Arg!

I decided I'd rather blog than explode.

Interesting inaccuracies in reasoning and other such circumstances arising in the major and in practicum:

• "...however, the majority of my colleagues and I believe that..." This is referring to the implication that we should trust you, not the opposition, because you are in the majority. Oddly enough, though, a majority vote has never proven anything. Truth is truth, no matter how many or how few believe it. Not to mention that the sample of teacher education instructors at BYU is not an accurate representation of educators across the nation, or across the world. Sorry, but it's not. Oh, not to mention the fact that in the case alluded to, the opposition's position was not what the majority makes it out to be. It has a very different focus.
• "Such-and-such bothers me and other like me, and therefore teachers should pay attention to it." Not that there is anything inherently wrong with this. It's just that, well, frankly, the world does not revolve around one type of person. Firstly, if one is to consider your pet peeves, one should equally consider the pet peeves of every single student, and more seriously consider the more major stumbling blocks placed in the paths of the overlooked/misunderstood student. Also, perhaps the student who is bothered by every little unimportant detail perhaps would benefit by being taught not to be so perfectionistic.
• "What was so-and-so thinking?" "They are old enough that they ought to know better." "You just can't do that!" et cetera. Well, let's just say that I hate the faculty room. People who are stuck in one perspective are hard for me to be around, especially since some of the people they gossip about are like me, and they give me the message that God made me the wrong way.
• "We all like control; that's why we wanted to be teachers in the first place!" Excuse me! I beg to differ, if just for me. I HATE being the one who is completely in control. I'm not any more valuable than any other child of God, and my perspective is not the only one that interests me. I treat my students as my equals--because they ARE.
• "She is so nice, and that's why she doesn't keep the class on its toes all the time." I'm used to being misdiagnosed, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it. I do not see myself as having issues with managing. I like the class to listen to me when they need to listen to me, but I love a fluid, free learning environment where we are not restricted to sitting at our desks and using a three-inch whisper. I don't let kids enjoy themselves or make choices because I'm nice; it is a conscious decision on my part, one that I am still getting used to not being allowed to make. In practicum, I have to go along with what is expected of me as best as I can.
• Also, I'll say it right here and now, I am NOT shy. I may be quiet and listen more than I talk--especially when I have no interest in the conversation or when my would-be listeners don't understand me. But put me with a bunch of Jameses, where I can talk about my base-11 number system instead of trading notes about clothes or students, and you'll find that I can be very quick with my words. And I may be hesitant in some situations--notably being new in a classroom--but when I figure things out and understand expectations and how things work, I am master of the situation.
• "We have to ___ in order to keep the kids ___." Perhaps this is giving candy to kids to get them to do their worksheet, or who knows what else. This sort of reasoning, of course, assumes that we all agree that this behavior or viewpoint is desirable. But how about those of us who as the question, "But is this what we really want in the first place? Are we helping or harming the kids?" (Oh, not to mention that some of these self-same teachers provide me with theory and ideas and research that I can very easily use against their own positions.)
• Sometimes the schools can be cookie-cutter-ish. We have certain expectations, we socialize kids in, well, interesting ways. We basically have an ideal student in mind, an ideal that we try to get all the kids to fit. As this ideal is very obedient, not necessarily independently-minded or innovative, nice to the point that they often bury what they feel, and more perfectionistic than is healthy, it makes me wonder why we hold up certain children as the ideal. It doesn't help those children--it traps them in potentially problematic attitudes and beliefs--and it doesn't help the children who are left out and misunderstood. Wouldn't it be better to have the ideal of being like Christ?
• "You know, when we're smart, when we know a lot more than these kids do, it can be hard to realize when student's don't know these things." Two points here. One: I truly fit the profile of a gifted student. That means that I am an independent thinker, among other things, and that I am naturally the sort of student that teachers hate to have. I don't like to comply when I see a better way, particularly when I'm being hurt. (Funny, huh? I wonder why.) So I feel funny being asked, "Mariah, are you a very smart person?" just after, in my class on special needs (which includes gifted education), we learned that most "very smart" people are not, in fact, gifted. No, I'm not "very smart;" I'm gifted. And I can be open to my students' needs, perhaps better than some, and part of it is my gifted-ness, being able to look at other perspectives easily. Two: It's rather rude to sprain someone's ankle, and then get after her for not being able to walk properly. The situations in which I find myself during practicum cripple me, and that is the reason why I may not always respond as well as they may want--but that's not to say that I am unaware of it. I am very much aware of it, and hating it.
• Then there's the idea about deciding what makes a good learning environment or a good teacher. The process is roughly as follows: First, several good examples are chosen (the definition of "good" may or may not be something that everyone agrees with). Then, they are analyzed to see what they all have in common. These characteristics are then proclaimed as "The Characteristics of a Good Learning Environment" (or, in the case of a teacher) "of a Good Teacher." Naturally, then, in order to make a good learning environment or a good teacher, one simply needs to apply each of these characteristics, right? * sigh * Come on, already! That's like writing down the key characteristics of a ladybug (beetle, red outer wings with black spots, roundish shape, etc.), and then deciding that in order to make a ladybug, we only need to make something with each of these characteristics. Easy if we remember exactly what a ladybug is, isn't it, but what if we've never seen one before and were relying on what someone told us? or what if our list was incomplete? There would be holes, things that are left out that are perhaps more important to the ladybug than what we notice. For instance, would our ladybug be able to breathe properly?