·To what degree do you think a teacher's private life should truly be private?
First off, what is the definition of “private life”? I’m not trying to be a lawyer here, but I think this is a key distinction that must be clarified. I would say that most people’s definition of a “private life” is whatever you do off the clock; be it go to a movie, out to dinner, or anything really. This definition I believe is wrong. If you have left your house you are now out in PUBLIC. People see you, interact with you, and you interact with them right back. Private Life I feel is when you are in your own house, or your own thoughts, or anything that does not involve, interact with, or affect anyone else. If you want to dance around your own house with underwear on your head and jelly smeared on your thighs be my guest. But when you are out in public you aren’t Jimmy the worlds greatest Jelly Dancer, you are Mr. Smith, fifth grade teacher out enjoying a movie. And if you can’t handle that responsibility then you picked the wrong career path buster.
·Should what the teacher does on his or her own personal time, always be protected by the law?
This view I feel is a little unconventional, but it’s what I think. I believe people should be allowed to be responsible for themselves. As I stated above I feel you should be free to do whatever when you are in your own house, or your own thoughts, that does not involve, interact with, or affect anyone else. That goes for just about everything. Drugs, drinking, everything. But I cannot stress enough IT MUST NOT INVOLVE, INTERACT WITH, OR AFFECT ANYONE ELSE. I am fine with you getting so high you can tell the difference of the colors robins’ egg blue and sky blue by taste alone. But you must be in your own house, and not leave or endanger anyone else. The minute whatever you step outside to listen to sunshine, then it would be illegal. Severely illegal. Mandatory prison time and then drug free probation. I know this thinking has some flaws, and I’m not going to keep explaining everything (I could keep going. And going, and going..) But the answer to the question I think that as long as it in no way affects anyone else then it should be legal.
·Is a teacher completely free to live his/her life in whatever way he/she decides?
Yes and no. Parents choose to send their children to school for what reason? To Learn, not just facts and numbers, but how to be a successful person in this world. If school was only about A B C’s and 1 2 3’s then torture would be a far more effective teaching tool than any teachers use today. But thankfully it’s not just that. Parents want their children to learn how to be a part of society, and that requires a moral basis and a code of ethics. I believe parents should be much more involved with choosing their child’s education and not just necessarily leaving it up to the nearest public school. They should find a teacher that expresses the same ethics and morality that they share. Now I’m not supporting KKK Elementary, but if a teacher wants to express their religious views, or sexual preference, as long as it fits with what the parent wants them to learn they should be allowed to do it. This is all within reason of course.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
A Question of Trust
This week I had to find an article and review it. Here is my review of it:
Article Title- A Question of Trust
Author- Anonymous
Source- Scholastic Administr@tor
This article discussed the views of Ronald D. Stephens, the executive director of the National School Safety Center. That is an independent nonprofit group that focuses on school crime prevention and safe-school planning. He discussed his thoughts on using security cameras in schools. Stephens gave the opinion that security cameras are not the end all solution to solving school violence and vandalism and in fact can cause extra hostility. He gave an example of a school in Minnesota that had cameras, metal detectors, and security guards but none were able to stop a student from killing 7 people in the school with a handgun in 2005. He later did clarify that he thought security cameras were a good solution for solving immediate problems like: Who is tagging the cafeteria walls, or who is breaking into the soda machines. He ended these thoughts by stating that schools should be careful how they use their power to enforce security. He said “If the school does something that does not use common sense or good judgment, they will ultimately have to answer for that in the courts."
I agree with Mr. Stephens for the most part. My work recently installed security cameras all around the campus and I am annoyed thinking that I am being watched all the time. I sometimes feel a bit rebellious and see what I can get away with on camera. And if I feel that way, imagine a middle school full of pre-teens. My solution unfortunatly is much more costly than cameras and therefore TUSD would never go for it. I would hire more monitors. I know a few monitors and one in paticular is more than just hired muscle. He gets to know all the kids, good and bad, and he relates with the and develops a basic relationship. That’s something a camera could never do. I also agree that cameras can be a nessesity to try and catch repeat offences. There are at least 19 other ways listed in our textbook that help reduce violence and vandalism. Some of them listed on pages 118-119 are: Creating alternative schools for repeat offenders; having a zero-tolerance policy for bringing weapons to school; establishing high expectations for the behavior and performance of students and staff; and create classroom enviroments centered on respect and kindness. All of the suggestions in the text book have a common theme. It’s about getting involved with the students and educating them, not monitoring them like prisoners. We as teachers are not sheperds herding around mindless sheep who need electric fences to keep them safe, we are instead trail guides showing the student the way so that one day they can make the trek on their own.
Article Title- A Question of Trust
Author- Anonymous
Source- Scholastic Administr@tor
This article discussed the views of Ronald D. Stephens, the executive director of the National School Safety Center. That is an independent nonprofit group that focuses on school crime prevention and safe-school planning. He discussed his thoughts on using security cameras in schools. Stephens gave the opinion that security cameras are not the end all solution to solving school violence and vandalism and in fact can cause extra hostility. He gave an example of a school in Minnesota that had cameras, metal detectors, and security guards but none were able to stop a student from killing 7 people in the school with a handgun in 2005. He later did clarify that he thought security cameras were a good solution for solving immediate problems like: Who is tagging the cafeteria walls, or who is breaking into the soda machines. He ended these thoughts by stating that schools should be careful how they use their power to enforce security. He said “If the school does something that does not use common sense or good judgment, they will ultimately have to answer for that in the courts."
I agree with Mr. Stephens for the most part. My work recently installed security cameras all around the campus and I am annoyed thinking that I am being watched all the time. I sometimes feel a bit rebellious and see what I can get away with on camera. And if I feel that way, imagine a middle school full of pre-teens. My solution unfortunatly is much more costly than cameras and therefore TUSD would never go for it. I would hire more monitors. I know a few monitors and one in paticular is more than just hired muscle. He gets to know all the kids, good and bad, and he relates with the and develops a basic relationship. That’s something a camera could never do. I also agree that cameras can be a nessesity to try and catch repeat offences. There are at least 19 other ways listed in our textbook that help reduce violence and vandalism. Some of them listed on pages 118-119 are: Creating alternative schools for repeat offenders; having a zero-tolerance policy for bringing weapons to school; establishing high expectations for the behavior and performance of students and staff; and create classroom enviroments centered on respect and kindness. All of the suggestions in the text book have a common theme. It’s about getting involved with the students and educating them, not monitoring them like prisoners. We as teachers are not sheperds herding around mindless sheep who need electric fences to keep them safe, we are instead trail guides showing the student the way so that one day they can make the trek on their own.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
It's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses. Hit it.
This is my idea for the contract the Nationals baseball team should offer phenom pitcher Steven Strassberg, who they just selected with the number one pick in the draft. This pitcher throws 102mph and people think he could be the greatest ever.
Here's what I would ideally offer. (I don't know if this contract would be legal or not) I offer him 7 years/up to $35 million structured like this: $10 million is a signing bonus to be paid over the first four years. He automatically gets that. During that time he gets paid the salary of $88,750 for every year he is in the minors and salaries of $400,000, $500,000, $550,000 and $700,000 for time spent on the Nationals' major league roster. Then at the end of the 4th year the team has an opt out clause they can exercise ONLY IF he has spent at least half his time as a National on the DL. For the 5th year he receives a salary of $5 million dollars. At the end of the 5th year HE has an opt out clause if he wishes. If he does NOT opt out, he receives a no trade clause for the final two years and a salary of $7.5 million and $10 million respectively. Here's why I do it. First they can afford it. If he really is all that and a bag of chips then he will bring in enough money to pay that total contract. The 4th year opt out clause is just in case he turns into Mark Prior( no need to shoot yourself in BOTH feet with an overpaid injured pitcher) the 5th year opt out clause is if he can smell the money buried under the New Yankee Stadium. He doesn't have a no trade clause then however so if the Nationals suck( which you know they will) they can shop him and get whatever they can for him before he bolts. He gets the no trade clause if he doesn't opt out so that after he decides to stick with the marriage the Nat's cant turn around and divorce him the next year.I think that is very fair for both sides of a player with that much potential/talent. I just have no idea if that contract would be legal or not, but I think it would be.
Here's what I would ideally offer. (I don't know if this contract would be legal or not) I offer him 7 years/up to $35 million structured like this: $10 million is a signing bonus to be paid over the first four years. He automatically gets that. During that time he gets paid the salary of $88,750 for every year he is in the minors and salaries of $400,000, $500,000, $550,000 and $700,000 for time spent on the Nationals' major league roster. Then at the end of the 4th year the team has an opt out clause they can exercise ONLY IF he has spent at least half his time as a National on the DL. For the 5th year he receives a salary of $5 million dollars. At the end of the 5th year HE has an opt out clause if he wishes. If he does NOT opt out, he receives a no trade clause for the final two years and a salary of $7.5 million and $10 million respectively. Here's why I do it. First they can afford it. If he really is all that and a bag of chips then he will bring in enough money to pay that total contract. The 4th year opt out clause is just in case he turns into Mark Prior( no need to shoot yourself in BOTH feet with an overpaid injured pitcher) the 5th year opt out clause is if he can smell the money buried under the New Yankee Stadium. He doesn't have a no trade clause then however so if the Nationals suck( which you know they will) they can shop him and get whatever they can for him before he bolts. He gets the no trade clause if he doesn't opt out so that after he decides to stick with the marriage the Nat's cant turn around and divorce him the next year.I think that is very fair for both sides of a player with that much potential/talent. I just have no idea if that contract would be legal or not, but I think it would be.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Look! A Title!
Your text describes Age-Sex Pyramids of populations of countries in 5 year age cohorts. Choose a few countries of different socio-economic levels i.e. Sweden and Bolivia, or Canada and Botswana. Analyze and compare their Age-Sex Pyramids. What population issues can you conclude could be associated with each? Can we go beyond socio-economic issues and make assumptions on types of economic or political systems?
I chose to compare India and Switzerland, two VERY different countries with two very different Age-Sex pyramids. Switzerland maintains a mostly rectangular pyramid, which coincides with the fact that it is a well developed country. One interesting thing about it though is that the overall population of Switzerland is projected to decrease by 2050. In each population summary the number of average child bearing adults (20-44) drops by several tens of thousands. This then causes the number of children born to drop, thus continuing the cycle. The only way I can think to explain this is that the population continues to focus less and less on raising a family and instead focuses on maintaining the economy and industry of Switzerland. I have no first hand experience but I am told that Switzerland is a very beautiful and expensive country to live in. Perhaps any influx of immigration will be mostly older more established families and retirees.India on the other hand appears ready to explode in population over the next 50 years. The pyramid for the year 2000 is a clearly defined evergreen tree indicating an under developed country. The average life span is currently pretty low, with the same number of people ages 60+ as the small range of 30-34, about 76 million. The projections however change rapidly and by 2050 the pyramid is no longer an evergreen shape but a very large rectangle. It estimates that there will be 1.5 billion Indians between the ages of 0-59 with no age group any higher than the other. To me this indicates they are projecting India to become MUCH more developed in the areas of healthcare, education, and nutrition. In highly developed countries the birth rate lowers and in India this will also apparently be the case. There will be so many child bearing adults however that the overall number of children age 0-4 will stay the same as 2000, about 120 million. My guess is that if you are in the field of healthcare or education or anything else that flourishes with a large population, India is the place you want to be for the next 50 years.
Sorry, this is for my Geography class, its more boring than EDU but I thought you might find this interesting.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
If men are from Mars, and women are from Venus, and boys play with toys, what do girls get... grills?
Respond to the following: As a student have you noticed that teachers pay more attention to boys than girls? Why do you think teachers favor boys in class? What steps can you take to prevent yourself from shortchanging girls when you become a teacher?
It sure seems that teachers pay more attention to boys, but is it because they favor them more? I say certainly not. I believe it is because a teacher knows that if he or she stops paying attention to the boys in the class for even just a moment, the average boy will have enough time to tear his books in two, jump on his desk and prance around the room screaming something about root beer and jellyfish sandwiches. OK, so I exaggerate, but only by a little. The heart of the matter is that a boy's attention span and learning method is different than a girl's, and it requires a much more hands on approach. Boys, and men for that matter, like to do, build, and experience to gain new learning. As our textbook even states " A researcher at Harvard University argues that schools don't accomidate boys' learning styles and classroom needs." That is how the male mind works. My favorite way to play when I was little was to take things apart and try and put them back together. Did I want to spend the morning reading a manual, or did I want to spend the morning building through trial and error until I fixed it again? I learned by doing, and there is the problem. There is a time for lecture and listen. Far too many teachers in my many years of classroom experience however have made lecture and listen their bread and butter. Boys, and really all children, can only take so much of that. Teachers need to, and I believe slowly are, expanding their teaching repertoire to include alternate teaching methods to reach all the children. That's what I love about our textbook. It addresses that need in the hope of weeding it out entirely. The more children are engaged in the classroom, the more they will learn. Until all teachers add alternate learning methods however, teachers eyes will be firmly focused on the boys.
It sure seems that teachers pay more attention to boys, but is it because they favor them more? I say certainly not. I believe it is because a teacher knows that if he or she stops paying attention to the boys in the class for even just a moment, the average boy will have enough time to tear his books in two, jump on his desk and prance around the room screaming something about root beer and jellyfish sandwiches. OK, so I exaggerate, but only by a little. The heart of the matter is that a boy's attention span and learning method is different than a girl's, and it requires a much more hands on approach. Boys, and men for that matter, like to do, build, and experience to gain new learning. As our textbook even states " A researcher at Harvard University argues that schools don't accomidate boys' learning styles and classroom needs." That is how the male mind works. My favorite way to play when I was little was to take things apart and try and put them back together. Did I want to spend the morning reading a manual, or did I want to spend the morning building through trial and error until I fixed it again? I learned by doing, and there is the problem. There is a time for lecture and listen. Far too many teachers in my many years of classroom experience however have made lecture and listen their bread and butter. Boys, and really all children, can only take so much of that. Teachers need to, and I believe slowly are, expanding their teaching repertoire to include alternate teaching methods to reach all the children. That's what I love about our textbook. It addresses that need in the hope of weeding it out entirely. The more children are engaged in the classroom, the more they will learn. Until all teachers add alternate learning methods however, teachers eyes will be firmly focused on the boys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)