The Vagina Monologues
This was my second time seeing the Vagina Monologues and I enjoyed them more this time for a couple of reasons. First of all, I was prepared in advance for the shock factor of the content unlike the last time. I still found myself getting embarrassed or uncomfortable from time to time, but I feel that is an okay thing. Also, I knew several of the cast members and I had a great time watching them showcase their talents.
The reason I went a second time to see a show that is so controversial is because I feel seeing the show brings a greater awareness for women's issues. Everything from funny anecdotes about menstruation to heart-wrenching stories of rape are addressed by this production are all powerful and have a deeper meaning: that of the respect of women and how much still needs to be done in the global society.
This year's theme was all about striving for peace and with the war in Iraq and the genocide in Darfur, among many other horrific events, I felt this was an appropriate one.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Assignment for February 22: Take a position on a controversial topic relating to education
Funding for the Arts: It's IMPORTANT!!!
So many schools today do not even have art or music programs, which frankly is just sad. I think the fact that schools are cutting funding for the arts, especially music, is ridiculous. It has been proven by studies upon studies that music increases test scores and attention spans, so why when schools are so concerned with raising standardized test scores for NCLB do they cut art and music classes first? I know, funding is hard to find and technically reading, math and science are the "important" classes, but I think for many students, the arts are what keep them going during the school day. And if that is true, the only thing that is going to be achieved by cutting the arts is lower test scores and more students not caring about school. In one of my favorite movies of all time, Mr. Holland's Opus, there is a great section of dialouge about cutting the arts that goes like this:
(Vice Principal Walters): "I care about these kids just as much as you do. And if I'm forced to choose between Mozart and reading and writing and long division, I choose long division."
(Glenn Holland:) "Well, I guess you can cut the arts as much as you want, Gene. Sooner or later, these kids aren't going to have anything to read or write about."
In my mind that about sums up the debate on whether or not schools are hurting students when they cut the arts. Not only do the arts help students out in the "academic" areas of school, but they teach valuable life skills such as hard work, perserverance, patience, cooperation, collaberation, and active listening that can be used in any aspect of any job in the future. So even if students don't choose a career in the arts doesn't mean that they cannot transfer the knowledge they learn in an art or music classroom. If as educators we are concerned about our students being able to compete in the global economy then the skills that art and music classes teach students should be valued just as much as "academics" and not be considered dispensable.
So many schools today do not even have art or music programs, which frankly is just sad. I think the fact that schools are cutting funding for the arts, especially music, is ridiculous. It has been proven by studies upon studies that music increases test scores and attention spans, so why when schools are so concerned with raising standardized test scores for NCLB do they cut art and music classes first? I know, funding is hard to find and technically reading, math and science are the "important" classes, but I think for many students, the arts are what keep them going during the school day. And if that is true, the only thing that is going to be achieved by cutting the arts is lower test scores and more students not caring about school. In one of my favorite movies of all time, Mr. Holland's Opus, there is a great section of dialouge about cutting the arts that goes like this:
(Vice Principal Walters): "I care about these kids just as much as you do. And if I'm forced to choose between Mozart and reading and writing and long division, I choose long division."
(Glenn Holland:) "Well, I guess you can cut the arts as much as you want, Gene. Sooner or later, these kids aren't going to have anything to read or write about."
In my mind that about sums up the debate on whether or not schools are hurting students when they cut the arts. Not only do the arts help students out in the "academic" areas of school, but they teach valuable life skills such as hard work, perserverance, patience, cooperation, collaberation, and active listening that can be used in any aspect of any job in the future. So even if students don't choose a career in the arts doesn't mean that they cannot transfer the knowledge they learn in an art or music classroom. If as educators we are concerned about our students being able to compete in the global economy then the skills that art and music classes teach students should be valued just as much as "academics" and not be considered dispensable.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
February 16th Assignment: Why Teach?
Why do we teach?
I think that the reasons people go into teaching are as varied and unique as teachers are. Some people go into it to change and have a positive impact on the world, some do it because they want to pass on something they are passionate about, and still others, sadly, go into it because of the three months of summer vacation. Sad, but true, I have been taught by some of them. Personally, I am going into teaching because I love children and I have a passion for music. I believe that each child can learn to appreciate and love all kinds of music and that a love of music should be fostered from an early age. This is why I'm going into elementary music education.
What is the difference between school "work" and student "learning"?
Just becuase a student is working quietly at their desk on their assignment does not ensure that the same student is actually learning. Many assignments given in schools are just a regurgitation of facts that the student forgets after the lesson is over. When this is the case, even though the student has done all the work, nothing was actually learned, except how to complete the assignment. I believe that for a student to actually learn a teacher must somehow connect the work with a student's life and have a concrete reason for doing so. Also, in order to actually learn I believe that a student must actually care about what they are learning so that they become emotionally invested in their education. This is not to say that each child should tailor-make their own education and only learn what they feel like because that does not make for well-rounded adults who can function in the global society. I think it is partly up to the teacher to create emotional investment in his or her students so that retains the knowledge that has been taught.
What makes for good teaching?
Above all, I believe that a good teacher must be passionate, knowledgeable and caring. Without one of these three characteristics I feel a teacher would be incomplete. Without passion for a subject a teacher cannot cultivate interest in students; without knowledge of the subject nothing can be taught, period; without caring the teacher cannot relate to the students and thus making the subject matter relate to their lives so it can be retained later is not a possibility. Every good teacher I have ever had has displayed these traits and I remember what I learned from them.
I think that the reasons people go into teaching are as varied and unique as teachers are. Some people go into it to change and have a positive impact on the world, some do it because they want to pass on something they are passionate about, and still others, sadly, go into it because of the three months of summer vacation. Sad, but true, I have been taught by some of them. Personally, I am going into teaching because I love children and I have a passion for music. I believe that each child can learn to appreciate and love all kinds of music and that a love of music should be fostered from an early age. This is why I'm going into elementary music education.
What is the difference between school "work" and student "learning"?
Just becuase a student is working quietly at their desk on their assignment does not ensure that the same student is actually learning. Many assignments given in schools are just a regurgitation of facts that the student forgets after the lesson is over. When this is the case, even though the student has done all the work, nothing was actually learned, except how to complete the assignment. I believe that for a student to actually learn a teacher must somehow connect the work with a student's life and have a concrete reason for doing so. Also, in order to actually learn I believe that a student must actually care about what they are learning so that they become emotionally invested in their education. This is not to say that each child should tailor-make their own education and only learn what they feel like because that does not make for well-rounded adults who can function in the global society. I think it is partly up to the teacher to create emotional investment in his or her students so that retains the knowledge that has been taught.
What makes for good teaching?
Above all, I believe that a good teacher must be passionate, knowledgeable and caring. Without one of these three characteristics I feel a teacher would be incomplete. Without passion for a subject a teacher cannot cultivate interest in students; without knowledge of the subject nothing can be taught, period; without caring the teacher cannot relate to the students and thus making the subject matter relate to their lives so it can be retained later is not a possibility. Every good teacher I have ever had has displayed these traits and I remember what I learned from them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
