Moving

same thing, different location. come see me at dthomas96.wordpress.com

Sydney Grace 2/4/07

5 lbs 5 oz. 18 inches long... one beautiful representation of Providence and his favor.

Critical Condition.

Well yesterday was the big 29 for me. It's crazy, because I do feel older. Perception is crazy. But I digress...

I found this post to be very interesting yesterday and I'll quote the source of inspiration below. I've heard Jonathan Martin preach once at Renovatus in Charlotte. Very passionate and inspiring. Straight from the hip--a lot of what the church needs. Life. Direction. Truth. Unfortunately those things are absent in too many cases. Martin says:

What I have found is that within the church many times the people who are angry, the people who are cynical, are not only not discouraged from being that way, they are actively promoted. Who are the people who are most holy? Well, the people who are maddest at the world, right? How do you know a person is holy? Well there just mad as hell all the time about everybody and everything! It must mean that they just really are close to Jesus. We can justify that with spiritual language in a lot of different ways...my reading of scripture is ...that the posture of Jesus to the world is, as he says explicitly himself, “I have not come to the world to condemn the world—but so that the whole world may be saved.”

And as Becky puts it "Jonathan’s overriding point was that according to Christ and the whole ethic of the New Testament, our responsibility is to love and care for people and it is God’s responsibility to judge. At the root of the cynical critical gossip we engage ourselves in so much of the time is a sense that we somehow have the right to judge people and categorize their faults, which then gives us a feeling of power and control over them. It is that desire for power which drove Adam and Eve to the original sin, Jonathan points out."

2 things: 1-I tried to consciously avoid criticizing other people today. It is a very difficult thing to do. Not because I'm overly mean, but just because sarcasm and criticism is so much of a second nature in conversation. I am sure there were moments of criticism today that I didn't even notice. They don't even stick out when I am attempting to notice them. Interesting. Maybe that gets easier with more practice.

2- When I first saw the scripture used for reference by Martin dealing with Jesus saying he didn't come to condemn the world, my immediate gut reaction was to attempt to recall scripture which would contradict such a sentiment. You know the one about how Jesus came to bring division and a sword. As if that one phrase that I'm sure I misrepresent in my mind could detract from the overwhelming message of the New Testament of loving God and loving others. I realize that Satan used scripture in a similar vein when trying to tempt Christ in the desert. What a reflection on my mind. "Get thee behind me" was almost the name of this post...

Thanks for the thoughts on this Becky and Gabe.

dt

On Iraq.

i guess i'm just trying to make sense of this whole war... the reason the nation agreed to go to war was because of WMD. 9/11 had just happened and the specter of a terrorist with a nuke/bio/chem weapon was raised over and over and perhaps even legitimately so; because of that fear we decided that it was the responsible thing to do to remove a dictator who wouldn't cooperate with disarmament.

i know there are still some skeptics out there--my father in law for one--who believe that there really were WMD in Iraq that were hidden or something like that, but the overwhelming facts say that there were none. now, did they have the capacity to make them after we stopped watching... perhaps.

but the rationale for the war has morphed so many times. what is the objective? do we want to militarily defeat the extremists and empower the moderates so as to help establish western style government and economics? if so, won't that require a force much larger than 150,000? 200,000? 500,000?

and i understand the ramifications of withdrawal. i'm not advocating that... we have gotten ourselves into a royal mess. meanwhile, north korea is testing nukes and iran is building their program with increasing power and prestige--whatever message the iranian voters may have sent to ahmenidijad was probably undermined by the overt threats that have been made byW. and the gang.

we may need to do something about Iran... but what credibility is there to carry something out like that? with what forces do we carry out such an action? and what happens after we take them out as well? do we not think that more and more extremists will be bred out of these clashes? just like the britons fighting the romans--people don't like to be occupied.

the only solution, in my view, is to make a real effort to end our dependence on their oil. we pay their governments money that goes to fund the people who want to kill us... how logical is that? it will take real sacrifice. it will probably cause significant pains in our economy as we adjust to whatever innovation or innovations will be used to replace the "black gold." but that's where this country is great, isn't it? don't we talk about the sacrifice of the founding fathers, and the brothers in the civil war, and the great depression and the great wars... that was sacrifice. we are urged to continue to shop. i understand the sentiment behind that request, but we are made of more than that. we are--or should be--about more than personal comfort and increased ease of life.

let's remove our dependence on their oil, allow them to establish their own natural balance of power--and then if they want to fight then we can fight as a unified nation. then we can take all of this energy,blood, and treasure and spend it on figuring out education, health care, poverty here at home and in the world. i don't mean just throwing money at those problems, but engaging in a genuine, statesmanlike, dialogue that will help to ensure that our kids and grandkids can talk about our generation the way we revere the "greatest" generation. not because we desire fame in history, but because by doing so we will be doing what is right.

whew... sounds like a sermon.

dt

80 is the new 69.

We just finished up our semester's round of testing this week. It'd be a funny psychological/sociological study to observe the teachers--myself included--posturing and playing the expectations game. Few of us even give lip service to the reality that it shouldn't be a competition because there are so many factors involved, but the pressure of high test scores remains a fact, and so as teachers, we want to have as high if not higher test scores than our colleagues. Nothing wrong with competition as long as it doesn't turn devious.

But that brings me to my point for this post. Testing. Starting with the class of '10 the students have to complete a graduation project as well as pass* 5 core EOC's: English 9, Algebra 1, Biology, Civics/Economics and U.S. History.

I teach Civics and Economics. My honors class this time posted a 91.3% passing rate. That means that 21 out of 23 scored at Level 3 or 4 proficiency. Now, your guess is as good as mine as to how they psychometrize those tests to figure out what constitutes such a proficiency level. But the fact remains that I have 2 students in an honors level course one with a B- and the other with a C during the regular year. Now the state equates their level 2 proficiency with an 80 and a 78 for their exam grade--which is to count 25%. That's good news for these two students. Our grading scale is the standard 7 point variety. So as long as they are above a 70 they pass the course--and of course both of these students remain at a B- and a C.

BUT... under the new guidelines neither of these students would pass Civics. They would be required to undergo remediation and be retested until they get a Level 3. If they don't then they don't graduate... well at least that's the company line--there will, of course, be ways around this particular "standard."

So, why shouldn't I (we) change our class grading scales to reflect those of DPI. If a student can score an 80 on the EOC and yet it is still classified as a Level 2--which is failing--aren't we doing the students a disservice by allowing them to pass with anything less than an 80 during the regular course?

When did common sense leave the educational arena?

dt

Mongo Like Candy

I'm no pawn. Especially not to all of those Heady Lamar's and govs. (see comment for pawn reference)...

First: I have created a new blog which will be used for my AP Psychology classes. I will link to it on this blog--I used myspace last year, but I have since removed myself from that crack wagon.

Second: I thought more about my democratic-republic idea while proctoring for a test this morning. First day we will write and ratify our class constitution. I will outline a couple of areas. We will address class rules and regulations and I will allow the students some say so on the issues--of course I will be the chair of the convention and they know nothing about rules of order so I will dictate a lot of the policies:)

I want to establish a system of justice in the class. Upon violating a rule, the student will be served with a subpoena. They can plead not guilty and hire a lawyer from the class and we will conduct a trial with a jury of his/her peers... maybe not for each offense, we'll see...

We will establish the separation of powers. I am the Executive. I have veto power. If they want to override my veto it will take 2/3 of the class. We will decide on the amendment process of our constitution and the ratification process. Election periods will be determined. My thought is that there will be 2 class senators serving 2 week terms and 5 class reps. serving 1 week terms. I'll let the class decide on term limits.

A couple of safeguards: As the Executive I will be able to invoke the War Powers Act and suspend the powers of Congress up to 10-15 days at a time. Furthermore, upon being absent it will be written into the Constitution that the substitute is absolute monarch.

I understand the testing game. I don't think that I will be sacrificing content for interest. I think that if I can make this work, then the interest/ownership of the class will lead to higher thinking about the content and perhaps even better scores. I think that factions will emerge in the class that will want to succeed and therefore my veto power over laziness and apathy will be sustained. Still thinking...

dt

Thoughts on Learning and Teaching

In reading for Current Trends and Issues in Education I stumbled on two opposing theories on curriculum. 1) The Paideia school which is supported by Mortimer Adler. 2) is complete school choice by students--meaning to go or not to go, where, how, how much, how fast, etc.

Perhaps, I'll post my reflections on the various theories upon completion of my assignment, but for now I want to reflect on a common theme. The divergence is found in ideas about core knowledge, but the similarities are that learning should be active: that student discovery is the key to education.

The idea discussed below was spurred after reading the selection by John Holt a proponent of the natural right to decide what enters our minds--in fact he calls compulsory education authoritarian, anti-democratic and a violation of civil rights.

Anyway, I'm wondering if establishing a democratic-republic within my Civics classroom would be advantageous. They could elect representatives from the class who would determine the course of the day/week/unit/etc. If they choose to do nothing, then we do nothing--of course they will still be required to master the content to be assessed and graded. Perhaps a class constitution could/should be written before hand. I of course would be the Executive--but an override provision would be written into the Constitution. I wonder if factions would develop? Or would the struggle be between Legislative and Executive. The Supreme Court could be made up of the other Civics teachers on the hall. Each side could prepare an argument should a constitutional crisis occur...

How would the content of the class be delivered? Is it enough for the representatives to choose method or should they be able to decide angles and perspectives of content as well? Maybe at the beginning of the course I would offer them options (ie lecture/notes, performance, discussion/debate, etc) and then allow them to branch out on their own as they gain trust and confidence in our experiment.

What about assessment? Should that be democratic as well? I have to make sure that they are learning the content--the state doesn't give me much latitude in that area.

I like. It would take constant refining and retooling just like our own government.

To be continued...

dt