This probably serves the same purpose as businessmen taking "smiling classes." From what I've heard, the Japanese are trying to fight a long-standing tradition of not-smiling ("control of emotions," etc) by having people be taught how to smile, and how to smile in a way that will appeal to people outside of Japan. The concept of this is that they'll be able to connect with foreign businessmen easier, and not seem so stand-offish.
If I had to make a guess of why this was being done to railway workers, then I would assume it was something similar.
There are different ways to motivate children. There are ways to hold children accountable and to get them engaged in the material so they bring their own interest into their education.
One of the things our educational system does is to make it separate from "the real world." Engaging students and motivating them can simply be relating it to their lives in the past, present, and future. Too often teachers are forced to "teach to the test" because they have standards they must meet, AYP's they must pass, etc; and so the educational system becomes just a haze of testing that relates to nothing but itself. One good way to get kids interested is find that means that will connect them.
For the most part, I haven't met any educator who wants to take parents completely out of the picture. Sometimes they can be a hindrance--and when you're trying to change your educational strategies from the traditional it's often the parents who are the most active against it; however, I also think you can't believe that all parents will be able to enthrall themselves into their kids' education. It's not possible. Not everyone comes from a family where free time is available to help their kids along; and not every family has a parental-child relationship that it will matter if the parent is saying "do your homework."
It seems that "mom and dad"--if there is a mom and dad both in the picture--gets scapegoated a lot when we need to look at the means we're teaching. No, I don't think teachers are to blame (I know myself and my peers are working our butts off to work with students and the current educational situation we're in) but I do think teachers are part of a solution.
Except that not every person comes from a background that allows parents to be involved. I had a friend growing up who barely saw her mum b/c she worked three jobs to support the family. Parental involvement, while it can be helpful in some cases, cannot be the only factor in a child's educational success.
This kind of sounds like it would have the same problem that ruled out the probability of using flying cars (for popular use, not that they can't be made). I mean, if the city has some kind of malfunction and falls, any survivors from the crash would soon die from the horrible conditions of the atmosphere on planet side.
And of course there is also the evidence that this warming trend in our environment today is simply a part of Earth's cycle. It's a natural phenomenon, possibly helped further along by humans technological progression, but also just as likely helped by, you know, things like...volcanic eruptions, which can spew more CO2 in the air than most large cities and their car-driving occupants. The thing is, they've documented similar trends in the environment before, not in recent history granted, but if there is anything we've learned from observing the world around us, it should be that things work in cycles. Hell, I remember it every time I point and laugh at the women walking down the street in hideous clothing brought back from the 80s.
I do want to point out that I'm not saying that holding big corporations responsible to try and keep their production "clean" is bad, but at the same time, I think most Global Warming Activists are sensationalists who try and use scare tactics to try and get their message across. And when that happens, you're simply no better than Bush and his current administration.
So why is there talk about trading liberty for security? Even though the security vs liberty argument is as flawed as the mythical man month, the point still remains - why do I need this extra security anyway? It's expensive, it costs me my rights and it's ineffective. My only real response (that hasn't already been said) to your comment is this quote from Benjamin Franklin:
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
And I do think our way of life is under threat, but not from terrorists. The threat comes from people who like to use the concept of "terrorism" as a scare tactic in order to secure power for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
This probably serves the same purpose as businessmen taking "smiling classes." From what I've heard, the Japanese are trying to fight a long-standing tradition of not-smiling ("control of emotions," etc) by having people be taught how to smile, and how to smile in a way that will appeal to people outside of Japan. The concept of this is that they'll be able to connect with foreign businessmen easier, and not seem so stand-offish. If I had to make a guess of why this was being done to railway workers, then I would assume it was something similar.
There are different ways to motivate children. There are ways to hold children accountable and to get them engaged in the material so they bring their own interest into their education.
One of the things our educational system does is to make it separate from "the real world." Engaging students and motivating them can simply be relating it to their lives in the past, present, and future. Too often teachers are forced to "teach to the test" because they have standards they must meet, AYP's they must pass, etc; and so the educational system becomes just a haze of testing that relates to nothing but itself. One good way to get kids interested is find that means that will connect them.
For the most part, I haven't met any educator who wants to take parents completely out of the picture. Sometimes they can be a hindrance--and when you're trying to change your educational strategies from the traditional it's often the parents who are the most active against it; however, I also think you can't believe that all parents will be able to enthrall themselves into their kids' education. It's not possible. Not everyone comes from a family where free time is available to help their kids along; and not every family has a parental-child relationship that it will matter if the parent is saying "do your homework."
It seems that "mom and dad"--if there is a mom and dad both in the picture--gets scapegoated a lot when we need to look at the means we're teaching. No, I don't think teachers are to blame (I know myself and my peers are working our butts off to work with students and the current educational situation we're in) but I do think teachers are part of a solution.
Except that not every person comes from a background that allows parents to be involved. I had a friend growing up who barely saw her mum b/c she worked three jobs to support the family. Parental involvement, while it can be helpful in some cases, cannot be the only factor in a child's educational success.
This kind of sounds like it would have the same problem that ruled out the probability of using flying cars (for popular use, not that they can't be made). I mean, if the city has some kind of malfunction and falls, any survivors from the crash would soon die from the horrible conditions of the atmosphere on planet side.
And of course there is also the evidence that this warming trend in our environment today is simply a part of Earth's cycle. It's a natural phenomenon, possibly helped further along by humans technological progression, but also just as likely helped by, you know, things like...volcanic eruptions, which can spew more CO2 in the air than most large cities and their car-driving occupants. The thing is, they've documented similar trends in the environment before, not in recent history granted, but if there is anything we've learned from observing the world around us, it should be that things work in cycles. Hell, I remember it every time I point and laugh at the women walking down the street in hideous clothing brought back from the 80s.
I do want to point out that I'm not saying that holding big corporations responsible to try and keep their production "clean" is bad, but at the same time, I think most Global Warming Activists are sensationalists who try and use scare tactics to try and get their message across. And when that happens, you're simply no better than Bush and his current administration.
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
And I do think our way of life is under threat, but not from terrorists. The threat comes from people who like to use the concept of "terrorism" as a scare tactic in order to secure power for themselves.