Old People are just Resistant to Change

Old People are just resistant to Change

These are the words of an angry old teacher.  

I remember when I first began to teach that I was told by those who do not teach that my ideas were not so good.  I read, I studied and I even began to keep a list of books which I had read.  This material I found ways (some of it) to incorporate into class.  Thus began a life long attempt to incorporate difficult learning into a class room atmosphere in such a way that vastly different levels of students could find it useful and I hope maybe on occasion empowering.  Early in this game I remember once showing a narrated slide show by Thomas Hoving of the Metropolitan Museum of Art about ancient Egyptian art.  About a third of the way through a student, nice kid but not my brightest (this is not a put down in my view) gave out a sigh and said, "This is boring."  My feelings were hurt but I had a policy when possible to allow students the freedom of expression. (I must admit that there were occasions I regretted this.  However, more often than not it played to my advantage as a teacher.)  But before I could become miffed, she said, "Why don't you tell us what is going on?" I realized that she meant- make it so that she could and would want to understand.  At that moment I understood that I needed to combine what I knew with a presentation which could be absorbed by my kids.  I do not mean dumb it down,as they say, but choose the right words combined with a flow of thought which took into consideration what a kid knew at a particular level.  No book, no author, no study could explain to someone how to combine knowledge of a subject, student level, tone of voice, a teacher's genuine interest, almost unique minds and certainly unique personalities of twenty students into a meaningful experience.  It is certainly arrogance of sorts to even make the claim.  This combination, this union of a kid's mind and the beauty of the Pantheon must be made with the above in terms of experience with the life and minds of young people.  Not just a few experiences but the more the merrier.  

So I gave up as the years passed using prepared stuff and created my own.  I adapted.

Then later as I hit 10 to 15 years I was told by those who are older and wiser that my ideas were noble but misplaced. I read more, kept keeping my lists, re-read those books which I realized each time I read I saw something which I had not noticed before or whose ideas began to click after I had experienced enough to suddenly realize what the author meant in the first place.  

By now I had changed school from Indiana to Ohio; from a modest country school to a district very wealthy.  In fact Geauga County is the wealthiest county in Ohio.  I must add for purposes of clarity that I had students in Indiana who hunted for their own food.  I mean picked up rifle, shot, skinned, prepared and ate an animal.  I do not say this to shock.  Even in the the big noble towns, the same thing is done.  It is just that they have someone else do the killing, dressing, packaging and shipping for them.  These people I knew in Indiana simply cut out the middle man who tends to soak those in the city for the same item.  So my point is this- I taught people in Indiana whom most would consider at subsistence level or ignorant barbarians and, of course, vastly different from the sophistication of civilized people.  I noticed that kids were the same in Indiana and Ohio.  They saw the same movies, heard the same music, ate the same food, went to school. AND POSSESSED THE SAME ABILITY.

So after ten to 15 years I had expanded my belt with more books, more learning, more studies and much more experience with the minds of students.  I was and still am in my element.  Again I noticed that in any conversation I had with those who do not teach that I was naive.  My ideas they would say have no place in reality.  Onward I marched.  When Cicero, a hero of mine since childhood, once mentioned to his friend how when they were young and playing in the yard they wanted to be like Achilles and as the Iliad says "to be the best and to be unsurpassed."  I am a pygmy compared to Cicero but those words stayed with me through thick and thin.  I wanted to be the best, understand more, be able to present any lesson no matter how difficult to any group.  

So I adapted from the ambiance of Indiana to that of Geauga County, Ohio. As the Video Recorder came along, I could see, in a limited way, its use for the classroom.  It was of course by those who sell them presented as the cure all for all ills and problems in schools.  These convinced those who purchase such things in education to fork out the money.  For it would bring the world to our door step.  We all in a room could watch something which happened 20 centuries ago, or 12 centuries or what happened last month in Belize.  Dear Thomas Hoving reappeared.  The movies, tapes, call these what you like were rarely made by someone who understood presentation and the minds of young people.  Absolutely not a single video was made by anyone who understood the kids in my room.  Now don't you think it odd that in modern times we pride ourselves on individuality and how different we all are from each other, how unique we are, yet when it comes to education we all are forced whether a round peg or a square one into a triangle?  

So again I adapted.  I could see the potential for a video recorder.  I admired that potential which technology offered.  Yet, dear Thomas Hoving was there.  He was happy.  His like was making money.  All was well, nope.  It was not.  I noticed that some videos leaned this direction or that.  One view that the Romans were vicious and cruel.  All they thought of was war, money and power.  Yet, I kept reading and reading and learned that the interests of Romans stretched from stars to thoughts of what is the ideal form of government to an interest in what makes people tick, what love is, why we get angry.  What I saw in many presentations did not match what I had learned and I realized that even a video well edited and presented is limited by time and space as scientists like to say.  

So I adapted and made my own.  I submitted a request for money to an education foundation of our local school district.  I purchased a video recorder which could be edited on a simple level.  I used this to make videos for class, such as the life of Cicero or the Pantheon.  I had to adapt again and write my own scripts and create dialog.  These scripts and dialog had to be adapted to the ability and will of young people.  No book, no author, no principal ,no advisor from the state or federal government could possibly know my students.  Now, they could very easily know more than I do but they could not know what my students needed to know in view of what we studied in class.  Nor could they know the range of ability of my unique students.

As the years wore by and I learned more and more I was told by those who do not teach that my ideas were outdated and too resistant to change.  Not so good, too naive, too outdated and resistant to change.  That was a load.  A load of what you may now guess on your own.  But I kept reading.  I studied.  Being a teacher this was helped a great deal by summertime.  I am sure that many would have thought that it was repulsive that I could have the leisure to spend my summers reading. I was told many times that I should get a summer job.  I adapted to that, too.  In fact I am still adapting to it.  When people ask what I do, now that I am retired, I often mention in addition to woodworking, gardening and astronomy that I read and study.   The look is always the same.  Can you guess that look?  The kindest put on a puzzled look.

So along came the internet, youtube videos, the wireless world on a major scale, hand held pads and such.  Again, those who sold and sell these things claim it will solve all of our problems, will bring the world instantly into the classroom, will bring understanding to humanity and instant love of others.  In fact it is clear that many think that these devices will do a much better job than a teacher.  Think of how weird it is that all people are different, we are all unique, yet every teacher who is a n individual and unique is expected to fit that triangle, and all students "need" these same devices without any input from a teacher.  Anyone who opposes or questions this current wisdom is called a fool, out of date.  Those attacks were/are most vicious by those who sell these things.  Again, it did not matter, for the sellers convinced those who do the purchasing that these are necessities and that those who are with it will gleefully follow and those who see another way will be dragged along, for their own good.  

There are wonderful things to be found on the internet.  Youtube can easily be an afternoons delight.  And be informative too.  I once watched a lecture about the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir in Korea.  I learned a great deal.  I watched an amazing video of beauty as interpreted by the golden rectangle and the fibonacci sequence.   These and others have been fun, delightful, entertaining.   All of which must be adapted to the individuality of students by a teacher who has learned not from books and direction from someone sent by the state to set things right but from personal presentation, instruction,  discussion and tests and quizzes and talks and reflection of what students have said, of what people have said and of what great thinkers have said and written concerning what makes students tick.  

But again I adapted.  I saw what was available for Latin.  Some I rejected or I felt it needed adapting.  I created my own DvDs for all levels of Latin.  When I talked to marketers they gave the same look as those to my summer reading.  I found these  DvDs useful for myself and my students.  It was nice too because, if there was something I did not like or did not work, it could be changed.  So again, I saw the value of technology; I used it.  I adapted it to my purposes on my own terms in light of my students.  I learned from those youtube presentations.  I learned from a number of places and people but all of it every scrap of what I learned had be interpreted in terms of what I thought was best and correct and in terms of what my students needed.

So who is the individualist here?  Me or those who want to fit everyone into that triangle whether they are round or square?  Those who are forcing this stuff are chasing away, no shutting the door, to those who want to combine teaching with thinking.  To be blunt these methods are telling thinkers to stay out of education.  Who is more willing to be adaptable?  Those who tell teachers what to use or those who look at new technology and decide for themselves whether it fits their subject, their manner and the needs of their students?  If you think that new technology is only made available to teachers for teachers to pick and chose what they want, you are sadly out of it, clueless.

It is a bizarre simplification of young people or any people to assume that some programmer in Silicon land who diligently works with computers, who has zero experience with young people has a clue what or how students listen, think, study, live and suffer.  To create this blog I read the instructions supplied.  There were so many assumptions upon the the part of the person or persons who put the instructions together that parts of it were unusable and misleading.  Yet they pushed and pushed hard to put that round peg into the triangle.  These assumptions are a symptom of their arrogance.

 So finally what is at the bottom of all this?  I think that it is prejudice.  Prejudice against the very nature of being a teacher.  It is often said that those who can, do, those who can't, teach.  It is clever and easy to remember and has a rhythmical catchiness.  Actually I think it is more logical to say that those who can't teach make the laws and rules about teaching.  

I also think that this prejudice is caused by circumstances of life.  We all go through school: kindergarden, grade school, middle school, high school and maybe college and graduate school.  We carry with us memories of those years.  We are all somewhat overwhelmed by our own prowess.  I guess it is natural.  This prowess perhaps makes it easy to make some very serious assumptions.  For example, as a teacher, I shutter to think that after five, even thirty seven years of teaching that I knew it all.  (I usually did not act like a know it all, when I did, some student who was a blessing to my life brought me back to earth.)  Every time I presented a lesson, even my last year, I stood dumfounded that I had not used the little trick I had just employed in class in past years.  Yet, here we have people, who went through the experience of school ONCE (hopefully) as a student, who never adapted to different student experiences, who have never taught, retaught, evaluated, re-evaluated a lesson,  who feel empowered by what little tidbits they haul from ten, twenty years ago, who feel that they are not equal to what a teacher knows in terms of the needs of students but superior.

If that isn't the biggest load of crap I ever heard!  

698. ON AGRICULTURE BY CATO THE ELDER

698.  De Agricultura by Cato the Elder.  This is a very interesting work.  It appears to have numerous problems in transmission.  The Loeb commentator seems to think it is a manual for a farmer.  As an amateur farmer it does not sound that way to me.  It sometimes addresses the manager of a farm and sometimes the owner.  The two are not always distinguished.  It may be addressed to those who want to become a farmer or have been out of it for sometime and wish to return to it.  Do not be afraid to learn from others, he says.  He also suggests that it would be wise to locate near a town for a ready market.

It also does not seem to me to support the common remark that farms became monster farms and the small farmer was out of the picture.  The reason I say this is because he mentions farms of 60 acres in size or 120.  I did not detect any reference to big operators.  As I recall he mentions the need for 13 people for a 60 acre farm.  That number I suggest would maximize ability to get the work done in a degree of comfort and provide employment and make a reasonable profit.  (The same observation has been made in modern times with reference to industrial farming by Gene Logsdon and others.)

The commentator also mentioned that he places grain farming down the list of important activities.  Here is the list:  first vineyard, then watered garden, osier bed, olive yard, meadow, grain, wood lot, arbustum, mast grove.  Cato precedes this with the advice that a farm of 60 acres should contain a variety of soils and good placement.  I wonder if some scribe, who was unfamiliar with Roman practice or in ignorance, made some alterations.  It just seems that Cato is advocating a farm which is diversified.  For most of the rest of the book covers how to plant grains within rows of olive groves or vineyards, how to preserve olives, the different grains to plant, use of legumes to improve soil, manuring, constant manuring.  Of course where would the manure come from?  Sheep, goats, oxen, mules, donkeys, pigs.  None of these would have been in large numbers on 60 acres.  It also seems that he advocates rotation of these animals with crop preparation and maintenance.

The list of tools needed is extensive almost too extensive, at least for someone who already knew anything about farming.  I have a small piece of property of three acres and two large gardens.  I do not need a list of how many shovels I need or pruning hooks or feet of rope.  These lists are for someone who is almost completely unfamiliar with farming.  He give detailed information on how to select a farm- look for number of vats, presses and evidence of productivity.  I suspect that this work is a compilation of different works, perhaps from different periods.

Then, too, this work is in strong contrast to the piece by Cicero which has Cato discuss how to deal with old age with a group of friends.  It seems unlikely that Cicero would present a Cato in his work who had no connection with Cato's writings which survived in large numbers in his own day.

694. A Place for the Respublica in Cicero's Theory of Natural Law by Jacob Gelman

694.  A Place for the Respublica in Cicero's Theory of Natural Law

(This needs work- these are only thoughts)

This was pure pleasure to read.  Quality work from first to last.  

I have a few things you may wish to think about.  These are merely suggestions for thought.

Striker's definition of Natural Law is a good one.  But too technical.  It misses the point that natural law as Cicero (and others) conceived it was grounded in extensive and acute observation of people; people in very different cultures, speaking different languages. In my humble opinion this gave the Romans an immense advantage over Greeks. 

I have thought a great deal through the years about Cicero and his death.  I am not so sure that it was inglorious so much as a tragedy on a major scale.  His letters back this up. Most people read his letters and see the times when he was weak or indecisive.  That is, of course, because we have personal notes he wrote to a friend who also often did not know what to do (as is true of any of us at moments in our lives in far less dangerous situations).  But if someone is willing, his letters reveal a person very determined, dogged in pursuit of what he viewed as right.  He is focused and his analysis of people is very accurate.  I think many times that scholars tend to view people as bugs under a glass- objects to be observed (a theory of mine).  This leads, if one is not very careful, to arrogance.

I think that it is important to keep in mind that it was not easy to adapt Greek concepts to Roman way of life.  Not because there was anything wrong with Romans but because in his mind there were two sets of Greeks- those in his own lifetime who were weak and whinny and often expected another power to solve their problems. And then complain about it.  The other Greeks are those from the past whom Cicero admired for their tenacity and pursuit.

In modern times here in the USA and in observations of ancient Rome there is often much to be made of social and political tension.  One author I admire is Erich Gruen- The Last Generation of the Roman Republic.  I do not agree with all that he says BUT he makes a strong side case that the Republic was designed to channel political tension toward something beneficial to society.  I learned from him that the purpose of government is not necessarily to prevent tension but accept it as a reality and develop ways to direct it for good. 400 plus years is not a bad record.

I had a Roman Law course once at Un of Michigan taught by Bruce Frier.  I learned many things from him but perhaps the most important was this- the Romans seemed to have figured out that pure reason and consistency in law does not lead to justice.  Frier pointed out that Romans seemed to understand that pure logic and strict consistency would not arrive at justice.  They were willing to live with an inconsistency because it was the only way to approach justice.  Life the Romans learned is too varied and complex for purity. Romans realized that humans are not always rational and for good reason- we are humans.  It is part of the package. So your distinction between ratio and concilium is wonderful.  Ratio- inborn capacity, consilium- product of nature and experience.  Awesome!!!!  Romans realized that theory alone is not enough, in fact dangerous.

Zetzel's assertion (and he/she is not alone) that the De Legibus is unsatisfactory miss something.  In the beginning of book one there is the passage where they walk and talk along the stream, see the oak, etc.  It is clear that all are watching the water pass by.  This passage is very important to understand the rest of book one.  But I fear that most scholars see the charm, the beauty and sounds of the words and little more.  Often I have found that where Cicero is charming that there is more to it. (also another subject)

Cicero's and others' idea that Law, Natural Law, is something eternal.  That it does not exist because a people enacted it but because it exists independent of human awareness.  I think that you wisely quote "Cato" in saying that Roman law was the result of many legal scholars working on it for decades/centuries.  As you also wisely point out elsewhere- Cicero realized that one person could not put this all together.  I would bet my best winter boots that he new that there would never be an achievement of this goal but only an approximation -which means it is an ever going ordeal.

I admire too your struggle to connect Natural Law with the Roman state.  I think you drove the nail in firmly.  In addition I suggest that in De Legibus Cicero was giving a moral and logical argument for Natural Law.  He grounds it in our connection with divinity- that shared reason.  But I think that in De Officiis he was using argument to grounding our natural rights in the real world, the one we live and walk in- this he grounded in the ownership of property.  Property ownership is the physical right we have to preserve the moral right of natural law. (also another subject)

I also admire the places where you demonstrate Cicero's modesty.  I remember I grew very weary of profs dragging out that old whine against Cicero.  His modesty is missed by those who interpret the whole Cicero based only on his political persona.  You make it so clear that there is so much more to Cicero.  He is a far more complex person than many scholars recognize.  I think that there are reason for this- but another time.

I think too that it is sad that more people do not agree with Cicero that a knowledge of history is crucial to make advancements.  I see serious deterioration here.  Not in you but in our own education system- which makes people like you all that more important.

As an aside- I think that the modern difficulty with treating Cicero as worthy of serious study for thought is grounded in a movement which began in the 1830/40s that Greeks were more sophisticated, Greeks thought more deeply, that Greek culture was superior to Roman simplicity and that the language of Greek was superior to Latin.  I have also noticed this in interpretation of Roman sculpture and architecture.  (Also another subject).

I appreciate your sense of despair Cicero had for the Republic.  A fair reading of his letters would reveal this- THAT has been made a little more difficult by Bailey's translations which must be read with care and sometimes doubt.  It is essential to read his letters with the compassion of a fellow human being.  A real person- not just a bug under a glass.

Dyck's observation concerning Cicero's decision to join Pompey is well taken-  this is made clear in his letters (Cicero's letters) that obligation for past kindness made it imperative.

Again, this is wonderful.

696.  The Contrary Farmer by Logsdon.  A wonderful book.  He makes clear the vibrant life which farmers lead.  The fun they have.  The joy of friendship and fellow companions.  He constantly reveals the delight of gazing at a meadow or field of oats or wheat and taking delight in a sea of glory.  But it is not nostalgia.  It is a way of life that he makes clear is important for a meaningful existence.  For him the goal is not to afford a Beamer but to wallow in the independence which such a life brings.  He discusses the value of trees and woods to slow down the wind, encourage a variety of wildlife and enrich the soil.  He talks of the beauty of a pond and value of fish for the table.  He does not recommend going overboard and making something too big or expand too much but instead keep it simple so that a person is not overwhelmed and work becomes the driving force instead of the joy of life.  His chapter of corn is interesting, not only the danger of modern industrial raised corn but his own efforts at developing open pollinated corn.  He just may hold the record for the largest ear of corn ever grown.  He plants one to two acres of corn by hand.  He harvests it by hand and shucks it. He gives a great deal of practical advice which is fun to read- doing one's own repairs, how to buy used equipment and keep it simple, work with other farms and for a trade of some sort have them combine or something.  He talks of the joy of growing one's own wheat, grinding it into flour and making one's own bread or pasta.  All of this is presented in the sense that there will be hard work.  However, he points out the absurdity of looking with distain on working with soil and then coming home and while some hired dude mows the lawn go run for two hours.  He wonders why the hard work of a linebacker whose brain is hammered and damaged each and every game is admired but someone who toils in the soil for society's benefit is looked at as the village idiot. He has nothing but praise for gardeners, small or large. In fact he views these as important and valuable contributors to meaningful contact with the soil.  I will be reading this book again.

694.  Living at Nature's Pace.  by Logsdon.  A very interesting book which opens one's eyes to what is happening to this country.  Between politics and ignorant bureaucrats much damage has been done to farm land.  This has direct effect on not just the countryside but land itself and city life.  As one deteriorates so does the other.  Industrial techniques have been applied to farming with huge equipment, gigantic farms, low wage employees (this- low wage employees is a problem in and of itself).  This has resulted in using increasingly dangerous chemicals to fertilizes the soil.  It was once the case that a farmer had any combination of cows or pigs or sheep or chickens or all of these.  Their manure was spread on the fields.  Consequently no fertilizer was needed in the artificial sense.  Crops were rotated in a far more elegant and sophisticated manner.  This reduced the amount of plowing, gave the land time to recover for the next rotation.  This method also prevented the growth and increase of insects.  Insects never have time with this method to grow to uncontrollable numbers.  However, with industrial methods, there is little crop rotation and consequently as insects have grown in numbers, more and more pesticide is used.  A whole host of problems have flowed from this- pollution in the streams, loss of bird populations (as plants with industrial farming have become more uniform there has been a drop in diversity of animals living off of or near that land) and damaged soil.  No-till has also added its own set of problems.  It does not prevent erosion as promised and requires immense chemicals to produce a crop and huge tractors to do this, tractors which are so heavy that they cause soil compaction.  All of this has also required those who have bought into all of this to go heavily into debt.  For this expensive equipment makes production from an acre of land to cost more, thus a farmer borrows more to add more land to try to increase profit. Consequently the expansion is endless until the economy changes and then these farms are in big trouble.  Of course with the advent of industrial farming has come investment from monied people who are looking for an investment.  They have the pull necessary to sway members of congress (most of which know little or nothing about gardening let alone farming and soil) to subsidize these modern farming practices.  Against all of this talk that this is the only way to do it,  Logsdon offers the Amish who farm with horses, raise a variety of animals,  rotate crops on a grand scale, keep costs down, produce as much per acre as the industrial farmers, make more money and lead happier lives.  I highly recommend this book.  Logsdon also points out with great care that the Amish are not backwards but have used and adapted modern or old equipment in such a way that the equipment does not run their life but only enhances it.

How to deal with cold temperatures

How to deal with cold temperatures.  Radio and television stations tell us to remain inside when the temperatures dip.  Out of fear for our health, they say.  Yet, I have always wondered what answer an Alaskan would have.  So this morning I woke up to 14 degrees.  It was chilly in the house.  So I ate breakfast, put on my winter boots, warm coat, hooded sweatshirt, super gloves and went out side.

Now clothing is rated, if you did not know.  But if the coat is rated for 15 degrees, that rating is measured by someone's comfort WHILE WORKING.  Not to say that anything shady is going on, just saying.  So if the temp outside is 14 degrees, if one just sits on their astabula, the temperature is, in a way, somewhere around -4 degrees.  So in view of this, many fear the outside and of course in the end fear Nature.  I can not think of anything more contrary to logic than fearing Nature.  But that is what we are told to do and most acquiesce.

So back to 14 degrees.  House was chilly, so I put on my winter gear in defiance of the news media and dare to breathe in air dangerous and lethal. Early in the winter I had cut up a tree back by the barn.  I had always been afraid to take down this tree; it was close to the barn and the trunk gnarled as it rose.  It was difficult to see which way the bulk of the weight lay.  So in my wisdom, I did nothing but give it a glance on occasion.  Nature in all of her kindness knew exactly where to put pressure on this ash and brought her down.

Now I love Nature and respect her but she apparently tried to clear the barn but failed.  I can only assume that she was busy that night.  Almost 6 feet of barn for forty feet were crushed along the west side.  Not damaged but crushed. When such a thing happened a few years before. Nature really missed that time.  Nature landed a tree on my barn extension which houses the trains.  Insurance agent evaluated the damage and wrote a check.  I fixed it for a pittance and Sarah and I used the rest of the money for good purpose.  But this time, I had a few health problems and we had a check from insurance to pay a good friend to fix it up.  Of course he had the audacity to improve upon my work for which I am very grateful.

But seventy feet of ash is a whole bunch of firewood.  So I cut her up in the fall, split the wood and had hauled some of it to the house.  Back again to 14 degrees.  Remember it was chilly in the house.  Pulled out my large sled and hauled five loads to the house, perhaps five hundred feet.  By the time I had finished, I was hot.  I came inside, took off my winter gear and there was a nice cozy layer of sweat.  I was no longer cold, the house did not seem chilly and I had actually done something.  There was a Roman I have always liked, Martial.  In a poem he wrote he had trouble being impressed by those in the baths clanging weights about.  He said that trimming vines would be more beneficial.  I agree.

FIVE INNOVATIONS

I read this following article in Farm and Dairy, January 9th 2014 edition:

Five Innovations That Will Change Our Lives

Response to Five Innovations that Will Change Our Lives.  January 9th Edition.

I respond specifically to the section:  The Classroom will learn you.  The article does not indicate what is meant by "sufficient education".  How can a discussion take place when we do not know what the article discusses?  It never defines those "skills critical to meeting personal goals".  Nor does it even give a hint what skills are needed. The article does indicate that these things will be done by computers.  What these things are is left nebulous at best.  

"In the next five years the classroom will learn about each student using longitudinal data such as test scores, attendance and student's behavior on learning platforms."  

 What is longitudinal data?    What are learning platforms?  I admit that the paragraph above is meant to sound impressive.  But a careful look at the words brings absolutely no clarity in terms of the article.  The words which do make sense such as "attendance" are smothered by "longitudinal data and learning platforms".

"Sophisticated analytics delivered over the cloud will provide decision support to teachers"- It appears to say that teachers need a computer's analysis based on statistics alone to understand a student.  The article attempts to lift computer analytics to a level driving decisions instead of a tool.  It is only a tool.  Just a tool.  But a tool which contains prejudice which is driven by the statistics selected and limited in scope by the very nature of statistics.  When I taught, there was little I learned from statistics to know, as a student came in to my room, on any given day, what problems they faced.  I had students , some of which, came from very wealthy homes, yet had no food in the house, parents not home when child arrived after a day at school, no discussion around a dinner table, often no one even there when it came time to go to bed.  The statistics, however, showed a wealthy family who lived in a very expensive home, owned by people who made a great deal of money, had college degrees and the list goes on and on.  The statistics also would have shown a student above average who had no trouble in school as far as the principal's office was concerned.  Yet, this student had problems, serious problems which only one person in a school setting would know- the teacher.  I emphasize "person".  What we need are teachers who learn to understand people.  That can only happen with human to human contact.  

There is another aspect to the quote above and the article in general- the language used and the grammar employed is strange in terms of normal conversational English.  As far as I know communication only takes place when something is understood.  Examine the title of the section- The Classroom will learn you.  We learn a subject, we learn how to do something.  Who says, "He learn me"?  "They learn them"? We do say "He teaches me", "They teach me."

The article treats students as objects of study, not as people.  I admit that this approach has become common in schools.  It has been disastrous. People are not objects, are not bugs under a glass.  It is weird how in modern times we seem obsessed with talking on an on about individually, how everyone is different, how everyone is unique.  And then we proceed to pigeon hole everyone into a set of given categories as though people can be categorized like the elements in chemistry.  Yes, there are similarities from one person to the next but to take it any distance at all means that people are dehumanized in the sense that all must fit in some slot.

In fact this section of the article gives every indication that the teacher is merely a tool whose job is to sit and wait for "data" to come in in order to know what to do.  It dehumanizes teachers into speaking tools.

It takes 10 to 15 years for a teacher to become proficient.  By this I mean it takes an attitude that learning is a life long process in order to learn a subject well enough that class instruction allows for pleasant give and take in a classroom setting, and it takes at least a decade to know how to read students as they come through the door, to understand the nuances of behavior, how to direct youthful energy toward learning and how to make the lesson meaningful and useful for life.  However, the article assumes that a computer will do this with statistics.  Weird and inexplicable.

So I conclude with my prediction.  This may indeed come to pass that computers will do what it appears the article contends.  But it will happen by opposing the powerful winds of reality.

Bill Prueter

8200 Mulberry Road

Chesterland, Ohio  44026

cicero106@gmail.com 

#4. MY FIRST DAY ON THE JOB

I entered the teaching world in Indiana.  I was hired to teach Latin.  The day I entered school for an introductory meeting, the Principal handed me a Civics book, Geography book and a World History book.  I did not know that these would be my new friends.  I was young and too foolish or maybe too lucky to become angry.  I can tread water with the best of them.  I looked at the Geography book first as this and Civics were semester classes.  Geography was first.  I looked at the chapters which covered such wonders as clothing, food, shelter- all those things which, of course, make us so different.  I ended up chucking the book for the most part.  We did use it for kind of government, language, industry, resources etc.  The students and I painted a huge map on the wall- about 7feet high by 15 feet long.  We drew out all of the continents and country boundaries as they existed at that time.  A dot and only a dot was fixed where the capital was located for each country.  Then each three week period or so we had tests over capitals and countries for each area.  The other time seasons were taken up with articles which students found in magazines or newspapers about the area or country we covered.  Each student at their moment, went to the map, pointed out their country and capital and gave the report.  Each article was attached to a page and summary written on it. The final exam consisted of a blank map of the earth- students labeled seas, continents, main mountains, rivers, countries and capitals.  Years later I have had students thank me for showing them that Lithuania is not a made up place.  My point is this- when confronted with a task never imagined, it can be turned into something positive. I had no intention of failing.  The course grew, students heard that there was much to learn without fear of drowning.  Civics was another problem.