Re Defined II

Yesterday, we went to an upstart in Charlotte. I'd call it a church, but wouldn't that poison your mind with preconception from the start? Well, part of the teaching yesterday was about that very fact. The Church brings with it connotations--and most of the time those are not all that warm and fuzzy.

I remember very clearly the events of September 11. I also remember words from a wise man after that attack occurred. He said, "You've got to temper your patriotism with your religion."

For the past years I have bought into the notion that my enemy was the Islamic terrorists and the Post Modernists who would have everyone believe in--well nothing. Politically, I'm not quite sure what the solution to these particular problems/issues is... but I'm going to retreat from that particular sphere for a while.

So. If those mentioned above are not the enemy, and the enemy is clearly defined... well then?

Pride. Arrogance. Apathy. Avarice. Greed. Selfishness. Prejudice.

The Book explains all this over and over, yet somehow we are willing to miss it. Somehow, we buy into the Us vs Them mentality so easily. Somehow we are enamored with the prospect of political power and influence. Somehow we miss the message of the One who explains it so very simply.

I hope to flesh all of these ideas out a little more in my next few posts with a few quotes from a book I just finished and an explanation and photograph of my brother-in-law's latest work of art.

Hebrews 13:12-13

dt

Re Defined

Isaac Avery (currently the front runner in the name game if our newest is a boy) was a confederate officer who offered this quotation upon his death:

"Tell my father I died with my face to the enemy."

Confession: I have misidentified the enemy.

I thought about creating a new blog for my upcoming line of thought--but why separate?

dt

Shattered.

I watched the BBC last night to see the updates of the current Middle East tragedy as well as the escalating violence in Iraq. (This was after I watched the Antietam episode from Ken Burns' Civil War documentary)

I got the same feeling watching the news last night that I got when I was on the battlefield in Sharpsburg a few weeks ago. It was a sinking feeling... deep in my gut. I saw the kids that were being separated from their mother as the transports left with refugees from Lebanon. The thing is that the kids don't really know... they just know they aren't with their mother. They don't understand the death. They don't understand the destruction. They don't understand the torment.

But that's what war brings: always. You want absolute truth? War is terrible!

I'm really conflicted. I went to New York two months after it was attacked. I saw the terrible destruction. I saw the makeshift memorials with the letters to Daddies and Mommies that would never return. I wept.

I don't want that same feeling for other peoples. I want to pray for my enemies as my Lord instructs. But how does it play out when other peoples want conflict? Hezbollah and Israel... who is guilty? What about Iraq? The intent is to bring hope to those people. Now what? Ethnic cleansing? Maybe the idea of democracy in that region simply is untenable. I pray that we will look back at these days as the low points of the war. Maybe we will have our Gettysburg soon. The turning point in the world where the forces of victory will emerge.

I'm afraid we're merely at the beginning though.

RePondered...

Wired News: Marines Use MySpace to Recruit:

I've blogged before (notes from a NECC session presented by Mark Wagner) about the US military's great ability to educate/train our nation's youth -- often the same youth our K12 system betrays -- using modern techniques of video games and simulations.

Now it looks like they've caught on to the importance of MySp@ce to America's teenagers.

So far, over 12,000 web surfers have signed on as friends of the Corps in response to the latest military recruiting tactic. Other military branches may follow.

MySpace.Com, the internet's most popular social networking site with over 94 million registered users, has helped redefine the way a generation communicates. Users, many in their teens and 20s, post personal profiles and accumulate lists of friends and contacts with common interests.

The Marine Corps' MySpace profile -- featuring streaming video of barking drill sergeants, fresh recruits enduring boot camp and Marines storming beaches -- underscores the growing importance of the internet to advertisers as a medium for reaching America's youth.

"That's definitely the new wave," said Gunnery Sgt. Brian Lancioni at a Hawaii recruiting event. "Everything's technical with these kids, and the internet is a great way to show what the Marine Corps has to offer."

Patrick Baldwin, an 18-year-old recruit from Saratoga, New York, who linked his profile to the Marines' site after hearing about it from a friend, said MySpace was a good place for interested teens to start learning more about the Marines.

Teens get it. The military gets it. And K-12? Um. Not so much. As Will Richardson says, "we need to teach myspace, not ignore, not ban it, not pretend it doesn't exist."

Concept Based Instruction

Ok. So it seems as though we're going to emphasize building our curriculum via concepts. In a sense--at least as far as I understand it so far--to provide the students with the proper schema in which to categorize information/events.

My initial question came after reading "Ernie's Big Mess" to my little boy. I realized that the premise of the book was the same as in the classic "Puddle Duck." (you'll have to read for yourselves to discover the connection:)

"So," I said to myself, "why is it that students aren't able to do that?" I mean why do we have to deliberately provide them with these critical thinking skills? I read stuff and incorporate it with the other stuff I know without anyone providing me with the proper schema...

Why does it not work to simply teach the content and allow the thinking to ride on top of that wave of increasing knowledge? Is it because of the changing economy--global competition? Is it lack of interest/motivation on the behalf of the students? Is it poor home education--parents relying too much on the state for their children's education?

Related: one of the suggestions was that in teaching about African Nations one could enhance the learning by changing the focus to Changing Perspectives on African Nations. Why do teachers not already bring in more than one perspective? These latter thoughts need more refinement--of course don't they all.

This should be an interesting journey through the ebbs and flows of educational theory.

dt

Distance Education

I'm realizing that one of the shortfalls of Distance Education/Online Learning is the lack of accountability concerning the instructor. The pitfalls associated with authentic work on the students' behalf has been discussed. But in my experience with an online class through NCCU, the professor has provided little assistance.

There are many instances of quizzes not matching up with assigned readings--and I don't mean the material is in another chapter... it simply is not in our textbook or online reading.

There are instances of the prof not being cooperative with technical difficulty. Most of the students were having trouble finding posted quizzes, and the prof took the attitude that it was the students' fault.

Questions on the midterm are outdated. For example, one asks about the "current leader of Afghanistan." Hamid Karzai was not listed as an option. Mullah Mohammed Omar was--I assume--the correct answer, but uh, Dr. W, that was so 2000.

Overall, I have queried the instructor, politely and respectfully, 4 or 5 times during the course via email. The Discussion Board has not been opened. Each response from the instructor has been a one word answer? Example: (me) "Am I looking in the right place for the quiz because it is not there?" (him) YES.

another (me) "will we be able to view the questions we missed on the midterm once the time has expired?" (him) "NO."

one word answers with no explanation or reason. FRUSTRATING.

this takes me to a whole 'nother issue and that is that i'm having to take all these classes in order to be "highly qualified." but that's a box to stand on for another day...

dt

...in an Age of Hunger

About halfway through Ron Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. It is quite a punch in the teeth. Here is one of the many passages that has my wheels turning. Kinda long but worth reading the whole thing: in fact worth buying the book. I got the '96 version off Amazon for 7 bucks. The newest is 2006.

"Please do not misunderstand my point. I am not saying that the resurrection is unimportant. The bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is absolutely central to Christian faith and anyone who denies it has fallen into heresy. But if centrality in Scripture is any criterion of doctrinal importance, the biblical teaching about God's concern for the poor ought to be an important doctrine for Christians

Those who consider themselves most orthodox have fallen into theological liberalism on this issue. We usually think of liberalism in terms of classical 19th century liberals who denied the deity, the atonement, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus our Lord. And that is correct. People who abandon those central biblical doctrines have indeed fallen into terrible heresy. But notice what the essence of theological liberalism is--it is allowing our thinking and living to be shaped by society's views and values rather than by biblical revelation. Liberal theologians thought the belief in the deity etc, was incompatible with modern science, and they followed science rather than scripture.

Theologically conservative Christians rightly called attention to this heresy--and then tragically made exactly the same move in another area. We have allowed the economic values of our affluent, materialistics society to shape our thinking and acting toward the poor..."

Independence

Though it is a concern that more and more of our population seem to be growing ever more dependent on the state, we can still celebrate our Founders' vision of what this country was about.

It is easy to look back and declaim all of the evils that America has perpetrated on races and peoples, but overall one will still be hard pressed to compare this country to another in terms of freedom and opportunity.

Let us be ever vigilant as we protect our natural rights from others as well as from our own government. We desperately need a return to civic responsibility which includes first and foremost a decent education on what that actually means--with that comes the understanding of relevance and the desire to motivation. If we wait until the motivation comes by itself then I fear it may be too late in the game.

Patriotically,
dt

Standards Debate

This is my response to an infant debate in our Social Studies department about needing to raise our test scores because one of our sister schools is constantly outperforming us.

By my figurin', Civics/Econ scores were only 17 or 18 students behind KM--one class. Not that we needn't improve, but that ain't too bad.

Also, I'm not trying to be a contrarian, why do "we lose to Kings Mtn"? It's about the students, right? Maybe this is just semantics, but it would seem that if we start judging our own work by test scores, then we've lost sight of the purpose of what we do in the first place.

I suppose I understand the sentiment that "we can either master the test or become slaves to it," but I just wonder when we will begin to be honest about the real situation. There is no question that methods could be improved. Unfortunately, most standard classes are not going to do very well sitting there while we talk about our particular subject. They have to be convinced that what we are telling them is relevant to them, and that is difficult to accomplish since obviously the case hasn't been made very well up to this point. So a bit of creativity and a dose of respect towards the students will probably go a longer way than we realize.

But that brings me to the bigger point. I've been studying the philosophy and history of curriculum for one of my GWU classes. The differences between the conservative and liberal/progressive philosophies are worthy of discussion as well--probably moreso--but the agreement is that curriculum should focus on the goal of creating "educated citizens that are capable of contributing to society." But dad gummit (I don't think I've ever spelled that word before) that starts at home!

So, let's really raise the bar. Let's take education where it needs to be. Why not challenge parents to do their part? Why not work our butts off so that we are above reproach, and then truly be honest with folks as to why test scores are the way they are? I suppose the answer to the previous questions is one of job security. But if teachers aren't going to be honest about the status of education--I mean if we are simply going to play the game as it has been set up for us, then how can we possibly expect results?

Maybe this is my idealism creeping up again. Maybe I need to be convinced that I need to think practically and pragmatically. But to me, this is not a competition between me and Anne Pasco or anybody else; this is about hundreds of students who regardless of whether they pass an EOC or not, are not going to possess the thought processes or skills to get a decent job when they graduate. Which it would seem will continue this vicious cycle that we find ourselves in...

DT
"Tell my father that I died with my face to the enemy." --Col. Isaac Avery