I want to make the novel as relevant as possible to my students . . . If you were a student in my class for a few weeks, what kind of angle would you most like to investigate while studying this novel?"
This implies "preaching?"
You seem filled with answers. Why don't you become part of the solution?
I'm a second year high school English teacher--heaven forbid I misspell something in this post!
My bad. In addition to bad grammar, someone pointed out the ambiguity of that statement. By "second-year" I meant to say that this is my second year as a teacher; it just so happens that I'm also teaching sophomores (considered "second-year" students by some).
Heh. Another clear case for clarity in writing. I'll be sure to relay this to my class.
That's just it. Censorship really isn't the main theme of the novel; surely it's one of them, but only one.
I'm trying to get my students to research the censorship angle on their own instead of listening to me lecture about censorship issues present and past.
Once the students review the issues that are most frequently mentioned in relation to the novel, I'm hoping they'll be able to make the leap beyond those issues into the real meat of the novel: the loss of individual thought, etc.
No, thank _you_ for taking the time to respond, and with kind words to boot.
I've tried to play a Socratic role in my classes from the beginning. Although I never hear it from them directly, I do know that many of my students appreciate the fact that they are allowed to voice opinions in my classes.
You seem to admire teaching. Why don't you join the profession after college?
. . . for pointing out the tech-related topics and--especially--my grammar lapse! The censorware site was interesting.
In the two weeks I was waiting for this question to be accepted, I put together for my students a small, research-oriented group project. I've asked them to scour the library and web in search of, among other issues, real-life incidents of "book burning" and censorship (in books, film, and music). I've pointed a few students to Neil Postman's work as well.
Unfortunately, I did not have the pleasure of reading this book until recently. It has fast become one of my favorites, and I really hope I can share my enthusiasm for reading this novel with my students.
Oh, and I put a li'l bit of Socrates in all of my lessons, not just this one.
I graduated from college with a degree in English, and took a job at a small school as a classroom aide while beginning work on my teaching credential.
Before the school year ended, our "tech coordinator" (who has since become a friend and mentor) left for a start-up. It was leaked that I knew where the power buttons were on the computers, so I became the de-facto admin for the last part of the school year.
Having tinkered with computers in high school and taking a few CS courses in college added to my, heh, "mystique." The principal offered me the tech job for the following year, so I jumped at it. The school's network consisted of Macs, and an NT file server.
Love at first sight hit when the outgoing tech showed me the Linux mail server he set up for the school. Linux looked just like the Sun OS I played on in college, so I dove in head first.
I've since played on various Linux distros and *BSDs, with Slackware and FreeBSD being my favorites.
Unfortunately, I had to leave the admin job this year in order to finish my credential--I begin student teaching in February.
I love literature and it's great working with my freshmen, but I had so much fun switching all the Mac and NT servers to Linux and BSD.
The point of all this blather?
Like many other posters, I started out in a small place and was able to get my feet wet. Maybe after I finish my credential, I can jump back into the Unix world.
they did have to get "retrained." The purpose of summer vacation isn't to sleep, it's for professional development, often at the personal expense of the teacher.
As most teacher salaries are based on level of education, the only way to move up salary-wise is to take class after class after class.
Professional development and all forms of continuing education apply to most professionals, including teachers.
I think I chopped out a bit by mistake at the end of my previous post:
"our science and math teachers are equals . . "
I think I was trying to say that science and math teachers are considered as valuable an asset to the school as teachers of any other subject, at least in the eyes of the administrators responsible for hiring.
Right or wrong, teachers get paid on a set scale, with their salaires dependent solely upon years of experience and level of education. The subject they teach does not factor into salary placement at all.
In my poorly worded statements, I was trying to point out the implication that a science teacher making the same as an English teacher means the science teacher is underpaid (or needs to be paid more than the English or metalshop teacher) is wrong.
When saying "underpaid," I wasn't referring to the idea of "wanting to make more money." In teaching circles, the chatter about underpayment really refers to the idea that the ratio of "value of work performed" to salary is comparatively lower than other positions with lower "value of work performed" but having higher salaries. Yes, teachers *choose* to teach, knowng the opportunity costs of not going into other professions.
One of the common one-liners heard around teachers are that they are the only "professionals" in the country who are neither treated nor paid like "professionals." Is this because they are rewarded for their efforts with "abbreviated days" and "summer vacations," (whose sole purpose is to time for teachers to continually take required classes, in addition to working second and third jobs), so in having ample "vacation time," teachers don't require higher salaries?
I don't know, but wish I did.
Should teachers receive the exorbitant salaries lawyers et. al., for example, receive? Probably not, but neither should lawyers (example) receive salaries 4-8+ times the size of a teacher's salary. I'm not picking on lawyers per se, but just using as an example.
Having said this, I agree whole-heartedly with your closing statements about higher salaries bringing better teachers into the field. That was supposed to be my unstated yet implied meaning when using the term "underpaid," e.g., because teachers are "underpaid," many qualified people choose not to enter the profession.
You sound like you'd make a good econ teacher or something. You should give it a go sometime, and I don't meant that facetiously.
Everyone with a passion for a particular academic subject, be it math, science, literature, language, social science, or even P.E. (which, if taught correctly, does require knowing more than just rules to a game) should consider teaching. Coding the new killer app isn't the only way to have an affect on our future.
No kidding. I've been working at one for 4+ years now. But, to counter the lower pay, most of my colleagues prefer to work within the catholic school structure for reasons already stated above, i.e., different caliber student, better control over discipline, etc.
It doesn't hurt my colleagues as much as it does me, as most of them are women, and are married to engineers and programmers.
Me? My wife teaches at the same school I do, so we get lower pay times two!
I'm not sure how you can say "not all high school teaching jobs are equal," and I must assume you've not taught in a high school before. Forgive me if I'm wrong on this count.
If the goal, as seems to be outlined in this thread, is for high schools to produce well-rounded kids that successfully continue their educations in colleges and universities, then all teachers are equal with all other teachers, English or otherwise, including even--gasp--P.E. teachers.
All teachers are underpaid, whether they teach calculus, pre-algebra, AP Chemistry, American Lit, or Spanish 1.
I teach at a small high school in Silicon Valley. In this, the seeming home of all that is tech, our science and math teachers are equals, and treat each other as such. Teaching, as it has evolved, consists of more than just knowing subject matter.
. . . and was probably only one of a handful of people that could've easily graduated with a B.S. in English rather than the standard B.A. offered at the University of California I attended.
In addition to my English course load, among the classes I took were calculus and chemistry (full year of each, mind you). I can't forget the physics, astronomy, and animal science courses, but the most enjoyable non-lit courses I took happened to belong to the Department of Engineering and Computer Science (as it was called then). Had I not needed to graduate and get a job quickly, I probably would've tried to squeeze in two last upper division ECS classes and take a minor in computer science as well.
Was I required to take all of those courses? No, of course not. Why did I take them? Genuine curiosity and interest. I felt that taking these particular courses would go a long way in making me a more well-rounded individual, both academically, personally, and professionally.
Where did all of that work get me? After working a few years in systems and network administration (of the *nix variety), I'm entering my second year teaching English at a high school here in Silicon Valley (and I'm the only English teacher at my school that incorpates math and science lessons into my literature curriculum).
Techies are more well-rounded because the current system forces them to be . . . Don't compromise the techies; force the fuzzies to the same depth and breadth in the sciences as we were expected to have in the humanities.
I don't consider myself foremost a techie, and yet (sorry to toot my own horn) I'm more well-rounded than all of my techie/engineering friends working in industry.
The point of my babbling is this: be careful when saying techies are more well-rounded than non-techies. That's not always the case, and in my observations, is rarely the case.
It's too bad this wife had not one, but two poor experiences. While many school environments are indeed like those described in the parent post, not all schools are alike, nor are all principals alike.
In the four years I've been involved with elementary/middle/secondary education, I've worked under three different principals, two of which were amazing. Unfortuneately the third was as terrible as the first two were great.
So what's my point? Working environment is important, and that stems directly from the leadership the administration provides. The idea that any good leader can run a school sounds nice in theory, and may work, but in practice good schools require good leaders that have "served in the trenches" themselves.
Hear me out; I'm not trolling.
I think the biggest disappointment with Episode I, and I'm assuming what will happend with Episode II, is the fact that so many people had entered theaters with too many expectations.
As an earlier poster mentioned, most of us saw the original movies when we were kids. Being young, we had fewer and different expectations of each movie.
Now that we've aged, we've come to expect the new installments in Lucas's saga to be better than the last, and frankly, we've placed very _unreal_ expectations on these films.
I am one of the very few people that I've discussed the issue with that actually enjoyed TPM for what it was. I entered the theater with absolutely no expectations whatsoever, and wasn't disappointed in the slightest.
Everything (movies, pizza, happy meals, playgrounds, et. al.) was much larger, and much more grandiose when we were kids.
Let's all be careful not to apply our current adult perspectives to a series of movies we've allowed to become hallowed and legendary in the youths of our minds.....
They are going after people who cannot pony up fifteen bucks a month for legitimate Internet access. Now ask yourself: What value can these people possibly contribute to the Internet at large?
That depends on your point of view. Consider my sister, who, because of unwise decisions and choices on her part, is a single mother of two pre-school aged children.
She is currently working a low-wage job and attending school at night to earn her bachelor's degree.
Because her time spent at home--with her children--is so precious, she can't afford (in terms of time) to spend those evenings at school when Internet-related research is required. Therefore she could really use Internet access at home. Enter NetZero.
The "free" alternative offered by NetZero is ideally suited not only to her, but to people in similar situations (those laid off/unemployed/between jobs) that can't afford to "pony up 15 bucks" at the moment.
Is this a segment worth marketing to? I don't know. But there is a segment of the population that uses service like this legitimately.
Anyone remember the Eastwood movie, Firefox? Clint had to sneak into the Soviet Union, steal one of their two advanced prototype jets, and fly it back to the U.S.
Anyway, it was controlled by merely _thinking_. I can't recall if muscle sensation was involved though.
I work as a "technology coordinator" (in addition to teaching) at a small elementary/middle/high school in the silicon valley. Throughout this past year I have been pushing for a group of students to take over web administration, etc.
I think student ownership of such projects as IT can offer pays dividends. Students not only learn/hone new tech skills, but they also learn to work as a team, something many students cannot do.
Administering a school network can also provide an outlet for those students who don't participate in athletics, student government, etc., which, IMHO, is invaluable.
It's unfortunate that I have met with resistance from those "in charge."
--my $.02 from the trenches of education
I questioned this in an econ class once. With so much political ado about welfare and creating jobs for "the people," why not just train "domestic" workers? I know of a few programs that train high-risk high school students, "welfare parents," etc. Why not make this the norm?
Slashdot Mirror
This implies "preaching?"
You seem filled with answers. Why don't you become part of the solution?
My bad. In addition to bad grammar, someone pointed out the ambiguity of that statement. By "second-year" I meant to say that this is my second year as a teacher; it just so happens that I'm also teaching sophomores (considered "second-year" students by some).
Heh. Another clear case for clarity in writing. I'll be sure to relay this to my class.
I'm trying to get my students to research the censorship angle on their own instead of listening to me lecture about censorship issues present and past.
Once the students review the issues that are most frequently mentioned in relation to the novel, I'm hoping they'll be able to make the leap beyond those issues into the real meat of the novel: the loss of individual thought, etc.
Thanks for the input.
No, thank _you_ for taking the time to respond, and with kind words to boot.
I've tried to play a Socratic role in my classes from the beginning. Although I never hear it from them directly, I do know that many of my students appreciate the fact that they are allowed to voice opinions in my classes.
You seem to admire teaching. Why don't you join the profession after college?
Out of curiosity, how would you describe the Slashdot demographic?
In the two weeks I was waiting for this question to be accepted, I put together for my students a small, research-oriented group project. I've asked them to scour the library and web in search of, among other issues, real-life incidents of "book burning" and censorship (in books, film, and music). I've pointed a few students to Neil Postman's work as well.
Unfortunately, I did not have the pleasure of reading this book until recently. It has fast become one of my favorites, and I really hope I can share my enthusiasm for reading this novel with my students.
Oh, and I put a li'l bit of Socrates in all of my lessons, not just this one.
Thanks again for the ideas
I graduated from college with a degree in English, and took a job at a small school as a classroom aide while beginning work on my teaching credential.
Before the school year ended, our "tech coordinator" (who has since become a friend and mentor) left for a start-up. It was leaked that I knew where the power buttons were on the computers, so I became the de-facto admin for the last part of the school year.
Having tinkered with computers in high school and taking a few CS courses in college added to my, heh, "mystique." The principal offered me the tech job for the following year, so I jumped at it. The school's network consisted of Macs, and an NT file server.
Love at first sight hit when the outgoing tech showed me the Linux mail server he set up for the school. Linux looked just like the Sun OS I played on in college, so I dove in head first.
I've since played on various Linux distros and *BSDs, with Slackware and FreeBSD being my favorites.
Unfortunately, I had to leave the admin job this year in order to finish my credential--I begin student teaching in February.
I love literature and it's great working with my freshmen, but I had so much fun switching all the Mac and NT servers to Linux and BSD.
The point of all this blather?
Like many other posters, I started out in a small place and was able to get my feet wet. Maybe after I finish my credential, I can jump back into the Unix world.
they did have to get "retrained." The purpose of summer vacation isn't to sleep, it's for professional development, often at the personal expense of the teacher.
As most teacher salaries are based on level of education, the only way to move up salary-wise is to take class after class after class.
Professional development and all forms of continuing education apply to most professionals, including teachers.
Even though it's an anonymous coward, please mod this up!
You are correct.
I think I chopped out a bit by mistake at the end of my previous post:
"our science and math teachers are equals . . "
I think I was trying to say that science and math teachers are considered as valuable an asset to the school as teachers of any other subject, at least in the eyes of the administrators responsible for hiring.
Right or wrong, teachers get paid on a set scale, with their salaires dependent solely upon years of experience and level of education. The subject they teach does not factor into salary placement at all.
In my poorly worded statements, I was trying to point out the implication that a science teacher making the same as an English teacher means the science teacher is underpaid (or needs to be paid more than the English or metalshop teacher) is wrong.
When saying "underpaid," I wasn't referring to the idea of "wanting to make more money." In teaching circles, the chatter about underpayment really refers to the idea that the ratio of "value of work performed" to salary is comparatively lower than other positions with lower "value of work performed" but having higher salaries. Yes, teachers *choose* to teach, knowng the opportunity costs of not going into other professions.
One of the common one-liners heard around teachers are that they are the only "professionals" in the country who are neither treated nor paid like "professionals." Is this because they are rewarded for their efforts with "abbreviated days" and "summer vacations," (whose sole purpose is to time for teachers to continually take required classes, in addition to working second and third jobs), so in having ample "vacation time," teachers don't require higher salaries?
I don't know, but wish I did.
Should teachers receive the exorbitant salaries lawyers et. al., for example, receive? Probably not, but neither should lawyers (example) receive salaries 4-8+ times the size of a teacher's salary. I'm not picking on lawyers per se, but just using as an example.
Having said this, I agree whole-heartedly with your closing statements about higher salaries bringing better teachers into the field. That was supposed to be my unstated yet implied meaning when using the term "underpaid," e.g., because teachers are "underpaid," many qualified people choose not to enter the profession.
You sound like you'd make a good econ teacher or something. You should give it a go sometime, and I don't meant that facetiously.
Everyone with a passion for a particular academic subject, be it math, science, literature, language, social science, or even P.E. (which, if taught correctly, does require knowing more than just rules to a game) should consider teaching. Coding the new killer app isn't the only way to have an affect on our future.
No kidding. I've been working at one for 4+ years now. But, to counter the lower pay, most of my colleagues prefer to work within the catholic school structure for reasons already stated above, i.e., different caliber student, better control over discipline, etc.
It doesn't hurt my colleagues as much as it does me, as most of them are women, and are married to engineers and programmers.
Me? My wife teaches at the same school I do, so we get lower pay times two!
I'm not sure how you can say "not all high school teaching jobs are equal," and I must assume you've not taught in a high school before. Forgive me if I'm wrong on this count.
If the goal, as seems to be outlined in this thread, is for high schools to produce well-rounded kids that successfully continue their educations in colleges and universities, then all teachers are equal with all other teachers, English or otherwise, including even--gasp--P.E. teachers.
All teachers are underpaid, whether they teach calculus, pre-algebra, AP Chemistry, American Lit, or Spanish 1.
I teach at a small high school in Silicon Valley. In this, the seeming home of all that is tech, our science and math teachers are equals, and treat each other as such. Teaching, as it has evolved, consists of more than just knowing subject matter.
In addition to my English course load, among the classes I took were calculus and chemistry (full year of each, mind you). I can't forget the physics, astronomy, and animal science courses, but the most enjoyable non-lit courses I took happened to belong to the Department of Engineering and Computer Science (as it was called then). Had I not needed to graduate and get a job quickly, I probably would've tried to squeeze in two last upper division ECS classes and take a minor in computer science as well.
Was I required to take all of those courses? No, of course not. Why did I take them? Genuine curiosity and interest. I felt that taking these particular courses would go a long way in making me a more well-rounded individual, both academically, personally, and professionally.
Where did all of that work get me? After working a few years in systems and network administration (of the *nix variety), I'm entering my second year teaching English at a high school here in Silicon Valley (and I'm the only English teacher at my school that incorpates math and science lessons into my literature curriculum).
Techies are more well-rounded because the current system forces them to be . . . Don't compromise the techies; force the fuzzies to the same depth and breadth in the sciences as we were expected to have in the humanities.
I don't consider myself foremost a techie, and yet (sorry to toot my own horn) I'm more well-rounded than all of my techie/engineering friends working in industry.
The point of my babbling is this: be careful when saying techies are more well-rounded than non-techies. That's not always the case, and in my observations, is rarely the case.
I'm speaking as a new teacher now.
It's too bad this wife had not one, but two poor experiences. While many school environments are indeed like those described in the parent post, not all schools are alike, nor are all principals alike.
In the four years I've been involved with elementary/middle/secondary education, I've worked under three different principals, two of which were amazing. Unfortuneately the third was as terrible as the first two were great.
So what's my point? Working environment is important, and that stems directly from the leadership the administration provides. The idea that any good leader can run a school sounds nice in theory, and may work, but in practice good schools require good leaders that have "served in the trenches" themselves.
Hear me out; I'm not trolling. I think the biggest disappointment with Episode I, and I'm assuming what will happend with Episode II, is the fact that so many people had entered theaters with too many expectations. As an earlier poster mentioned, most of us saw the original movies when we were kids. Being young, we had fewer and different expectations of each movie. Now that we've aged, we've come to expect the new installments in Lucas's saga to be better than the last, and frankly, we've placed very _unreal_ expectations on these films. I am one of the very few people that I've discussed the issue with that actually enjoyed TPM for what it was. I entered the theater with absolutely no expectations whatsoever, and wasn't disappointed in the slightest. Everything (movies, pizza, happy meals, playgrounds, et. al.) was much larger, and much more grandiose when we were kids. Let's all be careful not to apply our current adult perspectives to a series of movies we've allowed to become hallowed and legendary in the youths of our minds.....
That depends on your point of view. Consider my sister, who, because of unwise decisions and choices on her part, is a single mother of two pre-school aged children.
She is currently working a low-wage job and attending school at night to earn her bachelor's degree.
Because her time spent at home--with her children--is so precious, she can't afford (in terms of time) to spend those evenings at school when Internet-related research is required. Therefore she could really use Internet access at home. Enter NetZero.
The "free" alternative offered by NetZero is ideally suited not only to her, but to people in similar situations (those laid off/unemployed/between jobs) that can't afford to "pony up 15 bucks" at the moment. Is this a segment worth marketing to? I don't know. But there is a segment of the population that uses service like this legitimately.
Anyone remember the Eastwood movie, Firefox? Clint had to sneak into the Soviet Union, steal one of their two advanced prototype jets, and fly it back to the U.S. Anyway, it was controlled by merely _thinking_. I can't recall if muscle sensation was involved though.
IIRC, Interplay had the license for this stuff a while back. The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, I believe.
I work as a "technology coordinator" (in addition to teaching) at a small elementary/middle/high school in the silicon valley. Throughout this past year I have been pushing for a group of students to take over web administration, etc. I think student ownership of such projects as IT can offer pays dividends. Students not only learn/hone new tech skills, but they also learn to work as a team, something many students cannot do. Administering a school network can also provide an outlet for those students who don't participate in athletics, student government, etc., which, IMHO, is invaluable. It's unfortunate that I have met with resistance from those "in charge." --my $.02 from the trenches of education
I questioned this in an econ class once. With so much political ado about welfare and creating jobs for "the people," why not just train "domestic" workers? I know of a few programs that train high-risk high school students, "welfare parents," etc. Why not make this the norm?