I stumbled across this recently, and it really blew my mind. I know there has been a lot of controversy over HB 3200 (now H.R. 3962), the recently passed Health Care Reform Bill, and people are probably a bit tired of hearing about it, but the problems have only begun. What follows is courtesy of former county judge, the Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas, published in the River Cities Tribune, 17 August 2009. Kithil writes:
"I have reviewed selected sections of the bill, and find
it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements."
"Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible
for the financial mess of both Social Security and Medicare programs."
"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons.
To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there."
"Other problems I have with this bill include:
** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations
** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax.
** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.
** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.
** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years.
** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."
Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls , Texas
Sounds rather scary, yes? It seemed almost unbelievable, so I had to go take a look for myself. Believe it or not, what Kithil says is true. Through omissions that are either blatant, or just inexcusable over-sights, there are some horrendous imbalances present in this bill. Let's take a look at a couple of these, shall we?
(found on pg. 58-59 of HB 3200)
SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.
"(a) Standards for Financial and Administrative Transactions. -
"(2) Goals for Financial and Administrative Transactions. - The goals for standards under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall -
"(D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service...
"(4) Requirements for Specific Standards. - The standards under this section shall be developed, adopted, and enforced so as to -
"(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;
Basically, this portion of the bill states that any time you wish to make use of your health care, the health care that you must pay for or else be hit with fines, the government can dig through your bank accounts. Not only that, but they will develop standards that will allow for electronic transfers. This second part does not sound so bad at first. Electronic transfers are convenient and easy, right? Well, yes. The part that I get hung up on is where the standards for this "shall be developed, adopted and enforced". As in, developed at a later date. After the bill has been passed. This sounds a bit skewed to me. I don't know about the rest of you out there, but when a bill states that there may be provisions put in place that allows the government to simply transfer money out of my account at their own leisure to pay for my mandatory health care without my consent, I get a little leery. These are the sort of standards that should be specified before such a bill is passed, not afterward. One more point before I wrap this up.
(found on pg. 203 of HB 3200)
SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS
"(f) Special Rules -
"(4) Not Treated as Tax Imposed by This Chapter for Certain Purposes - The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."
Alright....back up a second. The tax shall not be treated as a tax for "certain purposes"? Do I honestly need to say anything else about this? I think you get the picture here.
All of this profoundly disturbs me. What is it we have let slide past us? Many people have been incredibly vocal in their disagreement of this bill. In fact, a majority of people have been skeptical, if not outright against this bill. How then has it managed to pass? When our lawmakers must turn their attention to placating an aggravated public which is on the metaphorical warpath because of a bill they just past, then something is very, horribly wrong. If I recall correctly, we elect these people to represent us, and to put into effect laws that represent the will of the majority. Why then is the majority so restless? Why is the majority so unhappy with this latest development in the supposed progression of our nation? Maybe it is because we feel that the majority is no longer being heard.
Time to speak up.
'til next time,
Davin Lillegard
Here are links to the full documents (pdf) for both HB 3200, and H.R. 3962, the revised version that just recently passed.
HB 3200 http://candicemiller.house.gov/pdf/hr3200.pdf
H.R. 3962 http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
28 March 2010
22 February 2007
Progressive vs. Traditional Education
One of the biggest issues in schools today is: How should we teach? What methods are the best, ethically, educationally, morally, and so on and so forth. The two main ideas behind the "how" of education are the progressive and traditional methods. The first is the idea of using the current technology and media to create a more fun and engaging classroom environment. The traditional method is the "tried and true" style of teaching, your basic textbook approach to passing on information to your students.
Now the real question is, if one of the methods is more affective, than which is it? Is the traditional method too close-minded and stuffy? Are there possible ethical and moral liabilities to teaching with the progressive method? To best address the issue, let us take a look at the structure and concepts of both methods.
The Traditional Method:
The name of this method makes all seem fairly self-explanitory, but it would be best to go into details. Most upholders of this method are older teachers, though they are by no means the only ones. This method is more about passing on information, and less about its presentation. The traditional method usually relies heavily on adherence to textbooks and learning by rote. It is concidered a "safe" method of teaching, without worries about crossing any lines or tredding on anyone's toes.
The Progressive Method:
This method is much more varied in its aspects, for it relies much more heavily on the ingenuity and creativity of each individual teacher. Basically, the varations found within this method are different for every teacher, though there are obviously some commone elements. One such element is the inclusion of modern media as a method of engaging student interest in the classroom. This is considered more risky, because of the controversial topics that are often found in the news, movies, and music of the modern world. Since each teacher has their own view on what is proper to teach in the classroom, and so the range of material used in the progressive method can vary quite widely. This is one of the main contensions against this method, because it brings up the hugely debated issue of what should be taught in our classrooms, and how much control over that material should schools have, if any at all.
Standing these two methods against each other, we can see obvious strengths and weakness inherent in both systems. For instance, the traditional method is accepted by most everybody as a "safe and assured" way of teaching our children. Teachers can interchange easily in terms of substituting in the classroom if everyone is keeping a similar sort of schedule, so one teacher can pick up where the other left off the day before. Every child will learn the exact same thing (supposedly) and this means that all children should progress at an equal rate. However, it has the downside in that much of the time (and this is my personal opinion here) it is incredibly dull. It lacks the flexibility that is necessary in order to stimulate a student's interest and enthusiasm.
The progressive method has the advantage of being far more flexible in terms of providing varied and diverse methods of teaching and for a much more colorful and (hopefully) intriguing way of presenting knowledge to students. Using movies and songs from the modern world that students find easy to relate to make the learning experience more fun and relavent to those students. As stated above, the main downfalls are the huge controversies that address the types of materials being used in by teachers who favor this method, and the issues of personal moral and ethical codes that parents are trying to instill in their children.
The best approach to teaching is actually a mixture of these two methods. While some would argue hotly that the two could never mix, I strongly and sincerely disagree. This is a conclusion that not only have I come to on my own, but have also witnessed and experienced first hand. The basis of this, shall we say, "Dual-Study Method" is quite simple, and in fact quite logical. Let me outline it for you.
Point #1: Students abhor textbooks. This is a well known fact, and if it isn't, well shame on the teaching community for ignoring the grumblings of their students. When a student take the time to see how many times the use word 'octopuses' rather than 'octopi' is used in their bio textbook, then something is wrong. (This is actually a personal experience, sad to say.) The student has little or no interest in the class, and while it cannot all be blamed on the teacher, a large portion of the responcibility is theirs.
The answer is to this problem according to the Dual-Study Method might seem a bit odd to some, but is mostly common sense. Don't teach strictly from the textbook. A textbook is basically essential for a teacher to lay out a semester or year-long course, as it has all the basic information at hand. It also gives a good source of information for the student to refer to. However, in my own personal experience, the most powerful and memorable classes I have taken used a textbook very seldomly. Most of the material was presented in a very engaging and inclusive atmosphere that drew students in and made them want to learn. Now I realize that this is very impractical for the fields of mathematics and the higher sciences, as well as a some others, but the basic principle can easily be applied to many courses in virtually any other field. This is a topic I plan on addressing in further depth at a later date.
Point #2: Teaching is not just throwing knowledge at students, but getting them to retain and remember it as well. One of the best ways to do this is make the information relavent to them in some way, or present it in such a way that will make it memorable to them, even if they never thought they cared about it much in the first place. For instance, in a physics class at my high school, they took a scene from the movie The Return of the King and measured the amount a force that would be exerted upon an orc by a stone launched from a trebuchet off the walls of the city of Minus Tirith. Now I don't know about you, but doing something as awesomely geeky and absurd as that would stick in my memory for some time, and I don't think I'd be able to forget the scientific and mathematical knowledge involved, even if I wanted to. So, once again, the key is presenting material in such a way that students will want to learn the material at hand. Now, I make the consession that there will always be students that will fight against their teachers no matter what is tried, but this holds true for only a few, and they are the ones that we must try hardest to reach.
Point #3: This point deals with the topic of materials taught in class by the progressive method. I will refrain from going too indepth, lest this simple article turn into a book. Instead, I will keep it to a few, simple, concise points.
1: While materials can vary vastly from teacher to teacher, there is a general concensus on what is "appropriate" for the classroom.
2: To the parents that are worried about the material being presented to your children in school, I can only say this. With very, and I mean VERY, few exceptions, your child has heard, seen, and read far worse than they will come across in a classroom. Trust your child's teachers to know the bounds of common sense and propriety. They have the interests of your child at heart. If your child does have problems with the material being used in class, then be responsible and talk to that teacher in an adult and mature fashion, and don't go out right away looking to bust skulls. (pardon my vernacular)
3: Teachers, use your brains. It sounds harsh, I know, but it needs to be said sometimes. Think of your students, their age, what they are learning, and use that as a basis for the types of material that you bring to the classroom as teaching aids. As teachers, we are the ones responsible for the things children take away from school, and those things need to be positive and healthy. Talk to your students, and make sure they are comfortable with the way things are being taught.
It has come time to bring this long-winded speech to a close, so I will leave you with these thoughts. What are your fondest memories inside the classroom when you were a student? What did you dislike the most? How would you wish to be taught?
faithfully yours,
Davin
Now the real question is, if one of the methods is more affective, than which is it? Is the traditional method too close-minded and stuffy? Are there possible ethical and moral liabilities to teaching with the progressive method? To best address the issue, let us take a look at the structure and concepts of both methods.
The Traditional Method:
The name of this method makes all seem fairly self-explanitory, but it would be best to go into details. Most upholders of this method are older teachers, though they are by no means the only ones. This method is more about passing on information, and less about its presentation. The traditional method usually relies heavily on adherence to textbooks and learning by rote. It is concidered a "safe" method of teaching, without worries about crossing any lines or tredding on anyone's toes.
The Progressive Method:
This method is much more varied in its aspects, for it relies much more heavily on the ingenuity and creativity of each individual teacher. Basically, the varations found within this method are different for every teacher, though there are obviously some commone elements. One such element is the inclusion of modern media as a method of engaging student interest in the classroom. This is considered more risky, because of the controversial topics that are often found in the news, movies, and music of the modern world. Since each teacher has their own view on what is proper to teach in the classroom, and so the range of material used in the progressive method can vary quite widely. This is one of the main contensions against this method, because it brings up the hugely debated issue of what should be taught in our classrooms, and how much control over that material should schools have, if any at all.
Standing these two methods against each other, we can see obvious strengths and weakness inherent in both systems. For instance, the traditional method is accepted by most everybody as a "safe and assured" way of teaching our children. Teachers can interchange easily in terms of substituting in the classroom if everyone is keeping a similar sort of schedule, so one teacher can pick up where the other left off the day before. Every child will learn the exact same thing (supposedly) and this means that all children should progress at an equal rate. However, it has the downside in that much of the time (and this is my personal opinion here) it is incredibly dull. It lacks the flexibility that is necessary in order to stimulate a student's interest and enthusiasm.
The progressive method has the advantage of being far more flexible in terms of providing varied and diverse methods of teaching and for a much more colorful and (hopefully) intriguing way of presenting knowledge to students. Using movies and songs from the modern world that students find easy to relate to make the learning experience more fun and relavent to those students. As stated above, the main downfalls are the huge controversies that address the types of materials being used in by teachers who favor this method, and the issues of personal moral and ethical codes that parents are trying to instill in their children.
The best approach to teaching is actually a mixture of these two methods. While some would argue hotly that the two could never mix, I strongly and sincerely disagree. This is a conclusion that not only have I come to on my own, but have also witnessed and experienced first hand. The basis of this, shall we say, "Dual-Study Method" is quite simple, and in fact quite logical. Let me outline it for you.
Point #1: Students abhor textbooks. This is a well known fact, and if it isn't, well shame on the teaching community for ignoring the grumblings of their students. When a student take the time to see how many times the use word 'octopuses' rather than 'octopi' is used in their bio textbook, then something is wrong. (This is actually a personal experience, sad to say.) The student has little or no interest in the class, and while it cannot all be blamed on the teacher, a large portion of the responcibility is theirs.
The answer is to this problem according to the Dual-Study Method might seem a bit odd to some, but is mostly common sense. Don't teach strictly from the textbook. A textbook is basically essential for a teacher to lay out a semester or year-long course, as it has all the basic information at hand. It also gives a good source of information for the student to refer to. However, in my own personal experience, the most powerful and memorable classes I have taken used a textbook very seldomly. Most of the material was presented in a very engaging and inclusive atmosphere that drew students in and made them want to learn. Now I realize that this is very impractical for the fields of mathematics and the higher sciences, as well as a some others, but the basic principle can easily be applied to many courses in virtually any other field. This is a topic I plan on addressing in further depth at a later date.
Point #2: Teaching is not just throwing knowledge at students, but getting them to retain and remember it as well. One of the best ways to do this is make the information relavent to them in some way, or present it in such a way that will make it memorable to them, even if they never thought they cared about it much in the first place. For instance, in a physics class at my high school, they took a scene from the movie The Return of the King and measured the amount a force that would be exerted upon an orc by a stone launched from a trebuchet off the walls of the city of Minus Tirith. Now I don't know about you, but doing something as awesomely geeky and absurd as that would stick in my memory for some time, and I don't think I'd be able to forget the scientific and mathematical knowledge involved, even if I wanted to. So, once again, the key is presenting material in such a way that students will want to learn the material at hand. Now, I make the consession that there will always be students that will fight against their teachers no matter what is tried, but this holds true for only a few, and they are the ones that we must try hardest to reach.
Point #3: This point deals with the topic of materials taught in class by the progressive method. I will refrain from going too indepth, lest this simple article turn into a book. Instead, I will keep it to a few, simple, concise points.
1: While materials can vary vastly from teacher to teacher, there is a general concensus on what is "appropriate" for the classroom.
2: To the parents that are worried about the material being presented to your children in school, I can only say this. With very, and I mean VERY, few exceptions, your child has heard, seen, and read far worse than they will come across in a classroom. Trust your child's teachers to know the bounds of common sense and propriety. They have the interests of your child at heart. If your child does have problems with the material being used in class, then be responsible and talk to that teacher in an adult and mature fashion, and don't go out right away looking to bust skulls. (pardon my vernacular)
3: Teachers, use your brains. It sounds harsh, I know, but it needs to be said sometimes. Think of your students, their age, what they are learning, and use that as a basis for the types of material that you bring to the classroom as teaching aids. As teachers, we are the ones responsible for the things children take away from school, and those things need to be positive and healthy. Talk to your students, and make sure they are comfortable with the way things are being taught.
It has come time to bring this long-winded speech to a close, so I will leave you with these thoughts. What are your fondest memories inside the classroom when you were a student? What did you dislike the most? How would you wish to be taught?
faithfully yours,
Davin
15 February 2007
Teaching and the Classroom
You're sitting down with an old high school teacher. You have your pen and pad ready to take down notes, your list of questions to ask. The first thing you have written down: "Why did you decide to become a teacher?"
The list of responses is as varied as the people who answer it. To represent them all would be impossible outside a multi-book series, so we can but look to our own answers.
When we ask "Why do you teach?", many of the responses can be summarized by a single action: a shrug, a quirk of the brow, a radiant smile.
You've gotten done with another long day of classes; noisy students asking questions you've just answered and giggling as they whisper to each other and pass notes. You sit down with a sigh as the last student files out the door, laughing uproariously at some joke made by his friend. You lay your hands on the desk and let your head fall forward, hitting the fake-wood top of your cluttered desk with a satisfying thunk.
"One more day of that crap, and I swear I'm going to snap...."
So why are you teaching? What drives you, sustains you through the horrible noise and confusion that is your classroom? Why put up with the endless commotion of inattentive students day after day? Is it your desire to pass on knowledge to the future generations? Is it because you started in the education field, and darn it that's where you belong! Do you do it because the subject you teach interests you? Is it your passion for your particular field of knowledge that drives you, or the apathy that prevents you from pulling yourself from the rut that your teaching career has become? It certainly isn't because of the money.
Instead of waxing on for hours about the multitudes of the answers to "why", I'll instead focus on my own particular view, and what drives me to become a teacher. I'm going to throw myself into the lion's mouth by using the two most cliche and corny words one could speak: passion, and love.
Before you throw up your hands in despair and wander off to read something less sappy, let me explain myself. Music, since my youngest years, has been a great source of joy to me. Whether its singing in a choir or in the car, performing in a musical, or just sitting back with my eyes closed, listening to Beethoven or Mozart float from the speakers at home, I have always found the furthest extremes of my emotions carried in that music. What words so often fail to express, music manages to say with eloquence and passion.
I did not always know I would grow up to teach music. Like every little child I wanted to be an archaeologist and dig up dinosaur bones, or be an astronaut and explore the regions of space. I wanted to be an artist, famous for my sketches and sculptures, or an architect and design beautiful buildings. I wanted to be on the design team for the Lego company, and produce the newest and best in the world of snap-brick structures. As I grew older I toyed with the idea of writing, and even entering the ministry. Some of those dreams changed, some of those stayed the same. Some I still dream of, but know I will not necessarily attain, while others have passed away as mere fancy under the turn of years.
Now I know that I wish to teach music. Why? Might as well ask me why I wish to breathe. Music has become my life. It is one of the things I love most. More than that, I wish to show others that love of music, and hopefully let them find the same passion and joy that I take in it. Music can change lives, in every sense of the word, and I've come to wish nothing more than to change people's lives with that music. What better way to do that than to teach? I still remember clearly in high school the kids that were only there because they wanted an easy grade, or because their parents wanted them there. I've dreamed of taking those kids, and showing them how marvelous music can be, to make them want to be there, instead of having to. That is my drive. That is the why of my desire to teach.
But that desire brings up a very important question. How do you take a child who does not want to be in a class, and intrigue them enough to get them to take the first step on their own? How do you take a child, in any sort of classroom, and pull them into the multi-faceted and vastly intriguing world of knowledge? How do you take work and turn it into the spark of learning? What exactly is the difference between the two? Is it good teaching that marks the distinctions of those two words? What exactly comprises good teaching?
The answer to the last of that string of questions is basically the answer to the first as well. If you can teach well, as varied as the definition of good teaching is, you can pull your students in, and let them see things as you do. It will not always be so with every student. Some refuse to be drawn by anything, and there really is nothing you can do, but one should always try.
One important facet of good teaching is the ability to take learning and leave the work out of it. Learning should not always have to be a chore. It should be a fun, exciting experience that leaves a person wanting to know more. Now admittedly this is easier in some fields than in others, but the principle remains the same. Work is not always necessarily learning, and learning need not always be work. The best learning, that which stays with a person for years, comes from good teaching.
So, seeing as how the concept of good teaching has come up several times already, perhaps it would be a good idea to at least take a brief moment to go a bit further in depth with the concept. What exactly makes good teaching? There is no one answer for this question, but there are similar points that crop up in just about every answer given.
1. Learning should be a fun experience. The best environment for learning is one that is energetic yet focused, where the teacher has complete control, but the students do not feel stifled by that authority. Students need to feel relaxed and comfortable in their learning environment, and a electric, lively classroom is more encouraging to participation from students.
2. Be passionate about what you teach. A necessary component toward keeping the classroom lively and engaging is to actually care about what you teach. More than caring, a teacher should truly enjoy the knowledge that they are passing on to the children they are teaching. Even now, as in the past decade, I know from experience that a student can tell which teachers are there because they "have to" or they "don't really know what else they'd do" from those who are teaching because they truly enjoy it. This is a major part of keeping the attention of your students riveted on what you teach them. You cannot expect your students to be engaged in the classroom if you yourself lack the love and passion for the subject you are teaching.
3. Relationships with students is another key element in the classroom. The most successful teachers develop a relationship with all of their students. They do so by methods that are as varied as the teachers themselves, but that relationship is still there. Whether they become like a son or daughter to them, or if it is just meeting briefly to discuss an issue with the homework or a test, that relationship is still developed. This is perhaps one of the hardest aspects of good teaching, as the relationship varies drastically from student to student. Sometimes the student doesn't even need a teacher, they just need a friend, and that can be as important in a classroom as the relationship of teacher to student.
All of this hardly even scratches the surface of a massive and complex issue. If you are all very unlucky, I'll come back and expand my thoughts on the subject.
Til next time, faithfully yours,
Davin
The list of responses is as varied as the people who answer it. To represent them all would be impossible outside a multi-book series, so we can but look to our own answers.
When we ask "Why do you teach?", many of the responses can be summarized by a single action: a shrug, a quirk of the brow, a radiant smile.
You've gotten done with another long day of classes; noisy students asking questions you've just answered and giggling as they whisper to each other and pass notes. You sit down with a sigh as the last student files out the door, laughing uproariously at some joke made by his friend. You lay your hands on the desk and let your head fall forward, hitting the fake-wood top of your cluttered desk with a satisfying thunk.
"One more day of that crap, and I swear I'm going to snap...."
So why are you teaching? What drives you, sustains you through the horrible noise and confusion that is your classroom? Why put up with the endless commotion of inattentive students day after day? Is it your desire to pass on knowledge to the future generations? Is it because you started in the education field, and darn it that's where you belong! Do you do it because the subject you teach interests you? Is it your passion for your particular field of knowledge that drives you, or the apathy that prevents you from pulling yourself from the rut that your teaching career has become? It certainly isn't because of the money.
Instead of waxing on for hours about the multitudes of the answers to "why", I'll instead focus on my own particular view, and what drives me to become a teacher. I'm going to throw myself into the lion's mouth by using the two most cliche and corny words one could speak: passion, and love.
Before you throw up your hands in despair and wander off to read something less sappy, let me explain myself. Music, since my youngest years, has been a great source of joy to me. Whether its singing in a choir or in the car, performing in a musical, or just sitting back with my eyes closed, listening to Beethoven or Mozart float from the speakers at home, I have always found the furthest extremes of my emotions carried in that music. What words so often fail to express, music manages to say with eloquence and passion.
I did not always know I would grow up to teach music. Like every little child I wanted to be an archaeologist and dig up dinosaur bones, or be an astronaut and explore the regions of space. I wanted to be an artist, famous for my sketches and sculptures, or an architect and design beautiful buildings. I wanted to be on the design team for the Lego company, and produce the newest and best in the world of snap-brick structures. As I grew older I toyed with the idea of writing, and even entering the ministry. Some of those dreams changed, some of those stayed the same. Some I still dream of, but know I will not necessarily attain, while others have passed away as mere fancy under the turn of years.
Now I know that I wish to teach music. Why? Might as well ask me why I wish to breathe. Music has become my life. It is one of the things I love most. More than that, I wish to show others that love of music, and hopefully let them find the same passion and joy that I take in it. Music can change lives, in every sense of the word, and I've come to wish nothing more than to change people's lives with that music. What better way to do that than to teach? I still remember clearly in high school the kids that were only there because they wanted an easy grade, or because their parents wanted them there. I've dreamed of taking those kids, and showing them how marvelous music can be, to make them want to be there, instead of having to. That is my drive. That is the why of my desire to teach.
But that desire brings up a very important question. How do you take a child who does not want to be in a class, and intrigue them enough to get them to take the first step on their own? How do you take a child, in any sort of classroom, and pull them into the multi-faceted and vastly intriguing world of knowledge? How do you take work and turn it into the spark of learning? What exactly is the difference between the two? Is it good teaching that marks the distinctions of those two words? What exactly comprises good teaching?
The answer to the last of that string of questions is basically the answer to the first as well. If you can teach well, as varied as the definition of good teaching is, you can pull your students in, and let them see things as you do. It will not always be so with every student. Some refuse to be drawn by anything, and there really is nothing you can do, but one should always try.
One important facet of good teaching is the ability to take learning and leave the work out of it. Learning should not always have to be a chore. It should be a fun, exciting experience that leaves a person wanting to know more. Now admittedly this is easier in some fields than in others, but the principle remains the same. Work is not always necessarily learning, and learning need not always be work. The best learning, that which stays with a person for years, comes from good teaching.
So, seeing as how the concept of good teaching has come up several times already, perhaps it would be a good idea to at least take a brief moment to go a bit further in depth with the concept. What exactly makes good teaching? There is no one answer for this question, but there are similar points that crop up in just about every answer given.
1. Learning should be a fun experience. The best environment for learning is one that is energetic yet focused, where the teacher has complete control, but the students do not feel stifled by that authority. Students need to feel relaxed and comfortable in their learning environment, and a electric, lively classroom is more encouraging to participation from students.
2. Be passionate about what you teach. A necessary component toward keeping the classroom lively and engaging is to actually care about what you teach. More than caring, a teacher should truly enjoy the knowledge that they are passing on to the children they are teaching. Even now, as in the past decade, I know from experience that a student can tell which teachers are there because they "have to" or they "don't really know what else they'd do" from those who are teaching because they truly enjoy it. This is a major part of keeping the attention of your students riveted on what you teach them. You cannot expect your students to be engaged in the classroom if you yourself lack the love and passion for the subject you are teaching.
3. Relationships with students is another key element in the classroom. The most successful teachers develop a relationship with all of their students. They do so by methods that are as varied as the teachers themselves, but that relationship is still there. Whether they become like a son or daughter to them, or if it is just meeting briefly to discuss an issue with the homework or a test, that relationship is still developed. This is perhaps one of the hardest aspects of good teaching, as the relationship varies drastically from student to student. Sometimes the student doesn't even need a teacher, they just need a friend, and that can be as important in a classroom as the relationship of teacher to student.
All of this hardly even scratches the surface of a massive and complex issue. If you are all very unlucky, I'll come back and expand my thoughts on the subject.
Til next time, faithfully yours,
Davin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
