The comments demonstrate how effective bad PR for schools and teachers has been over the past few years.
The use of nearly anything could be called a fad. The idea of a fad is that it engages the current audience of students. Books don't do it in a mobile, multi-media age.
I have used cell phones in my classroom (not as much as I would like) for about 5 years. 75% the battle in a classroom is to get the students to zone in on what someone else says they should know (and that doesn't come from the teacher, it's from the government and the "standards" they choose). Using their tools is one way to encourage participation by the students. Students can't learn from work they don't do, so getting them to do some kind of work is often better than what occurs for too many students.
So, thank you Cathleen for fighting a battle I have tried to fight on a local level (not in Chattanooga) for about 10 years. The filtering of content in order to receive e-rate funding has creating a modern-day book burning by restricting the information students could use for classroom content. But an over-analyzed interpretation of CIPA laws (et. al) have given the power to the few IT people in schools.
Cell phones and self-owned gadgets put the responsibility on the teacher to monitor students, and the parents (if students access inappropriate "information" since it can be tracked) as to how to use and what to use it for. This approach is a much better filter than any tech-based system can provide, because it is personal.
The more high-tech we become, the more important it is to provide a human element in the lives of the children we teach.
I could keep going, but I won't...Those who understand the situation in today's schools are part of the choir, and those who don't understand the atmosphere of education will continue to criticize without a basis in knowledge.
If you rush your wife to the hospital, knowing you could get her there faster than ambulance (since you both work in the medical field), you are obviously about doing the right thing, perhaps in the wrong way (running red lights, not calling 911).
The police officer also thought he was doing the right thing, perhaps in the wrong way (losing compassion for fear of what could be seen as irrational behavior).
Both parties were doing what they thought was right, perhaps in the wrong way.
Call it a truce, have Obama invite you to the White House for a beer, and let it go.
Yes I have read the entire letter. I know it's meaning. And you prove the point I was making.
You would be more persuasive in your argument if you would refrain from thinking you know someone else's (Jefferson's in this case) heart, when you make a claim (based on your personal interpretation of his private letter):
"He [Jefferson] believed that religion is a matter between man and his God. He believed that EVERY man has the right to their religious opinion and that it should be at all times, a private matter."
I think you think I am taking one side over another. I'm not. I don't really care, I'm simply making an observational statement. People go off half-cocked claiming that "separation of church and state" is a constitutional issue. It's not. It is interpretations of Amendment #1 which has been interpreted in different ways throughout our nation's history, depending upon the mood of the people.
We once prayed in school, now we don't, and some want it back. One can make nearly any argument for and against with enough persuasive ingenuity. After all look at who we elect for public office. It's not about their beliefs, it's about the power to persuade the voters.
Politics is proselytizing don't you think?
eeeeeek - You are correct. Most were deist who believed in a cosmic start, but an uninterested god. Yet all spoke of the value of Judeo-Christian tradition in the structuring of civil law and justice.
I always enjoy the Rolando / Woody show after the Clay's cartoons. Thanks for continuing the conversation and allowing the readers to think more about the issues of Clay's choosing.
Choosing neither traditional side of this issue, I choose the side of being able to think for myself regardless of the surroundings; thus no one is able to "force their views on me" unless I want to pay attention to them. So the "forcing" argument only demonstrates an admission that people believe they do not possess the ability to think critically, and a sign will magically make them change their belief system.
But since the conversation here turned to conservative v. liberal (again), I offer something to consider, from an old professor of mine who said, "God never wins in a democracy; unless it's a vote after great tribulation and for the purpose of self-preservation."
The professor's point? Conservative or Liberal doesn't really matter to God. People from both sides are focused only on themselves. Thus, the reason for a Savior.
As a former athlete and coach, I had a dilemma with quoting the Lord's Prayer in the locker room before the game. The thought that God would choose one team over another is odd to me, as we asked for our "daily bread"-usually understood by the players as a victory.
To add to the confusion, all week long coaches would preach "let's go out and kill those guys" and then pray before the game. Kind of anti-climatic, and confusing theology.
Oh, and did you know the phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in any founding documents of the United States. It was in a private letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, and was intended to ensure them that the government should not and would not interfere with the religious freedom of individuals in the United States.
School system may rethink ban of student cell phone use
The comments demonstrate how effective bad PR for schools and teachers has been over the past few years.
The use of nearly anything could be called a fad. The idea of a fad is that it engages the current audience of students. Books don't do it in a mobile, multi-media age.
I have used cell phones in my classroom (not as much as I would like) for about 5 years. 75% the battle in a classroom is to get the students to zone in on what someone else says they should know (and that doesn't come from the teacher, it's from the government and the "standards" they choose). Using their tools is one way to encourage participation by the students. Students can't learn from work they don't do, so getting them to do some kind of work is often better than what occurs for too many students.
So, thank you Cathleen for fighting a battle I have tried to fight on a local level (not in Chattanooga) for about 10 years. The filtering of content in order to receive e-rate funding has creating a modern-day book burning by restricting the information students could use for classroom content. But an over-analyzed interpretation of CIPA laws (et. al) have given the power to the few IT people in schools.
Cell phones and self-owned gadgets put the responsibility on the teacher to monitor students, and the parents (if students access inappropriate "information" since it can be tracked) as to how to use and what to use it for. This approach is a much better filter than any tech-based system can provide, because it is personal.
The more high-tech we become, the more important it is to provide a human element in the lives of the children we teach.
I could keep going, but I won't...Those who understand the situation in today's schools are part of the choir, and those who don't understand the atmosphere of education will continue to criticize without a basis in knowledge.
Couple contemplates lawsuit in arrest
If you rush your wife to the hospital, knowing you could get her there faster than ambulance (since you both work in the medical field), you are obviously about doing the right thing, perhaps in the wrong way (running red lights, not calling 911).
The police officer also thought he was doing the right thing, perhaps in the wrong way (losing compassion for fear of what could be seen as irrational behavior).
Both parties were doing what they thought was right, perhaps in the wrong way.
Call it a truce, have Obama invite you to the White House for a beer, and let it go.
You asked for it
I can't believe no one heard what he really said. The audio must have been distorted.
When talking about the people who run Big Oil, politicians would never say what you think was said.
What was really said? "I need to know whose ass to kiss."
Bedfellows
alprova -
Yes I have read the entire letter. I know it's meaning. And you prove the point I was making.
You would be more persuasive in your argument if you would refrain from thinking you know someone else's (Jefferson's in this case) heart, when you make a claim (based on your personal interpretation of his private letter):
"He [Jefferson] believed that religion is a matter between man and his God. He believed that EVERY man has the right to their religious opinion and that it should be at all times, a private matter."
I think you think I am taking one side over another. I'm not. I don't really care, I'm simply making an observational statement. People go off half-cocked claiming that "separation of church and state" is a constitutional issue. It's not. It is interpretations of Amendment #1 which has been interpreted in different ways throughout our nation's history, depending upon the mood of the people.
We once prayed in school, now we don't, and some want it back. One can make nearly any argument for and against with enough persuasive ingenuity. After all look at who we elect for public office. It's not about their beliefs, it's about the power to persuade the voters.
Politics is proselytizing don't you think?
eeeeeek - You are correct. Most were deist who believed in a cosmic start, but an uninterested god. Yet all spoke of the value of Judeo-Christian tradition in the structuring of civil law and justice.
Bedfellows
I always enjoy the Rolando / Woody show after the Clay's cartoons. Thanks for continuing the conversation and allowing the readers to think more about the issues of Clay's choosing.
Choosing neither traditional side of this issue, I choose the side of being able to think for myself regardless of the surroundings; thus no one is able to "force their views on me" unless I want to pay attention to them. So the "forcing" argument only demonstrates an admission that people believe they do not possess the ability to think critically, and a sign will magically make them change their belief system.
But since the conversation here turned to conservative v. liberal (again), I offer something to consider, from an old professor of mine who said, "God never wins in a democracy; unless it's a vote after great tribulation and for the purpose of self-preservation."
The professor's point? Conservative or Liberal doesn't really matter to God. People from both sides are focused only on themselves. Thus, the reason for a Savior.
As a former athlete and coach, I had a dilemma with quoting the Lord's Prayer in the locker room before the game. The thought that God would choose one team over another is odd to me, as we asked for our "daily bread"-usually understood by the players as a victory.
To add to the confusion, all week long coaches would preach "let's go out and kill those guys" and then pray before the game. Kind of anti-climatic, and confusing theology.
Oh, and did you know the phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in any founding documents of the United States. It was in a private letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, and was intended to ensure them that the government should not and would not interfere with the religious freedom of individuals in the United States.