| |
|
| | Post New Topic | | First 6 Years Of Schooling | Views: 102 | | Jun 21, 2009 6:21 pm | | First 6 Years Of Schooling | # | 
Denis Gibbon | | Points Of View:
I would be pleased to know your thougts about the following points of view.
A
"There is a tendency among Teachers to do whatever they can to make their subjects interesting. This is great. It is consistent with all I know about being a good Teacher, however when subjects are chocolate coated so as to make them more palatable to the students, we are in danger of missing a very necessary component of education, character development.
Students must be coached to master subjects that may not appeal to them. This prepares them for a life in which they will inevitably be faced with people, circumstances and situations which have no appeal whatsoever. These people, circumstances and situations can not be made more palatable by chocolate coating, nor can they be ignored or escaped from. They constitute the reality of life's challenges."
B
Character building can be achieved through sport. It really doesn't matter whether subjects are chocolate-coated or not.
What is your point of view?
© 2008 Denis Gibbon, Dip. Couns. & Hyp.
Skype ID 'awesome140' VoiceMail: 1-877-501-3399
http://denisgibbon.com Are you ready to be PROFESSIONAL?
http://drpg.biz Join my top business organizations today.
Private Reply to Denis Gibbon | | Jun 23, 2009 12:57 am | | re: First 6 Years Of Schooling | # | 
Ken Hilving | | Back when training was an intricate part of my responsibilities, each of us had a personal training record. Now these records had two parts. The first was by career field - specific to the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) we held. The second was a unit attachment of additional items required for the job we were doing. In some cases, the unit attachment was a minor portion, while in others it was the dominate section in both number of items and importance.
Within each item, there were four levels. These were familiarity with the subject, knowledge of the subject, application of knowledge, and understanding. When a subject was understood, the knowledge could be used in new ways and could be taught to others so that they also gained understanding. At the application level, one was expected to be able to teach familiarity and knowledge. At the knowledge level, one was expected to teach familiarity.
The ability to teach others was always a criteria. Our on the job training emphasis required this capability. Our formal training, even with labs and college accreditation, was considered only sufficient to provide the bulk of the familiarity and only when supplemented with both OJT and follow up career development courses (CDC) which were college accredited correspondence courses.
Now in my particular AFSC we had 18 weeks (roughly 36 credit hours) of basic electronics, followed by another 18 weeks (36 credit hours) of specific systems. Since the courses were college accredited, the variation in instruction was minimal. Some instructors were a bit better than others, but the tests and lab exams were consistent. The order of the courses were serial. Upon graduation, we went to our first assignments as apprentice level and began our OJT and our first level of CDC. There was a time constraint for advancing to journeyman level, and the journeymen and master technicians who trained us were measured by our success. Here there was a great deal of flexibility in approach and order of completion, and getting assigned to a good trainer could make or break a career. Looking back, the best training was for me was a combination of working and war stories. The war stories led to real understanding, and becoming a trainer further developed this.
Note the absence of character building in this. There is a reason for this. Character developed and was reinforced through the culture we lived in, not by specific activities. Meeting challenges was driven both by the expectations of those we served with, and with a desire to earn and retain their respect. Team work was lived, not taught. Let down one's team, and the team took corrective action.
A third aspect existed although it was not formalized or defined. This was opportunity and reward for personal achievement. The minimum requirements were defined, and reflected in each unit's staffing plan. It was personal aspirations, peer recognition, and the letters, plaques, ribbons, badges, and toasts that pushed most of us well beyond minimums. That, and the additional responsibility that achievement presented.
__________
This, of course, was all well past the first six years of schooling. Yet in hind sight, I was blessed with teachers and administrators that applied these same principals when I was a child. Instead of a time defined approach to teaching, I was in classes where a good part of the day was spent in self paced learning. A teacher was always available to help us when we were stuck, but we could roll on as fast as we were able. Those of us who had completed one level were often asked to assist classmates having trouble, and I believe each of us helped and were helped as we developed along our own strengths and struggled with our weaknesses.
As for character, we built that at home, applied it at play, and suffered consequences from parents, peers, and authorities when it was found lacking. It wasn't taught so much as lived.
Perhaps with character, we need less emphasis on building and more on living?
Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Jun 23, 2009 4:45 am | | re: First 6 Years Of Schooling - foundation years | # | 
dalip daswani | | >> "students must be coached to master subjects" - in the first six years of schooling ??? When will they get to play, explore, frolic and just be children as Nature/God willed them to be? When?
>> "Character building can be achieved through sport". Physical exercise / yoga for body - mind - soul? Military discipline physical activities? Competitive sport? Which?
>> "Character"? Life has become so complex, the World so complicated - I for one no longer know whether the definition of Character I was taught as a growing boy is valid / applicable any more. For instance, in the realm of "being faced with people, circumstances, situations" - what does it mean, really, to be a Man vs. what does it mean to be a Real Man?
>> Within the context of the values we seem to be currently teaching our little children today, (through those first six years of schooling, in India), with all the candy-floss a little bit of chocolate coating could hardly do any more damage.
...................
The above thoughts were first posted at the Personal Sovereignty network. Here I add a few more, which too are more pertinent to the years after the first 6 years of schooling, but arise out of those early foundational years, including the four-five years before them.
[If it is found, or even “felt”, this is radically deviating from the original question / thought and the specific wording in the tag line, I would request the leader here to promptly ignore this post and and delete it].
>> my second set of formative years, class 7 to class 13, were spent in an International School in Europe - a school predominantly Anglo-American, where I found “living” my character built (at school, at home, within my culture) over those early foundational years, was often conflicting: sometimes subtly (perhaps racist, I do not know) and sometimes not so subtly, arising out of conflict of “values” - cultural, ethical, philosophical - but also conflict in life-styles - the habits acquired, which is a `lived’ component of character.
[an aside: whatever `erupted’ within me arising out of such conflict during those teenage years, was of course not always processed with logic - linear or otherwise; at that time, being an `alien' within an "international" (melting pot) space, and being a naive indian, it was most likely just `felt’]
>> `Funnily’, then again, not only similar conflict but also a new set of conflicts arose in my third set of `formative years’ – at college, in Design School back in India. I was now “living” character that had evolved through those seven years “lived” in the West.
>> after `entering the real world’ and through the three decades since, I find myself questioning evermore the performance and value of “teaching”, and “the ability to teach” - imparting / giving / forcing instruction, in opposition to, sorry, I mean to say `as opposed to or in contrast to’, creating an environment to allow / empower / support one to RECEIVE instruction.
>> a last ( but not final) thought for now: eastern thought is cyclic in nature resulting in it often being perceived and understood as “roundabout”, and/or as `mysterious and paradoxical’ – even “exotic”, and sometimes then labeled as `neurotic'. I raise this point for the following reason:
Character is built, in living it character is further built, which transforms future living of character, which builds `new’ character which is lived... and so on.
I perceive “building character” as evolving and cyclic in nature, not linear, with emphasis on both - “building” and “living” – both being not only parallel, complimentary, and simultaneous - but "building" being an inherent quality of "living" - as any architect, for example, knows, and I suspect also vice versa, "living" being inherent in "building" .
Perhaps it is this very same "roundabout" `logic' operating in the above analogy, I quote:- Looking back, the best training for me was a "combination" of "working" and "war stories".
As I read it. (note: the emphasis with inverted commas in the quote being mine)
Private Reply to dalip daswani | | Jun 30, 2009 4:25 pm | | re: re: First 6 Years Of Schooling - foundation years | # |
Ken Hilving | | If it is the same logic, and it may be, then it raises the validity of an Eastern and Western mind set. Perhaps there is a common "human" mind set, expressed differently due to cultural contest, but essentially the same?
But now we are drifting far away from the initial topic, and should move such consideration to a new topic.
Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Jul 01, 2009 12:02 am | | re: First 6 Years Of Schooling - foundation years | # |
dalip daswani | | That I will most certainly bite, Sir!
:)
...that while perhaps there may be a common "human" mind set, wherein character lies in its expression (living)... ...recognition and assessment of `character' continues to remain, with no white flag anywhere in sight - a cultural "conteSt"
..a Freudian slip, Sir??
:) :)
Then, allowing the mind to go `adrift' can bring in fresh, creative insight, to the topic, while oppressing the mind into air tight closets may prove hazardous for the Constitution - of the Soul, Sir.... of the soul.
:) :) :)
Private Reply to dalip daswani | | Jul 01, 2009 10:49 am | | re: re: Freudian Slip? | # |
Ken Hilving | | An interesting possibility.
The question then becomes, if it is a Freudian slip, is it an expression of personal belief OR an expression of perception of another's belief?
In simpler terms, does it reflect me? You? Neither? Both?
(source http://tinyurl.com/nmjv96)
Of course, it may also have been a physical slip due to the impact of hard use on old hands.
"Why is your finger so bent, Grandpa?"
"Press on this callous, Honey, and watch what happens."
Giggling,"Make it jump again, Grandpa! Make it again!"
Private Reply to Ken Hilving |  | |
| |
