A while ago, somebody asked whether education is a right or a privilege. (I can't remember who it was: I can't find the piece among the blogs of the "usual suspects"; perhaps someone could remind me.)
Education may be a privilege, but learning is essential. It happens without formal education. It happens all the time. The trick (so to speak) is to pay attention while it's happening. Otherwise, all the formal education in the world won't help us.
Robert Fulghum understands that, and made it plain in in the first essay of his book, All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten. We learn from the world around us, other people around us, about sharing and caring, and other important stuff. And, in a very real sense, we learn how to learn, if we pay attention.
One of the major problems is that we can become so insulated from the world that we quit learning, and don't adjust to the new life lessons which we meet. The result is our being obviously out of touch with the world. We get so focused on one thing, we miss the messages in the rest of life. Politicians, with some justification, are often accused of being out of touch. They get so wrapped up in their careers, and what the party says, that they start missing real contact, and real wisdom, offered to them by ordinary people.
I say this because our grandchildren are coming for a sleep-over tomorrow night. They teach me lots of important things, which I would never learn in a classroom (unless by chance).
I believe formal education is important. That's why I have two and a half university degrees. But the most important lessons usually come while we're doing something else.
Learning happens; education is optional.
------------
Also brought to you by the letter L:
• lively
• likely
• lucid
• lugubrious
• left
And from the New Phonetic Alphabet: L for leather.
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Friday, June 3, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
SOME MEETINGS ACTUALLY MATTER! (And they even feel good!)
I realize that, from some peoples' perspectives, I'm about to commit the ultimate heresy.
However, there are some meetings which I go to that are actually worthwhile, and even fun. (I warned you about heresy — I know most meeting are pretty yucky, even at the best of times.)
I'm referring to the Executive of UCACS (The University Committee on Animal Care and Supply). This is the committee which is responsible for the welfare of virtually all the "critters" who "crit" (live) on campus, particularly those involved in research and teaching. (At a University like ours, with multiple biosciences, a lot of animals are involved in a lot of research and teaching.)
Over the last several years, I've gotten to know the people on the committee in a variety of contexts that are all related to our main responsibilities. Some are teachers and researchers, some are administrators, some are technicians. They are all very good at what they do, and they all think creatively. People like Ali, Amanda, Brenda, Colette, Diane, Jane, Ramji (our chair), and others. We all have a high degree of respect for each other, and a very strong sense of collegiality. And these folks are interesting to talk to, in their own right.
Yesterday morning, we had to meet and deal with a significant problem. (Details aren't important.) We started, as usual, with some pretty light visiting, and a few "bad" jokes from the Bear. (I'm the community representative and formally-trained ethicist in the group, and sometimes the class clown). When we get down to business, we're darned serious, but don't lose our senses of humour or irony. And believe me, there are some strongly ironic moments.
In trying to conclude the matter, I put a motion forward. Long and short of the situation is that my colleagues didn't agree with me. Which is OK. We come from a wide background of experience, which is important, because it really does help us achieve important consensus. And since we see the problem from different perspectives, we can make different comments.
Eventually we arrived at a better solution than I had proposed, and we all apparently felt good about that. A tricky problem solved in roughly three-quarters of an hour.
I cannot speak for the others, but I came away from the meeting feeling good, feeling that we had resolved something in a way that was ultimately in the best interests of individuals and the University.
Not too bad for a meeting that started at 9:00 a.m., when I'm Bearly awake. (I'm retired; gimmie a break, already!)
Yes, it was a good meeting, heresy notwithstanding.
However, there are some meetings which I go to that are actually worthwhile, and even fun. (I warned you about heresy — I know most meeting are pretty yucky, even at the best of times.)
I'm referring to the Executive of UCACS (The University Committee on Animal Care and Supply). This is the committee which is responsible for the welfare of virtually all the "critters" who "crit" (live) on campus, particularly those involved in research and teaching. (At a University like ours, with multiple biosciences, a lot of animals are involved in a lot of research and teaching.)
Over the last several years, I've gotten to know the people on the committee in a variety of contexts that are all related to our main responsibilities. Some are teachers and researchers, some are administrators, some are technicians. They are all very good at what they do, and they all think creatively. People like Ali, Amanda, Brenda, Colette, Diane, Jane, Ramji (our chair), and others. We all have a high degree of respect for each other, and a very strong sense of collegiality. And these folks are interesting to talk to, in their own right.
Yesterday morning, we had to meet and deal with a significant problem. (Details aren't important.) We started, as usual, with some pretty light visiting, and a few "bad" jokes from the Bear. (I'm the community representative and formally-trained ethicist in the group, and sometimes the class clown). When we get down to business, we're darned serious, but don't lose our senses of humour or irony. And believe me, there are some strongly ironic moments.
In trying to conclude the matter, I put a motion forward. Long and short of the situation is that my colleagues didn't agree with me. Which is OK. We come from a wide background of experience, which is important, because it really does help us achieve important consensus. And since we see the problem from different perspectives, we can make different comments.
Eventually we arrived at a better solution than I had proposed, and we all apparently felt good about that. A tricky problem solved in roughly three-quarters of an hour.
I cannot speak for the others, but I came away from the meeting feeling good, feeling that we had resolved something in a way that was ultimately in the best interests of individuals and the University.
Not too bad for a meeting that started at 9:00 a.m., when I'm Bearly awake. (I'm retired; gimmie a break, already!)
Yes, it was a good meeting, heresy notwithstanding.
Monday, November 29, 2010
RELIGION AS A SOURCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD?
I was reading the latest version of The Globe and Mail on-line, and got a very significant shock.
There was a poll about the the effect of religion. The question: "Is religion a force for good in the world"?
Of the 7,500-plus respondents, only 230 said, "Yes." That's a whopping three (3) per cent. The rest, 97 per cent, said, "No."
It is, of course, not a statistically significant poll, in terms of involving the proper balance of participants. It is simply a "straw vote" among the participants in the poll — the readers of the newspaper.
Given, however, that The Globe and Mail is a major, national newspaper in Canada, the results important to consider. Simply because of the sheer imbalance in those numbers.
The poll was done in relation to a recent debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchins at the University of Toronto's interdisciplinary Munk Centre for Global Affairs.
Blair, the son of a "militant atheist" (in his owns words), an Anglican turned Roman Catholic, feels religion is a force for good. Hitchins, a "outspoken atheist," is dying of cancer in the throat, but is rediscovering his own Jewish roots, while claiming that religion is a source of social ills.
It would have made a very interesting debate. Not being in Toronto, I didn't get to see it.
For me, three issues stand out. First, the sheer numbers on the poll, which I have already mentioned.
Second, the short-sightedness of our social view of religion, at least in Canada.
To consider Christianity for example, the "religious" have been the prime promoters of both health care and education. In the earliest centuries of this historic era, Christians were caring for poor, sick, and hungry, regardless of their religious persuasion. (In that time, the primary religion would have been the worship of the Roman gods.) That emphasis went with Christianity, wherever it moved.
Likewise, when Robert Raikes began his "Sunday Schools" in the mid-1700s, the emphasis was on working with children in the slums of England, teaching them to read and write. By the 1830s, about 1.25 million children were involved in such schools — about 25 per cent of the people of Great Britain. Out of that movement the English public school system grew.
Third, Christianity in particular, and other religions in general, have sometimes been co-opted —used — as a source of division, and even war. This s often in direct opposition to their major beliefs. On the other hand, Christians have also led the process of peace-making in the world.
Where this current debate is likely to end is not something I could possibly guess. But the process, including its inherent lack of social and historic understanding, will be both interesting and challenging.
There was a poll about the the effect of religion. The question: "Is religion a force for good in the world"?
Of the 7,500-plus respondents, only 230 said, "Yes." That's a whopping three (3) per cent. The rest, 97 per cent, said, "No."
It is, of course, not a statistically significant poll, in terms of involving the proper balance of participants. It is simply a "straw vote" among the participants in the poll — the readers of the newspaper.
Given, however, that The Globe and Mail is a major, national newspaper in Canada, the results important to consider. Simply because of the sheer imbalance in those numbers.
The poll was done in relation to a recent debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchins at the University of Toronto's interdisciplinary Munk Centre for Global Affairs.
Blair, the son of a "militant atheist" (in his owns words), an Anglican turned Roman Catholic, feels religion is a force for good. Hitchins, a "outspoken atheist," is dying of cancer in the throat, but is rediscovering his own Jewish roots, while claiming that religion is a source of social ills.
It would have made a very interesting debate. Not being in Toronto, I didn't get to see it.
For me, three issues stand out. First, the sheer numbers on the poll, which I have already mentioned.
Second, the short-sightedness of our social view of religion, at least in Canada.
To consider Christianity for example, the "religious" have been the prime promoters of both health care and education. In the earliest centuries of this historic era, Christians were caring for poor, sick, and hungry, regardless of their religious persuasion. (In that time, the primary religion would have been the worship of the Roman gods.) That emphasis went with Christianity, wherever it moved.
Likewise, when Robert Raikes began his "Sunday Schools" in the mid-1700s, the emphasis was on working with children in the slums of England, teaching them to read and write. By the 1830s, about 1.25 million children were involved in such schools — about 25 per cent of the people of Great Britain. Out of that movement the English public school system grew.
Third, Christianity in particular, and other religions in general, have sometimes been co-opted —used — as a source of division, and even war. This s often in direct opposition to their major beliefs. On the other hand, Christians have also led the process of peace-making in the world.
Where this current debate is likely to end is not something I could possibly guess. But the process, including its inherent lack of social and historic understanding, will be both interesting and challenging.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
TAKING RISKS — HOPEFULLY SURVIVING
Sonia (over at Gutsy Writer) got me thinking about this topic a few days ago. I had some questions for myself.
What does it mean do take risks?
Why should I take risks?
What kinds of risks could/should/would I take?
I've taken a lot of risks in my life. Changing jobs; changing careers; moving across a country for work; walking into burning buildings with nothing more than an inch and a half (diameter) fire hose; getting married; having children; writing, broadcasting and blogging; upholding unpopular beliefs and ideas. In each case, these were things I did because I thought they were the right thing to do. A couple of those proved to be really bad (two were health destroying); the vast majority were good, and I'd do them again.
Even though I'm hitting retirement, I don't expect my attitude will change much. I'm probably a bit old for walking into burning buildings and having more children. I'll probably spend more time upholding unpopular ideas, in a time when democracy, human rights, co-operation, citizen action, and faith are all under attack, particularly in North America.
I'd love to have you come along. And if you're coming along, I really hope you will chat with me about what you and I are thinking.
Do we have a deal?
What does it mean do take risks?
Why should I take risks?
What kinds of risks could/should/would I take?
I've taken a lot of risks in my life. Changing jobs; changing careers; moving across a country for work; walking into burning buildings with nothing more than an inch and a half (diameter) fire hose; getting married; having children; writing, broadcasting and blogging; upholding unpopular beliefs and ideas. In each case, these were things I did because I thought they were the right thing to do. A couple of those proved to be really bad (two were health destroying); the vast majority were good, and I'd do them again.
Even though I'm hitting retirement, I don't expect my attitude will change much. I'm probably a bit old for walking into burning buildings and having more children. I'll probably spend more time upholding unpopular ideas, in a time when democracy, human rights, co-operation, citizen action, and faith are all under attack, particularly in North America.
I'd love to have you come along. And if you're coming along, I really hope you will chat with me about what you and I are thinking.
Do we have a deal?
Monday, November 30, 2009
THE ANTI-MIDAS TOUCH
I've been dragging my proverbial tail around for some now. This is not fun. It is not what I signed up for. The fact that I tripped over Sadie in the middle of the night last night, and landed flat on my back, most certainly did not help the situation of either mind or body.
What made things worse recently was burning a box of papers. It was from a project which I and some other very talented people started in the late 1980s. (The Blog Fodder was one of those who helped us along the way.) It was my idea, but it resonated with a lot of others, who picked up the ball and ran with it. Then they hired me to run the non-profit operation. Bad mistake. I knew what needed to be done, and some of how to do it. But my knowledge of actually running a business could be written legibly on the back of a postage stamp. After two yeas, I removed myself from the leadership position. I continued to be a member but someone more capable took over the reins and carried on, until the organization was betrayed by a couple of "friends" -- and failed. As the nominal founder of the project, most of the organizations documents found their way back to me, though they properly should have gone to someone else. I took most of them to the provincial archives, which was happy to receive them.
Anyhow, 15 year after the Foundations demise, I finally burned the old financial records. An appropriate enough thing to do under the circumstances, I suppose.
What it did though, was remind me of my "Anti-Midas Touch." You remember the story of King Midas -- he had the power to turn anything he touched into gold. With the "Anti-Midas Touch," everything you touch turns into garbage. That was my reflection on my involvement in the Foundation. Then I thought of another case when my "Anti-Midas Touch" had been at work. And then another, And then another. And. . . . By then, my soul was like the ashes in the fire pit. I came in, laid down, pulled a blanket over me, and slept for several hours. I didn't even get up for supper.
I will not let this kill me. But some days I have to reach up in order to touch bottom.
What made things worse recently was burning a box of papers. It was from a project which I and some other very talented people started in the late 1980s. (The Blog Fodder was one of those who helped us along the way.) It was my idea, but it resonated with a lot of others, who picked up the ball and ran with it. Then they hired me to run the non-profit operation. Bad mistake. I knew what needed to be done, and some of how to do it. But my knowledge of actually running a business could be written legibly on the back of a postage stamp. After two yeas, I removed myself from the leadership position. I continued to be a member but someone more capable took over the reins and carried on, until the organization was betrayed by a couple of "friends" -- and failed. As the nominal founder of the project, most of the organizations documents found their way back to me, though they properly should have gone to someone else. I took most of them to the provincial archives, which was happy to receive them.
Anyhow, 15 year after the Foundations demise, I finally burned the old financial records. An appropriate enough thing to do under the circumstances, I suppose.
What it did though, was remind me of my "Anti-Midas Touch." You remember the story of King Midas -- he had the power to turn anything he touched into gold. With the "Anti-Midas Touch," everything you touch turns into garbage. That was my reflection on my involvement in the Foundation. Then I thought of another case when my "Anti-Midas Touch" had been at work. And then another, And then another. And. . . . By then, my soul was like the ashes in the fire pit. I came in, laid down, pulled a blanket over me, and slept for several hours. I didn't even get up for supper.
I will not let this kill me. But some days I have to reach up in order to touch bottom.
Monday, October 12, 2009
DOING IT BY THE BOOK
Now that I'm not longer as academically active as I used to be, the time has come for thinning out the library. (This, partly just to "simplify" my life; partly in case we have to move, for health reasons.)
Thought I would start with something fairly "light"; Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and then perhaps graduate to something more challenging. A younger friend is using Freire for her post graduate work. She's read it and would like to read some of it again; so, why not give it to her? A win-win situation. Interesting; Ivan Illich says, "This is truly revolutionary pedagogy." Sounds like a darned good recommendation.
So I'll read, have a cuppa tea, and let Sadie puppy sleep at my feet. Things will be as they should (except my eyesight is getting poor and I have problems with books using "small" print.) I'm not deterred (though a bit frustrated).
What are you folks reading these days? And what are you enjoying about it, or find annoying about it?
Thought I would start with something fairly "light"; Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and then perhaps graduate to something more challenging. A younger friend is using Freire for her post graduate work. She's read it and would like to read some of it again; so, why not give it to her? A win-win situation. Interesting; Ivan Illich says, "This is truly revolutionary pedagogy." Sounds like a darned good recommendation.
So I'll read, have a cuppa tea, and let Sadie puppy sleep at my feet. Things will be as they should (except my eyesight is getting poor and I have problems with books using "small" print.) I'm not deterred (though a bit frustrated).
What are you folks reading these days? And what are you enjoying about it, or find annoying about it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)