I was facilitating a group of teachers this past week (coincidentally enough, at the same school which inspired The Golden Rule and Fair vs. Equal) and as we proceeded through the sequence, I noticed a shifting trend in their conversation.
We had just completed an activity in which the 13 participants were provided a string, all of which were tied to a metal ring, through which was fastened a marker. Their challenge was to collectively draw their school's mascot holding only their end of a string. The group did an excellent job of planning their work: they first discussed the orientation of the drawing (which way is up, which way it's facing, etc.), agreed on a common visualization (so they were all drawing the same representation of the mascot, as opposed to variations that existed), and asked the cap be left on for a draw run - i.e. they practiced moving the marker together to first get a feel for the task. Shortly thereafter, we removed the cap, and away they went!
After the completion of the activity (and each teacher signing their work :)...), we began processing the experience. The group brought up great reactions regarding their progression through the activity - how they planned, listening to each others ideas, working toward a shared vision, practicing their work before beginning, and collectively understanding each person's role and responsibilities. All in all, I think it was a great experience...to a point.
After conversing about ways to transfer these ideas they'd come up with after the activity back to the classroom and work with colleagues, one teacher commented that it was a great experience largely because I didn't level any additional specifications. They appreciated the opportunity to take full ownership of the entire process, from planning through action. This lead (rather organically) to a conversation about the difficulties of holding students to this same expectations - as they rise through the ranks (this was a group of teachers from across grade levels), students seem to lose this ability to think independently and engage in the same process with their school work. Somewhere along the line, students grow more and more dependent on teachers spoon-feeding them directions, which is an incredible sentiment and one that I would love to explore further...
However, the ball began rolling back down hill soon enough as the group began to reach another consensus: the restrictions and expectations they're held to limit their ability to experiment and try new, creative approaches with their classes. Now, I'm in no position to assume this sentiment is primarily due to their school's culture or (though this is my leaning) that it's a systemic problem levied against 90% of Amerca's public school teachers. And while I certainly see the value of airing these frustrations, at some point the conversation took a turn from "what can we do differently" to "what is being to us".
My take away from this experience is to be more aware of the tone of the conversation - how can we keep a proactive attitude? Transferring this experience to myself, I think of occasions where I suffered from the same affliction - recognizing primarily external forces limiting my abilities and aspirations - rather than realizing my abilities to control my reactions to these forces. As the adage goes: "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade." I think this is a good reminder that even if it's not lemonade the way mom used to make, it's better than resenting a big ol' pile of lemons.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Friday, February 22, 2013
Faith in Humanity
A "friend" on Facebook posted the other day about faith in humanity. He presents examples of some of the tragedies that have plagued mankind, including wars, genocide, and overall violence perpetrated by one person against another. He postulates aloud about how these man-made events have made some lose their faith in humanity, shaking some people so deeply as to lose hope. "With that in mind, to anyone who has lost their faith in humanity, I have only one thing to say: What kind of moron are you to have picked humanity as a place for your faith to begin with? Pick up a Bible, (insert expletive insult here)". This was followed by a comment from another, declaring that placing one's faith in humanity is the biggest mistake there is.
Now, I don't pretend to know everything there is to know, and I certainly don't assert any advanced ability to interpret religious works. I don't claim to have a better grasp on any religion than the next person, nor claim one faith as better than another.
That being said, and the Bible being the reference point within the original post, I felt compelled to point out a personal observation: isn't the New Testament heavily focused on forgiveness and charity? Isn't an incredible aspect of the Christian faith rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus, a man who reached out to those in need, who lent aid to many others of the time seen as undeserved? Aren't there reams of examples demonstrating that treating all with fairness and respect, of loving, protecting, and helping those around us is the key lesson? Heck, as one account reports, among Jesus' last words were "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." Again, focused on those that are here, with us, and around us.
It almost seems that faith in humanity was what brought about the events of the New Testament. Even the Old Testament alludes to this: after he murders his brother, Cain responds to God's question as to Abel's whereabouts with "Am I my brother's keeper?" which "offends against the Torah's ethic responsibility for one's kinsman and neighbor" (Berlin & Brettler, ed. The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, pg. 19).
And looking over human history, those that are honored have all contributed to mankind - indeed, placed their faith in humanity. Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Viktor Frankl (to name a few). These people live(d) for those around them, regardless of religious belief. It just seems to me that more important that beating someone over the head with Scripture is to reach out to them; rather than pointing a finger, they would lend a hand.
As the old anecdote goes, a man asks God, "Why do you allow all these bad things to happen to people? People are starving and fighting, they're hurting and killing each other, people are freezing at night without enough clothing or shelter, children are malnourished, and many don't have the basic necessities to survive tomorrow. Why do you let these things happen?" God simply looks at the man and responds,
"Why do you?"
Now, I don't pretend to know everything there is to know, and I certainly don't assert any advanced ability to interpret religious works. I don't claim to have a better grasp on any religion than the next person, nor claim one faith as better than another.
That being said, and the Bible being the reference point within the original post, I felt compelled to point out a personal observation: isn't the New Testament heavily focused on forgiveness and charity? Isn't an incredible aspect of the Christian faith rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus, a man who reached out to those in need, who lent aid to many others of the time seen as undeserved? Aren't there reams of examples demonstrating that treating all with fairness and respect, of loving, protecting, and helping those around us is the key lesson? Heck, as one account reports, among Jesus' last words were "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." Again, focused on those that are here, with us, and around us.
It almost seems that faith in humanity was what brought about the events of the New Testament. Even the Old Testament alludes to this: after he murders his brother, Cain responds to God's question as to Abel's whereabouts with "Am I my brother's keeper?" which "offends against the Torah's ethic responsibility for one's kinsman and neighbor" (Berlin & Brettler, ed. The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, pg. 19).
And looking over human history, those that are honored have all contributed to mankind - indeed, placed their faith in humanity. Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Viktor Frankl (to name a few). These people live(d) for those around them, regardless of religious belief. It just seems to me that more important that beating someone over the head with Scripture is to reach out to them; rather than pointing a finger, they would lend a hand.
As the old anecdote goes, a man asks God, "Why do you allow all these bad things to happen to people? People are starving and fighting, they're hurting and killing each other, people are freezing at night without enough clothing or shelter, children are malnourished, and many don't have the basic necessities to survive tomorrow. Why do you let these things happen?" God simply looks at the man and responds,
"Why do you?"
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Just Build a Fence
A current topic creating unrest in and between parties (aside from educations, firearms, religion, women's rights, civil rights, voter ID, foreign affairs, and almost every other topic that could possibly incite an argument, seemingly just for the sake of arguing these days) is immigration policy.
Now, amid the debate is amnesty and probationary citizenship for the 11 some-odd million less-than-legal residents of the good ol' U.S. of A, but that's not my focus here right now. Of course, it could be, looking at the minimal wages and "cost effective" workforce illegal aliens allow business owners, or the sudden, enormous, influx of income tax dollars should these people magically appear on the books, or, heck, even bring up Lady Liberty, welcoming in any and all in search of a better life.
But no. Let's talk instead about a fence. Many voices out there are calling for a fence to go up along our southern border; low-tech, a simple "good fences make good neighbors" situation. Preceding this call for a Berl- excuse me, "American" Wall, are assertions that some of us belong here, and others, who've emerged victorious though weathered, beleaguered, and tired through legal venue, who deserve to be here. All well and good I suppose, but my question is, just because some of us were born here means we deserve the freedoms and opportunities heralded across the land?
I mean, off the top of my head, birthright has been a fact of life for thousands of years. Kings and nobles had a birthright. Origins of birth brought about the slave trade, civil inequality on both ethnicity and gender, and Paris Hilton's 15 seconds of fame. If America is the "Land of Opportunity", a place where if you work hard and play your hand right, life turns out well for you. Personal responsibility and accountability are #1, right? Well millions of people work hard every day, but find the inability to break free from the bonds of systemic poverty. Why? Because they weren't born to the right parents? Some people will always be fighting for the same rights and privileges as their neighbors because they happened to have been born a woman (the average pay disparity is still about 77 cents to a dollar last I read)? Doesn't sound fair, does it?
And now there's an argument that says, "we deserve this because we just happen to have been born to American citizens". From my experience, once people begin feeling they "deserve" something, especially something they never had to personally work for, they begin declaring who else "deserves" it.
In a Stanford study, groups of three students were asked to discuss a list of contentious social issues. One member was randomly assigned to a position of higher power and asked to evaluate the other students' input. After thirty minutes, the experimenter came in with a plate of five cookies - the more "powerful" students were more likely to take a second cookie, chew with their mouths open, and get crumbs of their faces and the table (Sutton; The No Asshole Rule, 2007). The "powerful" student wasn't placed in a higher position for any particular reason, there was no merit system, no avenue by which the students were assigned, yet even over thirty minutes evaluating other students the student in the higher position actually began to see him/herself over the others.
So if some of us "deserve" to live here, just because we happen to have been born here (again, through no actual effort of our own), where could the potential slippery slope end? I sometimes wonder if our rights and privileges had to be earned by each and every person from New York to LA. What if, when we turn 18, everyone had top take the citizenship test? What if , on the provision we pass, we would be afforded the ability to vote, receive benefits, run for office, etc.?
Perhaps that may also help turn the focus on our destitute school systems...
Radical notion? Undoubtedly. But why would such a provision be voted down almost unanimously? Because there's people out there who've "earned" these privileges...?
Now, amid the debate is amnesty and probationary citizenship for the 11 some-odd million less-than-legal residents of the good ol' U.S. of A, but that's not my focus here right now. Of course, it could be, looking at the minimal wages and "cost effective" workforce illegal aliens allow business owners, or the sudden, enormous, influx of income tax dollars should these people magically appear on the books, or, heck, even bring up Lady Liberty, welcoming in any and all in search of a better life.
But no. Let's talk instead about a fence. Many voices out there are calling for a fence to go up along our southern border; low-tech, a simple "good fences make good neighbors" situation. Preceding this call for a Berl- excuse me, "American" Wall, are assertions that some of us belong here, and others, who've emerged victorious though weathered, beleaguered, and tired through legal venue, who deserve to be here. All well and good I suppose, but my question is, just because some of us were born here means we deserve the freedoms and opportunities heralded across the land?
I mean, off the top of my head, birthright has been a fact of life for thousands of years. Kings and nobles had a birthright. Origins of birth brought about the slave trade, civil inequality on both ethnicity and gender, and Paris Hilton's 15 seconds of fame. If America is the "Land of Opportunity", a place where if you work hard and play your hand right, life turns out well for you. Personal responsibility and accountability are #1, right? Well millions of people work hard every day, but find the inability to break free from the bonds of systemic poverty. Why? Because they weren't born to the right parents? Some people will always be fighting for the same rights and privileges as their neighbors because they happened to have been born a woman (the average pay disparity is still about 77 cents to a dollar last I read)? Doesn't sound fair, does it?
And now there's an argument that says, "we deserve this because we just happen to have been born to American citizens". From my experience, once people begin feeling they "deserve" something, especially something they never had to personally work for, they begin declaring who else "deserves" it.
In a Stanford study, groups of three students were asked to discuss a list of contentious social issues. One member was randomly assigned to a position of higher power and asked to evaluate the other students' input. After thirty minutes, the experimenter came in with a plate of five cookies - the more "powerful" students were more likely to take a second cookie, chew with their mouths open, and get crumbs of their faces and the table (Sutton; The No Asshole Rule, 2007). The "powerful" student wasn't placed in a higher position for any particular reason, there was no merit system, no avenue by which the students were assigned, yet even over thirty minutes evaluating other students the student in the higher position actually began to see him/herself over the others.
So if some of us "deserve" to live here, just because we happen to have been born here (again, through no actual effort of our own), where could the potential slippery slope end? I sometimes wonder if our rights and privileges had to be earned by each and every person from New York to LA. What if, when we turn 18, everyone had top take the citizenship test? What if , on the provision we pass, we would be afforded the ability to vote, receive benefits, run for office, etc.?
Perhaps that may also help turn the focus on our destitute school systems...
Radical notion? Undoubtedly. But why would such a provision be voted down almost unanimously? Because there's people out there who've "earned" these privileges...?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)