Archive for the 'B.Ed' Category

28 September 2006

“We honor ambition, we reward greed, we celebrate materialism, we worship acquisitiveness, we cherish success, and we commercialize the classroom – and then we bark at the young about the gentle art of the spirit.”

– Benjamin Barber, (1993, November). America skips school. Harper’s Magazine, 286, p. 42, as quoted in Teaching What We Hold Sacred by John I. Goodlad in Educational Leadership, December 2003/January 2004

Asymmetrical Anxieties

21 September 2006

“New teachers are often troubled because they do not have enough material; experienced teachers are more likely to be troubled because they do not have enough time.”

– From Lesson Planning, pg 188 by I don’t know who because the prof. didn’t cite him/her

Back to school

7 September 2006

Back at school in the B.Ed program at Ottawa U. I had my first class yesterday and I was kind of surprised to find myself getting pretty excited. And I’ve done one of the readings (by a guy named John Miller) and all my critical juices got to flowing. This is going to be good.

Regarding the John Miller reading…I’m willing to grant that Miller’s just attempting to introduce the idea of Holistic education but, man, you could drive a truck through some of the claims he’s making. One of the biggest things that struck me is how he conflates Holistic education as an attempt to explore the relationship between various concepts (e.g., the self and the Self, linear thinking and intuition) and Holistic education as an attempt to rebalance those relationships. The one tack is exploratory and not necessarily pejorative. The other is unavoidably political. I can (fore?)see plausible arguments on either of these two fronts. But Miller elides (is that the right word?) between these two without acknowledging (or awareness?) that he is doing so.

I think this arises, at least in part, because he takes the legitimacy of his critical project (to redress the imbalances of which he speaks) for granted. It is as if he cannont really imagine that anyone will disagree and so therefore doesn’t see the need to do all that bothersome justifying. However, at this point in history (with the forces of reaction once again in the ascendant) it’s incumbent on critics of the status quo not to assume that all readers will accept the legitimacy of their criticism.