individuals to emulate, but there may also be a proper balance.
The next level of pleasure is the most difficult to achieve. This is existential, or pure mental pleasure. We perform acts or are aware in ways that do not directly benefit us physically or socially, but seem to strike a chord within that produces a quiet pleasure. Outside artists are good examples of this state. They often create works of art with no intentions of selling or achieving societal recognition, but take pleasure in the creation. We can also achieve this state by simply taking pleasure in observing the world around us. I sometimes can reach this state when I'm thinking. When I find a way of perceiving the world that seems to fit, I am happy. This kind of happiness will not have a person shouting from the rooftops or dancing in the street, but this type of pleasure also seems to me to be least likely to do any damage or have any negative effects. I would also imagine that this type of pleasure is to be found spiritually by the truly devout. This type of pleasure could be described as being at peace with one's self, at one with nature, feeling in harmony with the universe, or feeling God's love.
I don't believe we should deny ourselves all physical pleasure, but recognize it for what it is: a means to an end, but not the end itself. Physical pleasure is our body rewarding us for staying alive. The staying alive is the important part.
Social pleasure is every bit as important as physical pleasure to our well-being. Do for others, and be happy when your actions and abilities are recognized.
Take existential pleasure when and where you can find it. It is too rare, too precious. Reward yourself by recognizing when your are smiling for no particular reason.
In my mind, I divided pleasuree into three areas. These divisions are physical pleasure, social pleasure, and then existential pleasure.
Physical pleasure is obvious. Sex, eating, scratching an itch, a cool drink on a warm day...all these and much, much more are the lowest form of pleasure in my mind. This sense of pleasure is brought about primarily by satisfying our own needs, our physical needs, our basic survival needs. This level of pleasure is usually enhanced by our bodies telling us "Good job, you did something necessary for survival." Our bodies do this in the form of endorphins. Unfortunately, our bodies are stupid. When we eat, endorphins are released. Every time. So if nothing else is making us happy, we eat and then overeat. The results of giving in completely to physical pleasures are never good. When we try to find our happiness chemically, be it through a state of euphoria from chemicals naturally occurring in our bodies or if we introduce artificial chemicals for the same result, we are damaging ourselves.
The next level of pleasure is social pleasure. This can be directed inward or outward. We receive pleasure from recognition of our peers, and also for contributing to our peers' well-being. We are happy when we are well thought of, or when we are thinking of others and doing for others. In this context, we often are happy when we are doing "right." Doing right generally means acting in a way that strongly promotes proper social interaction. I'm not sure if there is a chemical correspondence in this area, but since people are essentially hardwired to be gregarious and seek out the company of others, it is essentially the same. I think this kind of happiness is often felt by the religious; those who are happiest in religious settings. Of course, too much of this pleasure can also be harmful. We can strive too hard for peer recogition. We can also give too much of ourselves for others. As a society, we point to those who give selflessly as being individuals to emulate, but there may also be a proper balance.
The next level of pleasure is the most difficult to achieve. This is existential, or pure mental pleasure. We perform acts or are aware in ways that do not directly benefit us physically or socially, but seem to strike a chord within that produces a quiet pleasure. Outside artists are good examples of this state. They often create works of art with no intentions of selling or achieving societal recognition, but take pleasure in the creation. We can also achieve this state by simply taking pleasure in observing the world around us. I sometimes can reach this state when I'm thinking. When I find a way of perceiving the world that seems to fit, I am happy. This kind of happiness will not have a person shouting from the rooftops or dancing in the street, but this type of pleasure also seems to me to be least likely to do any damage or have any negative effects. I would also imagine that this type of pleasure is to be found spiritually by the truly devout. This type of pleasure could be described as being at peace with one's self, at one with nature, feeling in harmony with the universe, or feeling God's love.
I don't believe we should deny ourselves all physical pleasure, but recognize it for what it is: a means to an end, but not the end itself. Physical pleasure is our body rewarding us for staying alive. The staying alive is the important part.
Social pleasure is every bit as important as physical pleasure to our well-being. Do for others, and be happy when your actions and abilities are recognized.
Take existential pleasure when and where you can find it. It is too rare, too precious. Reward yourself by recognizing when your are smiling for no particular reason.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
I'ma School You on Schoolin'
For over a week, a simple bit of slang has been bothering me. See two guys in the park, preparing to play ball. One says to the other, "Get ready. I'm going to school you."
Language always means more than it says. This is not an example of one man saying to another, "I'm going to teach you so that you can play ball better." What this man is saying is, "I will humiliate you."
Are you starting to see? School = Humiliate. This is what happens in schools all around the country every day. Students are humiliated. Before you think you are reading the rant of some rebel stating that all teachers are sadists like the teacher in Pink Floyd's The Wall, let me state that this is not what I mean at all. Since I have begun teaching, I have met few teachers who do not work hard every day to try to improve the lives of their students.
I'm talking about the system. The grading system. Give a student an A, whether that student deserved one or not, and the student is happy. Some students rightfully expect A's every time. They learn, master the lesson, and produce legitimate proof of that mastery. Other students do not. They may have learned it, and chosen not to produce proof of mastery. They may have not completely learned the lesson. They may not have learned the lesson at all. So we give them an F.
To me, F does not say try again. I have a feeling that F says try again to any student. F says only one thing: you failed. Ask any student what F stands for. They will tell you.
We need to get rid of F. Of course, that may also mean getting rid of A. And there goes all that money we give our children for getting A's. As much as we all love our letter system of grading, I think it is time that it goes. We should establish our expectations of a lesson, and there should be only three possible outcomes: Mastery, Competency, and Try Again. There will be students who will push themselves to achieve mastery, or students whose abilities and backgrounds lend themselves to more easily achieving mastery in some areas. Wonderful. Let's celebrate this, but discreetly.
All students should achieve Competency. If we are unsure what competency looks like, then we shouldn't be teaching the subject. We draw clear parameters and minimum expectations. These may vary from student to student depending on ability level based on pre-assessment, but the parameters must be there.
And there will always be Try Again. This is not shame. This is not humiliation. This is not schooling. This is education. Try Again does not mean for the student to try again without further instruction. Try Again applies to the teacher as well. If a student does not achieve competency, then this is just as much if not more the teacher's fault than the student's. If the student does not care enough to Try the first or second time, this is a flaw in our education system.
Language always means more than it says. This is not an example of one man saying to another, "I'm going to teach you so that you can play ball better." What this man is saying is, "I will humiliate you."
Are you starting to see? School = Humiliate. This is what happens in schools all around the country every day. Students are humiliated. Before you think you are reading the rant of some rebel stating that all teachers are sadists like the teacher in Pink Floyd's The Wall, let me state that this is not what I mean at all. Since I have begun teaching, I have met few teachers who do not work hard every day to try to improve the lives of their students.
I'm talking about the system. The grading system. Give a student an A, whether that student deserved one or not, and the student is happy. Some students rightfully expect A's every time. They learn, master the lesson, and produce legitimate proof of that mastery. Other students do not. They may have learned it, and chosen not to produce proof of mastery. They may have not completely learned the lesson. They may not have learned the lesson at all. So we give them an F.
To me, F does not say try again. I have a feeling that F says try again to any student. F says only one thing: you failed. Ask any student what F stands for. They will tell you.
We need to get rid of F. Of course, that may also mean getting rid of A. And there goes all that money we give our children for getting A's. As much as we all love our letter system of grading, I think it is time that it goes. We should establish our expectations of a lesson, and there should be only three possible outcomes: Mastery, Competency, and Try Again. There will be students who will push themselves to achieve mastery, or students whose abilities and backgrounds lend themselves to more easily achieving mastery in some areas. Wonderful. Let's celebrate this, but discreetly.
All students should achieve Competency. If we are unsure what competency looks like, then we shouldn't be teaching the subject. We draw clear parameters and minimum expectations. These may vary from student to student depending on ability level based on pre-assessment, but the parameters must be there.
And there will always be Try Again. This is not shame. This is not humiliation. This is not schooling. This is education. Try Again does not mean for the student to try again without further instruction. Try Again applies to the teacher as well. If a student does not achieve competency, then this is just as much if not more the teacher's fault than the student's. If the student does not care enough to Try the first or second time, this is a flaw in our education system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)