Last week we watched a very interesting movie called "2 Million Minutes" which focused on the view of some, that American schools and/or students, seem to be focused on the wrong things. Many of us were stunned by the tenacity with which the students from India and China approached their education and future career goals!
In a world that is becoming increasingly "flatter", can America really afford to continue ignoring the fact that we are in competition with the rest of the world? For minds? talent? jobs? education? Its an important question for those of us designing and delivering education.
At the end of our inservice, we distributed an article that focused on a different approach, that of values and developing character.
If you misplaced the article, you can read it here: http://www.shmuley.com/articles.php?id=610
Rabbi Schmuley feels strongly that we should be focusing on the following:
• Stop asking children what they want to do, and start asking them who they want to be.
• Focus children on a calling rather a career.
• Value intellectual curiosity as opposed to grades.
• Stress purpose as opposed to happiness.
• Put family before friends.
• Seek love as opposed to attention.
Is this realistic? Or is this some sort of educational Utopia? What education will ideally prepare our students for their roles in the 21st century?
Respond to these questions by clicking the "comment" tool below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Rabbi Schmuley's ideas are realistic for certain segments of the population. American values continue to change and become more diverse, and it is idealistic to think that our culture will change to adopt ideas such as Schmuley's any time soon.
Perhaps more schools need to focus on Values curriculum.
There are certainly aspects of the article that are very realistic. I do feel that not everyone will follow these believes and how can you enforce them? By opening school or enforcing these ways in current school? would they be private and public schools.
A wellrounded education will prepare our students. Students need to be passionate about what they are learning, and therefore teachers must provide a diverse learning environment with a multitude of subjects.
Yes, absolutely this article is realistic.
I don't think this is an educational utopia. i think it has great value, and adheres to basic fundamental values of doing what is morally good and right. It goes back to pure goodness versus how we look to others.
The education that will prepare our students is to try and ask who they want to be. It is also to try and encourage a growth for the love of learning. This may be difficult to do, but with children feeling more confident and less pressure, they may be more inclined to follow their dreams and inherant goodness. To become what we are drawn to and feel passionate about is far more gratifying than going to Harvard because it 'looks good.'
Yes I believe it is realistic.
It requires a definite swift in what we stress and what messages we convey, with words and actions. For me, nothing is utopian, we are simply now talking about this because we are seeking solutions to certain problems we see in the kids we are raising.
I believe education should help children learn about themselves, help them find their true identity, help them live a good life, a good, balanced life.
1. does shmuley have sort sort of personal beef with harvard? strange that in such a short piece of writing, it' smentioned twice by name.
2. this seems to me to be a wee bit oversimplified. is there really an algorithm for determining an approproate amount of family v. friend time?
3. there are some words at the end of the article: "the death of love." did anyone see the film dan in real life? does anyone remember the part when dan's adolescent daughter accuses him of being a MURDERER OF LOVE!
in sum, it's a virtuous article. good things to bear in mind, all. but the rabbi's prescription here is a bit too one-size-fits-all.
I find this article disturbing. The generalizations are extreme. It is laudable that children should be encouraged to find their passion, but ultimately, that passion, their sense of themselves will be reflected in the occupations they choose. Comparing a lack of passion for a topic to womanizing or beach-combing seems extreme. Children should find themselves, but that begins at the cradle and ends at the grave. Some families are not safe for some children, their friends are the only stability in their lives. Therefor putitng family before friends is not always sound advice.
This article is, in my opinion, a nice idea, but unattainable in our society. Ideally, it would be great if children were intrinsically motivated and had a curiosity beyond what their teachers and parents told them to be curious about but not totally reasonable. Ours is a society built upon test scores and socially acceptable jobs.
I'm not sure what education will be sufficient for the children in schools now. It is difficult to prepare students in a world that is so different from the one that I grew up in (internet etc.)and one that as we saw in the film is changing rapidly because of the growing global market. How can we ask children to value intellectual curiosity when the rest of the world it seems values grades?
I was struck by a comment that Shmuley made. This really seemed to hit home for me.
"Our grades fixation is undermining our children and turning them into circus monkeys designed to perform. We have to start telling our kids that grades are only one barometer of a far more important issue: their curiosity about life. As I tell my kids repeatedly, "All I want to know is that you want to know."
I completely agree with this comment and feel that I was at times, a circus monkey having to perform while in school. Everything is so competitive and grade based. I was always a competitve one, striving for the best. Studying and memorizing information I probably know nothing about to this day. I lost the love for knowledge. I don't want this to happen to my own children as well as my students. I know that we can tell them that their "curiosity about life is the most important thing", but I'm not so sure how much this will help the issue. I feel it is far greater. What else can we do?
I do believe that this is realitstic- generally speaking. I believe that adults as a whole should foster the organic 'talents' that a child posesses rather than discouraging them or even steering them in other (more lucrative) directions.
If a child is a talented artist, then these skills should be paid attention to and further developed.If this same child is strugglingin math, then his/her abilities in art should be involved in math instruction so as to enlighten the child using his/her own interests.
The values that Rabbi Shmuley Boteach speaks of are ideal but I don’t view them as being realistic values that are currently taught in a school setting. In order to teach these values in a school setting, I think they would need to be slowly introduced to a child before he or she enters school. The type of education that will ideally prepare our students for their roles in the 21st century is one that will foster curiosity, a love of learning, appreciation and understanding of differences amongst individuals, and the drive to be successful at something that one loves or enjoys.
I think that it is a goal. Not all people are going to be able to look beyond the need of survival, overcome the influence of the culture and find purity of the rabbi's suggestions. Of course we would like to be able to live this way, to raise children and students who feel this way. Is it an upper middle class luxury to have have these as the only goals in raising humans. They can afford it. For many there are other concerns that are basic to humans. For many, they have to have a career that pays the bills and offers security,they have to be concerned with grades....
the grades to get them into a good college (with scholorship, It is a goal to attain some sort of happiness(security), Often supportive friends step in
when family members are working, Every human needs enough attention to take care of basic needs and emotions. I think that the Rabbi's ideas (although I philosophically agree with him) are higher on Maslow's hierarchy of needs,and are in most cases,attainable only after basic needs are met.
I think both of these approaches have worth, obviously. It is important to be aware of the world around you and the shape it is taking, and to try to shape children to be good citizens in that world. I think that means encouraging and teaching them to be people of good character as well as productive people. It is a disservice to children and to society to only emphasize the idea of a "calling" that will eventually find you at the expense of doing real work in the world. On the other hand, I think there is a great deal of truth in the idea that you need to look internally for the work that you want and need to do- which the second article addresses well in its point about finding purpose and not just happiness.
To try to link all this to elementary education- I think that a school environment that allows each child to be known and respected for who they are, and not just what the produce, is very important. But it is hard for an institution to prescribe a way do many of the things that children need- and difficult to believe that one person can make six complete points that will cure problems that we are all trying to figure out...
I have mixed feelings about this. Of course I agree Schmuley presents strong agruments regarding how to better push and help our children grow as individuals and productive members of our society. I am just unsure if this will be the way to getting Americans ahead in the game or even for that matter.
Yes, our children should reflect on what they want to be rather than do because it focuses on them as a whole person rather than a person with a particular job. How many people are in jobs that is their calling? Not many!
An education that is going to provide our students with experience and exposure to many things (the world) is most ideal. There's more but running out of time...
Is this realistic? Or is this some sort of educational Utopia? What education will ideally prepare our students for their roles in the 21st century?
I read this article first without seeing who wrote. After I read it I got the impression that the article was very preachy.
I do not think that it is very realistic or any sort of educational utopia. I disagree with many of the assumptions that this man makes. I agree with some of his conclusions but not with the train of thought that brings him there.
All kids aren't the same so how do you deem to treat them so. Some need different motivation than others. What about those that have no motivation to learn. How do you inspire that motivation without a goal?
Who says what happiness is? Who is he to tell others how they should be happy?
You love family because you have to. Friends choose each other and accept you for who you are. I don't know what kind of friends he had.
Don't seek love or attention.
IS
I would consider using the value (Focus children on their calling rather a career) If I saw a student that was really struggling in Math but wanted to be a accountant. I would focus on something that the student really excelled in but not ignoring that they needed help in that subject.
They could be a excellent writer and not recognize their strenth in that area.
As far as using these strategies in the classroom, I think that stressing purpose and a love of learning over grades is definately something that I use already and which is good to have a reminder to do. I also think that not telling kids to be "career" oriented, but rather following a "calling" in the classroom in different ways, is a wonderful thing, just that little change of words, from "career" to "calling". I like that. I also definately think that the strategies mentioned in the article will be helpful for kids in dealing with other kids. Taking the stress and focus off of grades and being competative in the classroom or high school as far as careers and putting more on "purpose" and callings, can make a classroom more group and team oriented and concerned more with the wellfare of eachother and everyone, and not just one's self. And the part about kids listening and following their parents words over their friends is definately advice that would help in particular a few of my kids. But, as far as that is concerned, it depends on the character and teaching techniques or lack there of, of the parents. If someone has parents who beat their children or mentally abuse them, and childs tendency to perhaps turn to their friends over their parents is of course, justifiable and necessary. I think that the implementation of the strategies in this article are definately practical. I think we already use a lot of these ideas in our classroom. As we encourage the kids with projects or assignments or skits, it is practical to take off the competative edge that these projects could have and making them into group and team efforts, while stressing the importance and "calling" each student has and brings to the project. I think we already use a lot of these strategies at Seven Arrows in general, but if I had to pick a strategy to use in the article, it is probably stressing to the kids that finding a "calling" is more importante then having a "career".
Post a Comment