What does it mean to me?

I've been reading a great deal about new learning environments and mulling over the possibilities of different methods and perhaps even different modes of educational thought.

I'm wondering, at the moment, about how I can convince my students that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, in general, is worthwhile for them to study. Yeah, the spill about being an educated citizen and protecting freedom is fun to say, but what impact does that really have on average students--or any students?

What does it mean to me, anyway? I cherish the freedom that I have in this country, and I know that by and large those freedoms are protected by the ideas in the Constitution. But these ideas are so abstract. I could talk to the students about wearing an armband to class, and allow them to see that they do have some rights. But, they really aren't that interested in protest. I could discuss with them the limits of the freedom of the press, but they aren't publishing much on their own; so they're not that concerned with libel and slander. I could talk with them about the establishment and free exercise clauses, but religious freedom's not really on the top of the list these days... cynical, I know.

Unfortunately, maybe the 2nd and 4th amendments will draw some interest. Maybe guns and searches and seizures are more of a reality to many of the students than free speech and petition of government. We could talk about the 10th amendment, but even the Feds ignore that one these days.

I suppose I've gone on a bit more of a rant than I first intended. The ultimate goal is to determine how to intrigue the students. I really want them to want to learn about their government. I want them to want to know about their rights; not just for a test. Woe is me. Back to the whiny teacher mantra....

Congressman

I've been fuming all day because of the comments made yesterday by my congressman. The "Honorable Patrick T. McHenry." He and some of the other cronies out running for reelection soon were stumping on their "Operation Offsets." Clever name, eh? I understand the principle: we owe a bunch of money, especially with Katrina and Rita, and we need to figure out some way to pay for these expenses. But McHenry called for the end of public funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Now I have personal affection for PBS. My son--who is 20 months old--can count to 23 or so, because of the Count and Elmo and all his friends on Sesame Street. And maybe Sesame Street could be picked up by a competitive network in the free market, but what about Ken Burns? broadway performances such as Les Miserables? What about NOVA?

I'm a fairly principled conservative on most issues. I don't like my tax money being spent for worthless things. But slashing PBS? That would save me... wait... that's right a whopping $2.70 a year. Then there's $990 billion dollar budget that we passed. McHenry's vote: AYE. Then there's the pork laden Transportation bill. McHenry's vote: AYE. And the pork laden Energy Bill. McHenry's vote. AYE.

So, please, congressman, don't stand on your stump and rant about principled conservative spending, when your record clearly shows that it's all for political gain. I know that you dislike Bill Moyers and BBC; I don't particularly agree with their points of view either. But I can handle the elevated discourse. I prefer the elevated discourse, to the ratings driven talking head shows: like when McHenry was on Hardball defending that old time Conservative principle of government intervention in state affairs. Remember Terry Schiavo? Sarcasm noted.

I'm sick and tired of demigogues controlling the political process. The American people--at least some of us--can handle honest debate. I realize that things aren't as black and white as we would all prefer. But I am intelligent enough to handle big issues. I look forward to McHenry's response to my emails.

john q.

Don't be afraid to punt!

Maybe this is inspired by being at the Panther game Sunday, or the turnover prone Chargers...

Yesterday, I ended first period quite frustrated. We've spent 3 weeks now on the roots of American government (historic, philosophic, events, etc), and very few of my students are "getting it." I've used different methods such as lecture, question based learning, guided reading, journaling, standard discussion, etc., and not much was working. We've had some really productive class periods, but the assessments were falling short. So, today I remembered the advice I got from Dr. Eastman a few years ago: "Sometimes you gotta drop back and punt."

So we came screeching to a halt today. I typed up 30 why questions--why do we value limited government? being the first. I realized two things.

1) Many of the students don't have a grasp of the questions. For so long--too long--they've been taught memorization of facts and facts alone. They are accustomed to answering questions in a few sentences (that may be generous) and being able to find those sentences very close to the bold word in the text. And so today, all I wanted was for them to learn the questions. Not to regurgitate them later, but to begin to develop an understanding of what they are being asked.

2) They know that they value limited government. They may not know that it is "limited government" that they value--which is an argument for factual learning as well. But they don't want the police to barge in their houses at night and arrest them and hold them prisoner for an indefinite time. But they are not able to communicate these ideas very well. My brother and his compadres http://topics.typepad.com/pondering/ talk quite a bit about New Literacy and it is obvious--painfully sometimes--that many students don't have a grasp of new or old literacy. I'm developing as an educator, but still lack in many areas... we'll see how these next few days pan out.

Here we go raleigh...

The subject is a Widespread Panic reference. FYI. Whew. 2 supreme court vacancies, immigration?, Hurricane Katrina fallout, Iraqi Elections and Constitution ratification... Should be a crazy fall.

Not to mention the playoff bound Broncos. Too many Blue and Oranges for one night. No, I didn't name my son after a beer. The brewer, people, the brewer.

ihl
dt

Locke, Hobbes, and Disaster...

I've been preparing this afternoon for the upcoming lesson on the philosophy behind the creation of the American government. Whether I can engage the kids on such heady matters is yet to be determined, but I always enjoy some good philosophical reading. Within the subject matter, of course, is the Social Contract theory. I've been reading excerpts from Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Two Treatises.


All the while I've been keeping up with the madness that is New Orleans. The contrast between the political philosophers mentioned above seems to be playing itself out in real time in the streets of that ravaged city. Locke took a friendly view of the State of Nature: claiming that in Nature we would all live relatively peacefully because of the Law of Nature which lends a moral compass (paraphrased loosely). I can see this particular viewpoint in the thousands and tens of thousands who left with no civil authority are taking their own flat bottomed boats and going out on search and rescue missions, who are looking out for neighbors in many cases before they consider their own well being...

And then there's Hobbes version. The two both agree on the necessity of a Social Contract to form some sort of civil government--but I'll leave that for my lucky students tomorrow--, but their vision of the State of Nature are quite contradictory. Hobbes sees an all out war as the original Nature. One in which every man is warring with every man. One in which the chaos is so tremendous that people begin to long for some sort of authority.... But this version of the State of Nature is also present in the Big Easy. (not such a fitting name anymore) The thugs that are raping and carjacking and killing and looting--yeah I can accept the difference between stealing food and water and even clothing. Ones who shoot at helicopters that are attempting to evacuate people from hospitals. It seems that Hobbes was right. And so was Locke.

What causes these differences? The desperation argument only takes me so far. I can't move with that cause into the reports of gang rape and senseless murder. Can anyone help me out on this one?

dt

Etc.

As is noted by the title of my weblog, not all of my posts will consist of theories and/or practice of education. Though it's all education after all isn't it?

I was thinking of what we discussed at our newly formed Broad River Community Church this morning. Paul says that he was "not ashamed of the gospel"--of the good news. Matt O. reflected this morning that he was not ashamed of the gospel either, but that he was ashamed of some of the folks--especially in the good ol' USA--that claim this same good news. Pat Robertson is a good example. Anytime the gospel of Christ is brought up to an unbeliever or simply to a skeptic, the association is likely to be made with Mr. Robertson's comments about Hugo Chavez, et al. But the Truth is not the Truth because Pat says so or because I say so or not. It is. He is.

Now, I've gone round and round and round the arguments and postulations of relativism and absolute Truth. The snagging point for me comes in the fact that at some point folks simply have to agree to disagree. The message that Jesus brought was not one of condemnation, but one of salvation. He even urges his followers to try his message out (John 7) and see for themselves. The criticism of Christianity in modern circles usually focuses on the misdeeds of the faith (i.e. the Crusades, Inquisition, Slavery, etc), but if Christianity is followed to the point of leaving your father and mother and all that you hold dear in this physical reality, then the Lord himself says that it will work. Loving one another through the Father seems so unlikely to cause so much division, yet it is so offensive to so many. Or does that offense generate with often self proclaimed followers who foul up the perfection?

I understand that on the practical level confusion over Truth is inevitable, and that because so programs that are implemented or espoused will necessarily cause division--even among fellow believers. But the students that I see parade through my classroom year in and year out are yearning for genuine, authentic love. We theorize on learning styles and debate on best methods and even agree that disparities exist. We are concerned and even heartbroken to see dismantled families and moral bankruptcy in our children. Yet we are unwilling to even allow the discussion of Truth in the halls of scholarship.

I'm sure much of this is logically flawed, and I apologize for the rambling nature of my second attempt on the ol' Blog, but my motivation is pure. Despite all of the horror and destruction that we all have witnessed over the past several years--or 5000 but who's counting?--, that I still hold a bit of idealism somewhere deep inside. The hope that I know, I also know can and will sustain generations. Hope and Love and Peace and Justice and Compassion and Humility and Honesty and Faith.... These are not illusions, they are Reality. Eternal Reality.

dt

First Days of School

Every year about this time, I get really excited. All summer long, I've been linked to several blogs and 21st century literacy sites by my new media savvy brother; I got to spend a week in Philadelphia as part of a Teaching American History grant, and I've had the chance to read several books. I get really excited about entering the classroom. I spent more time than ever making plans, fixing up my room, and rehearsing the first few plans over in my mind.... But after the first few days a little steam has been knocked out of me. The students just aren't excited as I am. It is always a wake up call for me. They have little to no interest in education, world affairs, and certainly not history.

So, this weekend I'm forced to step up my game another notch. So I'll let you know how that goes...

No longer a blog virgin,
DT