Don't be so grandiose

 

On the one hand, there's probably an important distinction to be drawn about being passionate about something. And on the other hand, becoming so personally ensnared that if the issue gets worse or is not resolved in some satisfactory way, then you take it personally. I try not to fall into the later trap. It would be the height of hubris for a person to see himself or herself as a failure if an issue of complex social phenomenon or something like nuclear proliferation or climate change did not resolve itself. If I start feeling that way, I say to myself "Don't be so grandiose. Robert Reich on Inequality in Men's Journal

I drew comfort from Reich's words. After working diligently for 37 years to ensure the availability of quality school libraries for kids; to change educational practices to make them more relevant, authentic, and personal for kids; and to develop programs that teach kids to use technology in powerful ways, I often feel the opposite is happening in most schools.

I need to remember that my greatest satisfaction has come from the remark for the one child about wanting another book "just like the last one; from seeing a teacher modify a research assignment to make it local; from watching one class of kindergarteners use technology to learn math in ways suited just for them. And knowing I may have has some small part in making those things happen.

I need to stop feeling "so grandiose." 

BFTP: Are "they" your scapegoat?

A weekend Blue Skunk "feature" will be a revision of an old post. I'm calling this BFTP: Blast from the Past.  Original post Novemeber 19, 2008

I too often hear comments like this:

"They" are blocking access to YouTube.
"They" cut my budget.
"They" don't think we need a library.

Who the hell are "they"?

Can you name "them"? Or are "they" just a convenient scapegoat for poor policy decisions? Are you attempting to influence the "they" and working to change such decisions from being made by "them" to being made by "us"?

If not, you should be. It's your professional obligation.

________________________________

And another pronoun problem from "Who doesn't get it?" LMC, Oct 2011

“My principal just doesn’t get it.”
“The teachers just don’t get it.”
“Bobby’s mom just doesn’t get it.”

I always shudder when I hear anyone say that someone else doesn’t “get it.” Why might a person, “not get” something that seems obvious to the one expressing frustration?

• That the person is stupid. (Amazing the blockheads that get through graduate school.)
• That the person is being willfully ignorant. (Devious people exist, now if I could only figure out their motives.)
• That the person has not been properly educated. (Just frightful the number of people who missed the lessons on the goodness of libraries and technology in their parenting and education programs.)

Here is what I think is more likely - most people get “it” just fine - they just have a different reality that makes our “it” less important to them than to us.

The only “it” some principals get is how to raise the reading or math scores of certain groups of kids. The only “it” some teachers get is how to deal with 30 kids with different needs and abilities. The only “it” some parents get is that school may not be serving their own children adequately.

As librarians, we can offer the very best hammer in the world, but if your principal, your teachers or your parents really need and want a wrench, a screwdriver or a hacksaw, having a hammer, no matter how wonderful, is simply immaterial. They get “it” that you have a great hammer - it just isn’t relevant or important to them. Even if you think it darned well should be.

Tasteless tomatoes and other unintended consequences

 Image source 

The law of unintended consequences is an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system always creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes. Wikipedia

In The Tomato Harvester, the Smart Gun, and The Age-Graded School: Reframing the Problem, professor Larry Cuban writes:

Just as paying attention to the tomato rather than the machine and seeing the gun rather than the gun owner as the problem to be solved, the age-graded school has to be seen anew as the problem to be solved, not teacher unions, insufficient iPads, or policies that instill fear into teachers or tighten standards-based testing.  Ungrading schools create different structures for students to learn at their different paces reducing dropouts while giving teachers time and flexibility to teach what has to be taught. 

While I have great respect for Dr Cuban and his ideas, this post bothered me.

His first example of changing the physical nature of the tomato so it can be more easily picked by a machine rather than changing the machinery immediately made me wonder if this is why today's commercial tomatoes are tough and flavorless. 

His second example of a biometrically secured gun made me wonder if the availability of these protections might lead to a false sense of security which would then lead to greater gun ownership and more gun-related deaths. (Most gun deaths are suicides.)

Might there be unintended consequences with ability-leveled, instead of age-leveled, schools? Would placing children with others who are much older or younger best suit their non-academic developmental needs? (Developmental needs and interests are chronologically-based, not based on literacy level, as I remember.) Would we see a higher incidence of bullying? Do we want 18-year-olds hitting on 14-year-olds in the same classrooms? By pushing groups of like-ability kids together are we simply enabling teachers to continue large-group instructional practices, rather than individualizing or personalizing their classrooms of multi-ability kids?

Cuban implies that reforms like ability-grouped schools are resisted by reactionary parents, politics, or unimaginative thinking. Might there also be some legitimate resistance due to the fear of unintended consequences?