Scenario: Team A and Team B have exactly the same type of players.
Team A's Philosophy
Practice when you need it. Listen to the coach when you agree. Play the position you like the best. Play as many minutes as you feel like.
Team B's Philosophy:
Practice is mandatory. Run the offense/defense. Play the position and minutes that most benefit the team.
Which team is more likely to be successful?
Which team is more likely to have less problems with blaming and finger-pointing?
Scenario: Player A and Player B have exactly the same type of skills.
Player A's Philosophy:
I'm the best player on the team. I don't need to practice. Wearing a tie for game day is just for show and not going to score me any points. I don't need to follow coach's directions. I'm a better player when I'm allowed to be creative and make up my own plays.
Player B's Philosophy:
I'm the best player on the team, therefore, I must practice just like everyone else. I hate ties, but coach asks that everyone wear one, so I will. I could probably score more points if I shot every basket, but the triangle offense only works if everyone does it.
Which attitude is more beneficial to the culture of the team?
Which player's actions contribute more positively to the attitudes and actions of his teammates?
Final Thought...
One college coach started his first practices with the same lesson every season. The lesson? How to put on your socks and tie your shoes.
The coach?
John Wooden, winner of 10 NCAA Men's Basketball Championships.
Did they win those championships because of their footwear? Probably not. But his culture of discipline, simplicity of purpose, and attention to detail embodied by that lesson might have had something to do with it.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Friday, November 7, 2008
FREEEEEEEDOOMMMMMMMMMM!!!
"The truth shall set you free."
Here's a thought. Take truth and freedom one step further. Once set free by truth, what are we truly set free to do? Armed with truth, do we act with impunity or does truth actually serve not to free, but to limit? When Adam and Eve at the apple, they received a greater understanding of truth. The consequence of this was not freedom, but the shackles of sin, guilt, and death.
Of course, truth doesn't always have such dire consequences. My main point is that awakening to truth actually LIMITS your choices rather than expanding them. I would argue that recognizing truth creates a moral responsibility and obligation to act in accordance with those beliefs. Therefore, if you hold as truths that we have an enormous impact on our students, that the demands of the world are increasingly dynamic and complex, and that we are responsible for the success of every student, then the truth does not set us free. It does the exact opposite. It awakens us to the awesome burden we have as educators and reveals the faith that students and their parents place in us when they walk through our doors.
Now, you could believe the exact opposite is true. That we're just a small part of our student's lives, that the world is the same as it ever was and our students will figure out a way to succeed, and that whether or not our students succeed has little to do with the instruction we provide in the scant few years we see them. That's certainly your prerogative. My only question is, what kind of teacher would you want for your own children and are you acting in accordance to your own beliefs?
Here's a thought. Take truth and freedom one step further. Once set free by truth, what are we truly set free to do? Armed with truth, do we act with impunity or does truth actually serve not to free, but to limit? When Adam and Eve at the apple, they received a greater understanding of truth. The consequence of this was not freedom, but the shackles of sin, guilt, and death.
Of course, truth doesn't always have such dire consequences. My main point is that awakening to truth actually LIMITS your choices rather than expanding them. I would argue that recognizing truth creates a moral responsibility and obligation to act in accordance with those beliefs. Therefore, if you hold as truths that we have an enormous impact on our students, that the demands of the world are increasingly dynamic and complex, and that we are responsible for the success of every student, then the truth does not set us free. It does the exact opposite. It awakens us to the awesome burden we have as educators and reveals the faith that students and their parents place in us when they walk through our doors.
Now, you could believe the exact opposite is true. That we're just a small part of our student's lives, that the world is the same as it ever was and our students will figure out a way to succeed, and that whether or not our students succeed has little to do with the instruction we provide in the scant few years we see them. That's certainly your prerogative. My only question is, what kind of teacher would you want for your own children and are you acting in accordance to your own beliefs?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Blame Game
First off, I want to say that I am thoroughly enjoying this dialogue, and I only wish we had more conversations like this among the staff.
Now, on with the show...
G, you asked who are these mystery teachers? Gimme a roster and a highlighter. No judging. I'd go simply go on what I've seen first hand. I do about three to four observations a month (30-45 min each) and I've seen almost every teacher (but primarily those on Teams 1-3 and A-C). I purposely avoid those in our blogosphere because students do pretty good in your classes, and also because I kinda know what I'm gonna get when I observe students there. Granted, a single 30 minute observation is a pretty small sampling, but over the course of four years I've done well over a hundred. That, combined with the meetings I attend and the conversations I have with our counselors, provide me with some idea of the general instruction that occurs on our campus. Again, my information is not perfect. I'm simply saying that worksheets, 'I lecture you take notes', 'read the chapter and answer the questions', and other similar A Quadrant activities continue to make up the majority of instruction I see and hear about.
There also seems to be a lot of foam finger waving at certain members of our team. More specifically, those responsible for kickoffs, punts, and field goals. This is not a new or uncommon sentiment. However, I'd like to explore why I believe that sentiment is unfair and based on flawed logic.
The results many are using to judge the SpEd teachers are the HSA scores. This is in inaccurate and irresponsible use of data. In fact, the way we use HSA scores for EVERYONE is inaccurate and irresponsible. The HSA is ONE form of data at ONE point in time. It evaluates not just reading, writing, and math, but task committment and previous education. Studies continue to show that the biggest correlations for high test scores is not the teacher, school, or race, but INCOME LEVEL and PARENT EDUCATION LEVEL. Look at the areas that do well, Mililani, Manoa, Nuuanu, Moanalua, Hawaii Kai, and Pearl City, then look at the areas that don't, Waianae, Nanakuli, Waimanalo, Kalihi, and Waipahu. I'm not saying all our SpEd families are impoverished and poorly educated (although my informal observations find this disturbingly common). What I am saying is that the HSA test is not the be-all, end-all evaluator of student or teacher performance, and that performance on the HSA shouldn't equal a corresponding evaluation of any teacher.
Of course Joe Public (no relation to Joe the Plumber) doesn't see this. They just see the test score in the paper. Parent satisfaction is important, but it cannot come at the cost of our pedagogical principles. Besides, do you think that one score would completely undermine the relationship and high-quality work you develop throughout the entire year? Also, how would any of the intiatives (examining student work, Standards Wall, rigor/relevance, etc.) LOWER test scores anyway?
Another thing to think about. SpEd students are SpEd for a reason. Regular students with top-notch teachers have a hard time on that test. For some SpEd students, that test is just plain impossible. Many simply don't have the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral qualities to perform well in the manner the HSA requires. How would you feel if you coached a team of 5'5", one-eyed, can only dribble with one hand players in an open league, and people blamed you everytime they lost? Now think about your players. What do you think is running through their heads?
I'm not saying our SpEd teachers are blameless. I'm simply saying it's flawed logic to put the all the blame on them or call them incompetent because their students don't pass HSA. Yeah, some of them are don't know the difference between mitosis and a microscope. Yeah, some of them are lazy. But are we saying that these same issues don't plague the gen. ed. teachers as well? If HSA is THE critera, aren't all of us incompetent since none of us have had all our students pass that test? In fact, about one-third of our students can't pass the reading, and only a little more than half can pass the math (I could be wrong on these numbers, but I think I'm close enough to make the point). Does anyone really have the right to start pointing fingers?
Now, on with the show...
G, you asked who are these mystery teachers? Gimme a roster and a highlighter. No judging. I'd go simply go on what I've seen first hand. I do about three to four observations a month (30-45 min each) and I've seen almost every teacher (but primarily those on Teams 1-3 and A-C). I purposely avoid those in our blogosphere because students do pretty good in your classes, and also because I kinda know what I'm gonna get when I observe students there. Granted, a single 30 minute observation is a pretty small sampling, but over the course of four years I've done well over a hundred. That, combined with the meetings I attend and the conversations I have with our counselors, provide me with some idea of the general instruction that occurs on our campus. Again, my information is not perfect. I'm simply saying that worksheets, 'I lecture you take notes', 'read the chapter and answer the questions', and other similar A Quadrant activities continue to make up the majority of instruction I see and hear about.
There also seems to be a lot of foam finger waving at certain members of our team. More specifically, those responsible for kickoffs, punts, and field goals. This is not a new or uncommon sentiment. However, I'd like to explore why I believe that sentiment is unfair and based on flawed logic.
The results many are using to judge the SpEd teachers are the HSA scores. This is in inaccurate and irresponsible use of data. In fact, the way we use HSA scores for EVERYONE is inaccurate and irresponsible. The HSA is ONE form of data at ONE point in time. It evaluates not just reading, writing, and math, but task committment and previous education. Studies continue to show that the biggest correlations for high test scores is not the teacher, school, or race, but INCOME LEVEL and PARENT EDUCATION LEVEL. Look at the areas that do well, Mililani, Manoa, Nuuanu, Moanalua, Hawaii Kai, and Pearl City, then look at the areas that don't, Waianae, Nanakuli, Waimanalo, Kalihi, and Waipahu. I'm not saying all our SpEd families are impoverished and poorly educated (although my informal observations find this disturbingly common). What I am saying is that the HSA test is not the be-all, end-all evaluator of student or teacher performance, and that performance on the HSA shouldn't equal a corresponding evaluation of any teacher.
Of course Joe Public (no relation to Joe the Plumber) doesn't see this. They just see the test score in the paper. Parent satisfaction is important, but it cannot come at the cost of our pedagogical principles. Besides, do you think that one score would completely undermine the relationship and high-quality work you develop throughout the entire year? Also, how would any of the intiatives (examining student work, Standards Wall, rigor/relevance, etc.) LOWER test scores anyway?
Another thing to think about. SpEd students are SpEd for a reason. Regular students with top-notch teachers have a hard time on that test. For some SpEd students, that test is just plain impossible. Many simply don't have the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral qualities to perform well in the manner the HSA requires. How would you feel if you coached a team of 5'5", one-eyed, can only dribble with one hand players in an open league, and people blamed you everytime they lost? Now think about your players. What do you think is running through their heads?
I'm not saying our SpEd teachers are blameless. I'm simply saying it's flawed logic to put the all the blame on them or call them incompetent because their students don't pass HSA. Yeah, some of them are don't know the difference between mitosis and a microscope. Yeah, some of them are lazy. But are we saying that these same issues don't plague the gen. ed. teachers as well? If HSA is THE critera, aren't all of us incompetent since none of us have had all our students pass that test? In fact, about one-third of our students can't pass the reading, and only a little more than half can pass the math (I could be wrong on these numbers, but I think I'm close enough to make the point). Does anyone really have the right to start pointing fingers?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Twice In One Night? Viagra's the BOMB!
There were two types of responses I thought Jay's and Greg's posts required. One philosopical (the previous) and one practical (this one).
"We're never told why we're doing anything except for we have to."
I think that's a little unfair. I think you can say, "Leadership really sucks at explaining things," or "You guys use crappy examples," or simply, "You've never convinced me," but I don't think what you said is a true statement.
Take the Standards Wall for example. You accurately state that it was something we did years ago and went away from. However, I distinctly remember Ursula and Cy conducting both whole school and department workshops to help teachers understand how to use it and why it can help students. Focus walks and in-class support was provided to help teachers. Similar training was done at the beginning of this year, and Ellen tried to provide an additional explanation on Monday. You obviously don't agree with the rationale, but it's inaccurate to say one was never presented. In fact, you actually call the reasons 'textbook bull$hit.'
If you look at Student Work Review, Formative Assessment (which you helped on), the Vison and Mission, co-teaching, and teaming, time was devoted to explaining the rationale for each of those initiatives. Now, they may have not all been effective, connected into a single cohesive message, and follow-up has been a HUGE issue, but not ONCE in any of those instances was the staff ordered to simply 'Just Do It' in the manner you state.
I also think it's unfair to say, "Let's be honest here," and then dictate what that 'honesty' means. Is it impossible to think that the Standards Wall could actually help students? That it could help teachers collaborate? I accept that teachers can perceive the Wall in the manner you state, but doing so doesn't make the other reasons untrue or false. By calling the presented rationale for the Wall 'textbook bull$hit' don't you reveal an automatic and unfair disregard for ANY possible rationale that could be presented other than your own? Why does lesson review and the Wall have to be about judging? Why can't we just collaborate and offer suggestions in the manner you suggested in your blog?
I addressed the "We're changing too much" issue in my previous blog. But to add to that, what exactly has changed too much at our school? I would contend that you've changed far more as a result of the collaboration you've had with Deena than through anything the school has demanded. Also, if you look at our school day, how much of our actual teaching experience is that much different than three, five, eight years ago? Did the old Vision and Mission impact your instruction that much? Is writing the standard on the board illogical and time consuming? Did the Student Work Review (which occurs during school time) negatively impact the collaboration that existed prior to it? With the exception of the Standards Wall (which does take some time and effort) what exactly is making you work harder in a way that seems illogical?
In theory, these things are great. I think it's unfair to say that the effectiveness of practices like the Standards Wall, regular teacher collaboration on student work, inclusion of SpEd students with the general education population, providing effective feedback, and using formative assessment are theoretical. They're not guaranteed, like practice is not guaranteed to equal success, but there is a lot of strong evidence to indicate that they do work.
But until we pull back on the reins and let teachers figure out for themselves that it's effective, no one will do it for the right reasons. How 'bout we just tell people the truth and just let them figure it out for themselves. No force. No manipulation. Just plain good ol' honesty. THE TRUTH.
What would this look like? What would we tell people and what would they need to figure out? This sounds logical, but I don't understand the specifics. Are you saying we shouldn't do anything except teach and attend parent meetings? No faculty, no waiver days, no dept. or team meetings? That a few years of independent work time would lead to our students learning more? And are there 'right' reasons we would connect with now or are they only available after we figure it out for ourselves?
Lastly, the hostility and frustration implicit within the beliefs that LT is manipulative and just coming up w/ $hit to look good, seem busy, or just do the next new shiny thing, creates a lot of dissappointment for me. If the general perception is that we have nothing better to do than think of meaningless busy work for the staff to do, then we have truly failed the staff and our students. I really mean this, and I am not being self-pitying in any way. Maybe the people who are there have been doing this for too long. Maybe we're not the right people and never were. If the feeling of the staff is that LT and the school improvements we're trying to make are counter-productive, then we've definitely failed at identifying, communicating, and monitoring what we need to do, how we need to do it, and whether we need to do anything at all.
So where do I go from here? What should I do now, peeps?
"We're never told why we're doing anything except for we have to."
I think that's a little unfair. I think you can say, "Leadership really sucks at explaining things," or "You guys use crappy examples," or simply, "You've never convinced me," but I don't think what you said is a true statement.
Take the Standards Wall for example. You accurately state that it was something we did years ago and went away from. However, I distinctly remember Ursula and Cy conducting both whole school and department workshops to help teachers understand how to use it and why it can help students. Focus walks and in-class support was provided to help teachers. Similar training was done at the beginning of this year, and Ellen tried to provide an additional explanation on Monday. You obviously don't agree with the rationale, but it's inaccurate to say one was never presented. In fact, you actually call the reasons 'textbook bull$hit.'
If you look at Student Work Review, Formative Assessment (which you helped on), the Vison and Mission, co-teaching, and teaming, time was devoted to explaining the rationale for each of those initiatives. Now, they may have not all been effective, connected into a single cohesive message, and follow-up has been a HUGE issue, but not ONCE in any of those instances was the staff ordered to simply 'Just Do It' in the manner you state.
I also think it's unfair to say, "Let's be honest here," and then dictate what that 'honesty' means. Is it impossible to think that the Standards Wall could actually help students? That it could help teachers collaborate? I accept that teachers can perceive the Wall in the manner you state, but doing so doesn't make the other reasons untrue or false. By calling the presented rationale for the Wall 'textbook bull$hit' don't you reveal an automatic and unfair disregard for ANY possible rationale that could be presented other than your own? Why does lesson review and the Wall have to be about judging? Why can't we just collaborate and offer suggestions in the manner you suggested in your blog?
I addressed the "We're changing too much" issue in my previous blog. But to add to that, what exactly has changed too much at our school? I would contend that you've changed far more as a result of the collaboration you've had with Deena than through anything the school has demanded. Also, if you look at our school day, how much of our actual teaching experience is that much different than three, five, eight years ago? Did the old Vision and Mission impact your instruction that much? Is writing the standard on the board illogical and time consuming? Did the Student Work Review (which occurs during school time) negatively impact the collaboration that existed prior to it? With the exception of the Standards Wall (which does take some time and effort) what exactly is making you work harder in a way that seems illogical?
In theory, these things are great. I think it's unfair to say that the effectiveness of practices like the Standards Wall, regular teacher collaboration on student work, inclusion of SpEd students with the general education population, providing effective feedback, and using formative assessment are theoretical. They're not guaranteed, like practice is not guaranteed to equal success, but there is a lot of strong evidence to indicate that they do work.
But until we pull back on the reins and let teachers figure out for themselves that it's effective, no one will do it for the right reasons. How 'bout we just tell people the truth and just let them figure it out for themselves. No force. No manipulation. Just plain good ol' honesty. THE TRUTH.
What would this look like? What would we tell people and what would they need to figure out? This sounds logical, but I don't understand the specifics. Are you saying we shouldn't do anything except teach and attend parent meetings? No faculty, no waiver days, no dept. or team meetings? That a few years of independent work time would lead to our students learning more? And are there 'right' reasons we would connect with now or are they only available after we figure it out for ourselves?
Lastly, the hostility and frustration implicit within the beliefs that LT is manipulative and just coming up w/ $hit to look good, seem busy, or just do the next new shiny thing, creates a lot of dissappointment for me. If the general perception is that we have nothing better to do than think of meaningless busy work for the staff to do, then we have truly failed the staff and our students. I really mean this, and I am not being self-pitying in any way. Maybe the people who are there have been doing this for too long. Maybe we're not the right people and never were. If the feeling of the staff is that LT and the school improvements we're trying to make are counter-productive, then we've definitely failed at identifying, communicating, and monitoring what we need to do, how we need to do it, and whether we need to do anything at all.
So where do I go from here? What should I do now, peeps?
The Audacity of Hope and the Necessity of Despair
Would Obama have won if the economy hadn't imploded in the last month?
Would Obama have won if McCain didn't pick Palin?
Would Obama have won if Dubya wasn't, well...Dubya?
Obama wasn't elected JUST BECAUSE HE'S A GOOD CANDIDATE. People voted for him because they were fed up with the last eight years and didn't want to see more of the same in the future. His message of change would not be nearly as powerful or relevant if the majority of the public thought everything was ok, OR if he was unable to convince the public that they were not as ok as they thought.
This is the conversation I was trying to have at Leadership on Monday. When I spoke about school culture, my feeling was that:
1) The staff may not believe change is necessary.
2) As a result, the staff may feel school improvment efforts are pointless.
I felt Leadership could discuss a way to involve the ENTIRE STAFF in a process to really examine ourselves and figure out:
1) Are we as good as we think?
2) Is that good enough?
3) Are we willing to be better?
When I brought up school culture, I wasn't talking about doing stuff. I was asking about the attitudes that permeate our school. If the culture of our school is that, "Everything is ok, just leave me alone," then any effort at meaningful school improvement is doomed to fail, isn't it?
And I disagree with Greg that we've reinvented ourselves more times than Madonna. If you examine the attitudes and the teaching practices of our teachers as a whole, are we really that different than we were three, five, eight years ago? I would argue that very little has changed as the direct result of any deliberate effort by the school. To me we're more like your flavor of the month boy-band. New Kids on the Block, Menudo, Backstreet Boys, NSync...we change the singers, dance moves, and outfits, but the act is still the same. Jay is right. We do things for a little bit, then change, change again, then change back to what we were doing in the first place. We're like that girl who can never find 'Mr. Right.' The problem is it's not because of who we're dating, it's because of who we are.
The intense frustration and anger I sense from both Jay and Greg seems to be, "I didn't ask for anyone's help. You haven't convinced me that I need it or that you've got something better. Until you do, leave me the f@ck alone." The point I was attempting to make on Monday was that we're never going to get anywhere until we address that central belief system.
But how would you do that and is it even possible? Hummer owners probably didn't care much about global warming until gas went over four-dollars. I'm pretty sure an anti-smoking campaign didn't exist until we discovered that cigarettes caused cancer. And would we have the same attitude about bullying if Columbine (and other similar events) never happened?
What information or experience must the staff have in order to consider change? And is it even possible to provide them?
Would Obama have won if McCain didn't pick Palin?
Would Obama have won if Dubya wasn't, well...Dubya?
Obama wasn't elected JUST BECAUSE HE'S A GOOD CANDIDATE. People voted for him because they were fed up with the last eight years and didn't want to see more of the same in the future. His message of change would not be nearly as powerful or relevant if the majority of the public thought everything was ok, OR if he was unable to convince the public that they were not as ok as they thought.
This is the conversation I was trying to have at Leadership on Monday. When I spoke about school culture, my feeling was that:
1) The staff may not believe change is necessary.
2) As a result, the staff may feel school improvment efforts are pointless.
I felt Leadership could discuss a way to involve the ENTIRE STAFF in a process to really examine ourselves and figure out:
1) Are we as good as we think?
2) Is that good enough?
3) Are we willing to be better?
When I brought up school culture, I wasn't talking about doing stuff. I was asking about the attitudes that permeate our school. If the culture of our school is that, "Everything is ok, just leave me alone," then any effort at meaningful school improvement is doomed to fail, isn't it?
And I disagree with Greg that we've reinvented ourselves more times than Madonna. If you examine the attitudes and the teaching practices of our teachers as a whole, are we really that different than we were three, five, eight years ago? I would argue that very little has changed as the direct result of any deliberate effort by the school. To me we're more like your flavor of the month boy-band. New Kids on the Block, Menudo, Backstreet Boys, NSync...we change the singers, dance moves, and outfits, but the act is still the same. Jay is right. We do things for a little bit, then change, change again, then change back to what we were doing in the first place. We're like that girl who can never find 'Mr. Right.' The problem is it's not because of who we're dating, it's because of who we are.
The intense frustration and anger I sense from both Jay and Greg seems to be, "I didn't ask for anyone's help. You haven't convinced me that I need it or that you've got something better. Until you do, leave me the f@ck alone." The point I was attempting to make on Monday was that we're never going to get anywhere until we address that central belief system.
But how would you do that and is it even possible? Hummer owners probably didn't care much about global warming until gas went over four-dollars. I'm pretty sure an anti-smoking campaign didn't exist until we discovered that cigarettes caused cancer. And would we have the same attitude about bullying if Columbine (and other similar events) never happened?
What information or experience must the staff have in order to consider change? And is it even possible to provide them?
Monday, November 3, 2008
I've Done a Test...Mine Does Smell Better
A lady opens three bags of tampons to find the right size at Walmart. Where's security?
A guy pisses in the parking lot. No security here either?
A mother steals two cans of formula at Longs. No one does anything. Nope. No security here either.
Big shot Wall Street hedge-fund manager loses millions for retirees. He gets a fat severance check. What? Didn't you know money can buy innocence?
Huge election tomorrow. More than 30% of the population won't vote. Hey, it's all a big conspiracy anyway...
How long do you have to drive before you see somone speed, run a red light, cut someone off, make an illegal turn, etc.? Obviously, law enforcement is incompetent.
Jay was right. We live in a guiltless society. We no longer police ourselves because we're convinced that's not our jobs anymore. Making sure others do the right thing? That's for priests, police officers, and principals. If they can't? Oh, well...
I'm sorry. I cannot handle that.
I don't want Allison thinking she only has to do what's right when someone with power is looking.
I don't want Allison believing she can make up her own morality or that her actions only affect herself.
I refuse to accept that WE (as individuals and as a profession) can refuse the obligation to make ourselves better and hold ourselves accountable for our actions.
I care a lot about what you guys all think because I believe in your professionalism and personal value systems. When Jay says, "Blake, you just don't have the right to tell anyone what to do. You haven't taught long enough. You don't know enough. Your biceps aren't big enough." I accept that. I don't want to be perceived as a judgmental ass. I just get stuck when the next sentence is, "Boss gotta do it." Then what? Does anyone who wants change need to go into admin or pump iron?
Of course we wouldn't have this problem if change was easy, but people don't change because you ask them. People change because they become so uncomfortable with who they are that it overcomes their fear or laziness against change. I've changed a lot as a result of my professional and personal relationships. People have said or done things that have made me angry, hurt, disappointed, happy, sometimes proud, often humble. I've often disagreed, but what I never thought was, "Pfft...You don't have the right to tell me that," because if I can't listen to my peers, who can I listen to? What other profession demands less from their peers? Could a lawyer or doctor continue to be successful without the competition and collaboration of his colleagues? What other profession so fully embraces such an antipathy toward criticism?
Basically, I agree that no one has a monopoly on the truth. SOME things about teaching are subjective. You can't be an dickhead and ram anything up or down anywhere without consequence.
BUT...I will ALWAYS believe that we have a personal and professional responsibility to improve ourselves and our colleagues, and that we will never become the school our students need us to be if we are unwilling to accept that burden.
Fo'Shizzle...Word...ONE...Peace...
A guy pisses in the parking lot. No security here either?
A mother steals two cans of formula at Longs. No one does anything. Nope. No security here either.
Big shot Wall Street hedge-fund manager loses millions for retirees. He gets a fat severance check. What? Didn't you know money can buy innocence?
Huge election tomorrow. More than 30% of the population won't vote. Hey, it's all a big conspiracy anyway...
How long do you have to drive before you see somone speed, run a red light, cut someone off, make an illegal turn, etc.? Obviously, law enforcement is incompetent.
Jay was right. We live in a guiltless society. We no longer police ourselves because we're convinced that's not our jobs anymore. Making sure others do the right thing? That's for priests, police officers, and principals. If they can't? Oh, well...
I'm sorry. I cannot handle that.
I don't want Allison thinking she only has to do what's right when someone with power is looking.
I don't want Allison believing she can make up her own morality or that her actions only affect herself.
I refuse to accept that WE (as individuals and as a profession) can refuse the obligation to make ourselves better and hold ourselves accountable for our actions.
I care a lot about what you guys all think because I believe in your professionalism and personal value systems. When Jay says, "Blake, you just don't have the right to tell anyone what to do. You haven't taught long enough. You don't know enough. Your biceps aren't big enough." I accept that. I don't want to be perceived as a judgmental ass. I just get stuck when the next sentence is, "Boss gotta do it." Then what? Does anyone who wants change need to go into admin or pump iron?
Of course we wouldn't have this problem if change was easy, but people don't change because you ask them. People change because they become so uncomfortable with who they are that it overcomes their fear or laziness against change. I've changed a lot as a result of my professional and personal relationships. People have said or done things that have made me angry, hurt, disappointed, happy, sometimes proud, often humble. I've often disagreed, but what I never thought was, "Pfft...You don't have the right to tell me that," because if I can't listen to my peers, who can I listen to? What other profession demands less from their peers? Could a lawyer or doctor continue to be successful without the competition and collaboration of his colleagues? What other profession so fully embraces such an antipathy toward criticism?
Basically, I agree that no one has a monopoly on the truth. SOME things about teaching are subjective. You can't be an dickhead and ram anything up or down anywhere without consequence.
BUT...I will ALWAYS believe that we have a personal and professional responsibility to improve ourselves and our colleagues, and that we will never become the school our students need us to be if we are unwilling to accept that burden.
Fo'Shizzle...Word...ONE...Peace...
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Sweet Little Lies...
This has got to be the one-billionth time we've had variations of the knowledge vs. caring issue, but here goes...
Jay said what I meant better than I said it when he said people don't care, BUT don't like feeling bad, so their brains make up crap so that they don't have to.
Where I divert from Jay and Alex is that they always know the difference between the truth and the lies they tell themselves. I think if you live with lies long enough, you start believing the lies. That was the point I was so poorly trying to make with Alex. I have a difficult time believing that most people would KNOWINGLY do bad things if they understood the impact of their actions. Wouldn't such a person be morally bankrupt? Personally, I think I'd much rather be perceived as ignorant or deluded rather than a dickhead.
So I prefer (for the sake of my own sanity) to believe that these people simply don't see or understand the truth in a way that will break through their ignorance or the lies they tell themselves. This is why I love House. He never asks people to act counter to their morality. He simply confronts them with the TRUTH. Your religion says no medicine? Fine, but you're gonna DIE.
But since we don't live in TV Land where the brilliant doctor is always right, who determines what's true? What gives any person the right to determine truth? Guilt can't function in a vacuum, yet anyone who points out the 'truth' to someone else risks being called judgmental or arrogant. If everyone's $hit stinks, who has the right to stand up and say, "Ok, who's not wiping their @$$?"
Jay said what I meant better than I said it when he said people don't care, BUT don't like feeling bad, so their brains make up crap so that they don't have to.
Where I divert from Jay and Alex is that they always know the difference between the truth and the lies they tell themselves. I think if you live with lies long enough, you start believing the lies. That was the point I was so poorly trying to make with Alex. I have a difficult time believing that most people would KNOWINGLY do bad things if they understood the impact of their actions. Wouldn't such a person be morally bankrupt? Personally, I think I'd much rather be perceived as ignorant or deluded rather than a dickhead.
So I prefer (for the sake of my own sanity) to believe that these people simply don't see or understand the truth in a way that will break through their ignorance or the lies they tell themselves. This is why I love House. He never asks people to act counter to their morality. He simply confronts them with the TRUTH. Your religion says no medicine? Fine, but you're gonna DIE.
But since we don't live in TV Land where the brilliant doctor is always right, who determines what's true? What gives any person the right to determine truth? Guilt can't function in a vacuum, yet anyone who points out the 'truth' to someone else risks being called judgmental or arrogant. If everyone's $hit stinks, who has the right to stand up and say, "Ok, who's not wiping their @$$?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
