Not exactly what might immediately spring to mind.
I have a friend who is a dreamer. He comes up with the best ideas; they are intriguing, make you think about things in different ways and they sound brilliant; however, many of these ideas stay in their shapeless form, never to be realized.
An article on Psychology Today points out that our former ways of measuring creativity - including a focus on ideation, flexible and divergent thinking, etc - is not enough and actually discredits the creativity that can happen when one adds persistence and execution to the idea. It is not enough to merely have an idea, says the article,
Being creative also means actually executing an idea. Daydreaming is invaluable to ideation, but the world is full of daydreamers whose scripts and inventions never get past the novelty spurt or grand vision. To move from lightning-bolt idea to completing a novel, or a new way to use a room, or starting a business, or a new product design requires far more than the idea itself.
Bravo. 'tis true. This is another case where perseverance wins the race with simple creativity. You must work and work hard to execute your vision, or it will always remain a vapor.
The article goes on to talk about the environment and physical influence of creativity; where you are and how you are feeling, including your physical and mental state, actually influence how creative you are able to be. For some reason, we avoid talking about this when we discuss creativity; humans like to cling to the idea that our physical self does not matter when it comes to dealing with the brain (specifically the creative nature of the brain), but we are influenced by our surroundings and our fleshy vessel whether we like it or not. The article brings up Haruki Murakami and his excellent discourse on the topic of physical being to creativity (please take the time to read his work; it is pure genius), and, of course, school is mentioned with regard to environment:
We're just now beginning to accept that cinder-block classrooms with low ceilings and poor lighting might actually affect the way a teenager can compute mathematical formulas or play music.
Why are we just now beginning to accept this truth? Shame on us. Are we beginning to change it? Probably not.
This article gives hope to those who have thought of themselves as "not creative types" just because they don't paint or write or play an instrument. Creativity is tied to problem-solving, but it doesn't always have to be flashy; there is more than one way to skin a cat, and sometimes the simplest one is the best.
So to paraphrase, here's to the dreamers and the misfits, but here's also to the ones who follow through and make their vision a reality.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Money and School
Want to know how to determine whether or not your child will be successful? Look in your wallet.
Money is what determines the kind of education your child will get and how far they will go. This is a cynical view, and I try not to be cynical.
This morning, however, after reading a great blog on the Speyer Legacy School, a school designed specifically by three very wealthy and powerful New York women to address the needs of a mere 325 gifted kids, I am feeling cynical. According to the blog, 3,000 children in NYC public schools qualify for gifted education, clamoring for only 300 slots that are slowly being eliminated. The writer points out that the US currently spends two cents of every 100 education dollars on gifted learners. So three "high-powered" parents opened a school with highly-trained teachers and started recruiting, ending up with a K-8 school that costs nearly $29K to attend (and features an award-winning nutrition and health curriculum delivered on the school's organic farm).
Don't get me wrong - this school looks incredible, and who wouldn't want to send their gifted child there?
But who can afford to? People whose children will be exceptional no matter where they are, largely due, in part, to financial resources that allow them to supplement mediocre public school with vacations and other experiences.
Who can't? Those students who need it the very most. The ones who are unidentified gifted students (read: low-SES and minority, typically, and second-language learners). The ones who get held back for not doing work they feel is pointless. The ones who have "behavior problems" because they are frustrated twice-exceptional learners trapped in schools that do not recognize that one can be gifted AND have a learning/behavior challenge.
HoneyFern charges tuition, certainly. It is enough to keep the lights on and the curriculum going. We go on field trips and do experiements, read lots of books and dissect a million different things. If we need something, we get it. However, we are on a shoestring, and although it makes life difficult for the one and only teacher to be spending most of the tuition on supplies and stuff for the school (instead of salary), we make it work because I believe that what HoneyFern (and yes, Speyer) does is how ALL kids should be educated, not just the privileged few who can afford college prices at kindergarten.
Why are we leaving so many gifted kids without adequate education in this country, and why are there so few alternatives for kid who want to learn faster and more? We are dividing students into the "thinks" and the "think-nots"; money gives access to all kinds of opportunities to grow and change and learn, and those without it get nothing but inadequate schooling and a bleak future at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Good on you, Speyer Legacy. It's a step up. But why did you make it so tall?
Money is what determines the kind of education your child will get and how far they will go. This is a cynical view, and I try not to be cynical.
This morning, however, after reading a great blog on the Speyer Legacy School, a school designed specifically by three very wealthy and powerful New York women to address the needs of a mere 325 gifted kids, I am feeling cynical. According to the blog, 3,000 children in NYC public schools qualify for gifted education, clamoring for only 300 slots that are slowly being eliminated. The writer points out that the US currently spends two cents of every 100 education dollars on gifted learners. So three "high-powered" parents opened a school with highly-trained teachers and started recruiting, ending up with a K-8 school that costs nearly $29K to attend (and features an award-winning nutrition and health curriculum delivered on the school's organic farm).
Don't get me wrong - this school looks incredible, and who wouldn't want to send their gifted child there?
But who can afford to? People whose children will be exceptional no matter where they are, largely due, in part, to financial resources that allow them to supplement mediocre public school with vacations and other experiences.
Who can't? Those students who need it the very most. The ones who are unidentified gifted students (read: low-SES and minority, typically, and second-language learners). The ones who get held back for not doing work they feel is pointless. The ones who have "behavior problems" because they are frustrated twice-exceptional learners trapped in schools that do not recognize that one can be gifted AND have a learning/behavior challenge.
HoneyFern charges tuition, certainly. It is enough to keep the lights on and the curriculum going. We go on field trips and do experiements, read lots of books and dissect a million different things. If we need something, we get it. However, we are on a shoestring, and although it makes life difficult for the one and only teacher to be spending most of the tuition on supplies and stuff for the school (instead of salary), we make it work because I believe that what HoneyFern (and yes, Speyer) does is how ALL kids should be educated, not just the privileged few who can afford college prices at kindergarten.
Why are we leaving so many gifted kids without adequate education in this country, and why are there so few alternatives for kid who want to learn faster and more? We are dividing students into the "thinks" and the "think-nots"; money gives access to all kinds of opportunities to grow and change and learn, and those without it get nothing but inadequate schooling and a bleak future at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Good on you, Speyer Legacy. It's a step up. But why did you make it so tall?
Friday, March 23, 2012
Movie Review: The Hunger Games
In a short sentence: had I not read The Hunger Games, I might have enjoyed the movie. Then again, maybe not (if you have been living under a rock or in a pineapple under the sea, here is a brief summary of the plot to reference).
To begin with, the casting was excellent. Jennifer Lawrence was very good as Katniss, not playing it sexy or pretty (a refreshing change from a movie aimed at 13-30-year-olds), and her silences were as potent as her words; she is not a damsel in distress, also very refreshing. Lennie Kravitz as Cinna is inspired, Woody Harrelson as Haymitch could have been incredible (I said "could"; as with all characters, he remains undeveloped, with no explanation for A) his drunkenness or B) his sudden sobriety), and the guy who plays Peeta (I have no idea what his name is) was perfectly cast as the too-good-to-be-true foil to Katniss. Gale? Who knows? All we got was a couple smoldering silences, and although Effie Trinket looked good, they did not even call her by her name. Nevermind the simpering stylists who epitomize the nature of the Capitol itself and provide ironic contrast to the bloodbath they are prepping Katniss for - this is not even mentioned in the movie.
The movie itself is superficial, though; all of the themes and relationships that make the novel so brilliant and riveting are completely absent. We are supposed to understand the deep ideological differences between the residents of the Capitol and those in the Districts. We are supposed to understand the progression of events that gave rise to a totalitarian regime. We are supposed to believe that Gale and Katniss are somehow bonded through a brief and meaningless interchange in the woods. We are intended to infer some connection between Katniss and Peeta and a kinship between Haymitch and Katniss through very little development of either their relationship with each other or with themselves. All of these things the audience is supposed to magically understand; there is not enough explication or exposition, and the small flashbacks offered are no substitute for the lack of storytelling.
Even the depiction of violence is glossed over with fast-moving camera work that blurs the rawness and offensive nature of the very premise of the Games; I am not advocating a cinematic bloodbath, but choosing to cover up the element that is central to the brutality of the novel is something of a cop-out.
Importantly, there is ZERO indication of the relationship between Katniss and President Snow which is the pin upon which the rest of the book series turns. The people of the Capitol are caricatures, life-sized Bratz dolls or Tim Burton characters; the excess and opulence, the difference between the poverty of the 12 districts and their master, is barely touched in the movie. The rebellion in District 11 seems like a mere riot after the death of a tribute, not a full blown insurrection.
Even the symbolism of the Mockingjay is glossed over entirely, an ommission that is unconscionable (yes, I said unconscionable). The rest of the series is based on the sybolism of the Mockingjay; indeed,. the final book centers on this and is, in fact, called Mockingjay. How will that be remedied?
Perhaps it is significant that, in the elimination of depth and thought and real exploration of the conflicts in the Hunger Games, we are still supposed to be entertained. Is this the intention of the movies? With a 100 million dollar opening weekend predicted, are we proving the point that we will sit and watch violence just to be entertained without thinking?
The next movie needs to be done in two parts; the author needs to slow down and develop her characters for the screen. Replace the director and introduce the characters so we have a sense of them as people, not archetypes. Readers of the books will be disappointed at what is missing; although it is typical to eliminate some parts of books in their movie adaptations, I feel that The Hunger Games demonstrates a thoughtlessness in the edited parts. They will need to remedy these glaring inadequacies to insure the integrity of the story and the loyalty if the audience. If not, the odds of success will not be ever in their favor.
To begin with, the casting was excellent. Jennifer Lawrence was very good as Katniss, not playing it sexy or pretty (a refreshing change from a movie aimed at 13-30-year-olds), and her silences were as potent as her words; she is not a damsel in distress, also very refreshing. Lennie Kravitz as Cinna is inspired, Woody Harrelson as Haymitch could have been incredible (I said "could"; as with all characters, he remains undeveloped, with no explanation for A) his drunkenness or B) his sudden sobriety), and the guy who plays Peeta (I have no idea what his name is) was perfectly cast as the too-good-to-be-true foil to Katniss. Gale? Who knows? All we got was a couple smoldering silences, and although Effie Trinket looked good, they did not even call her by her name. Nevermind the simpering stylists who epitomize the nature of the Capitol itself and provide ironic contrast to the bloodbath they are prepping Katniss for - this is not even mentioned in the movie.
The movie itself is superficial, though; all of the themes and relationships that make the novel so brilliant and riveting are completely absent. We are supposed to understand the deep ideological differences between the residents of the Capitol and those in the Districts. We are supposed to understand the progression of events that gave rise to a totalitarian regime. We are supposed to believe that Gale and Katniss are somehow bonded through a brief and meaningless interchange in the woods. We are intended to infer some connection between Katniss and Peeta and a kinship between Haymitch and Katniss through very little development of either their relationship with each other or with themselves. All of these things the audience is supposed to magically understand; there is not enough explication or exposition, and the small flashbacks offered are no substitute for the lack of storytelling.
Even the depiction of violence is glossed over with fast-moving camera work that blurs the rawness and offensive nature of the very premise of the Games; I am not advocating a cinematic bloodbath, but choosing to cover up the element that is central to the brutality of the novel is something of a cop-out.
Importantly, there is ZERO indication of the relationship between Katniss and President Snow which is the pin upon which the rest of the book series turns. The people of the Capitol are caricatures, life-sized Bratz dolls or Tim Burton characters; the excess and opulence, the difference between the poverty of the 12 districts and their master, is barely touched in the movie. The rebellion in District 11 seems like a mere riot after the death of a tribute, not a full blown insurrection.
Even the symbolism of the Mockingjay is glossed over entirely, an ommission that is unconscionable (yes, I said unconscionable). The rest of the series is based on the sybolism of the Mockingjay; indeed,. the final book centers on this and is, in fact, called Mockingjay. How will that be remedied?
Perhaps it is significant that, in the elimination of depth and thought and real exploration of the conflicts in the Hunger Games, we are still supposed to be entertained. Is this the intention of the movies? With a 100 million dollar opening weekend predicted, are we proving the point that we will sit and watch violence just to be entertained without thinking?
The next movie needs to be done in two parts; the author needs to slow down and develop her characters for the screen. Replace the director and introduce the characters so we have a sense of them as people, not archetypes. Readers of the books will be disappointed at what is missing; although it is typical to eliminate some parts of books in their movie adaptations, I feel that The Hunger Games demonstrates a thoughtlessness in the edited parts. They will need to remedy these glaring inadequacies to insure the integrity of the story and the loyalty if the audience. If not, the odds of success will not be ever in their favor.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Writer's Block
HoneyFern haz it.
Maybe it is the season; spring is usually a time of high activity outside and generally features me collapsing, exhausted, at the end of the day.
Maybe it is the current crop of news, which features conflicting reports on the rising graduation rate (a piddly increase of 3.5% over almost a decade) and America's problem schools threatening national security; I don't know which one to address first, so perhaps it is best to leave them both alone.
Maybe it is the overcrowding in my mental space which caused me to rise and shine at 3 a.m., thinking of fieldtrips and watering the garden and ESL and next year and softball and visiting relatives and and and.
Maybe it is just a sign that I need to get offline and IRL a bit more these days.
Perhaps it is just time for some navel-gazing and/or mountain climbing. We shall see.
Maybe it is the season; spring is usually a time of high activity outside and generally features me collapsing, exhausted, at the end of the day.
Maybe it is the current crop of news, which features conflicting reports on the rising graduation rate (a piddly increase of 3.5% over almost a decade) and America's problem schools threatening national security; I don't know which one to address first, so perhaps it is best to leave them both alone.
Maybe it is the overcrowding in my mental space which caused me to rise and shine at 3 a.m., thinking of fieldtrips and watering the garden and ESL and next year and softball and visiting relatives and and and.
Maybe it is just a sign that I need to get offline and IRL a bit more these days.
Perhaps it is just time for some navel-gazing and/or mountain climbing. We shall see.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Meaningful Busywork
Is there such a thing?
An interesting article on the subject from Psychology Today that looks at both the student/parent perspective (why should I do something I already know?) and the teacher perspective (not all work can be thrilling, and sometimes it just needs to be done). The article cites Carol Ann Tomlinson who states that work should be "respectful"; that is, teachers should take into account student ability, weakness and preferred modality when assigning work.
Yes, of course we should.
There is a big "however."
Some work is going to be tedious. There is no getting around it. The professional tennis player hits 300 backhands in a row during practice. The professional pianist practices scales and chords until their hands are numb. HoneyFern School, on Friday, sifted through buckets and buckets of fine silt and sand to look for macroinvertebrates in our adopted stream. These are tedious, time-consuming, occasionally mind-numbing tasks. HOWEVER. They are a means to an end, part of the larger process, and thoroughly necessary.
Don't get me wrong; there are some wretched teachers out there still assigning 30 problems of homework a night to students who can demonstrate mastery in 10. They are assigning 3rd grade spelling lists to students who are reading/writing on a high school level. Those assignments, my friends, are busywork. The problem with busywork becomes when there is no grander purpose, and no attention paid to the individual who is receiving the work.
Attention, though, students and parents. I am not a tap-dancing pony. I do not wear bells or a frilly cuff. Although I do my best (with your help!) to make learning that applies to you, there will be things that are not thrilling or exciting. Yes, my 3rd grade tutoring student, you must learn your multiplication tables. Yes, my 6th grade student, you must properly cite your sources in your research essay. When we try to make everything fun, we fail miserably. Some things in life are not fun; laundry, dishes and vacuuming spring to mind. But if we want clean clothes, something to eat our food from and to win the War Against Dust Bunnies, we must do all of these things.
(Or else assign these chores to your children. Just kidding. Sort of. Not really.)
The point is that if a teacher needs to have an ultimate objective that takes the student into account, and they need to be able to explain why the task is necessary. For gifted kids, fake explanations that are manipulative will be easily spotted, and the teacher will lose all street cred instantly. The truth is that not everything is fun, but if it is connected to something meaningful then, although still tedious, it may be a little easier to digest.
Off to wake up The Child. We have some dishes to do.
An interesting article on the subject from Psychology Today that looks at both the student/parent perspective (why should I do something I already know?) and the teacher perspective (not all work can be thrilling, and sometimes it just needs to be done). The article cites Carol Ann Tomlinson who states that work should be "respectful"; that is, teachers should take into account student ability, weakness and preferred modality when assigning work.
Yes, of course we should.
There is a big "however."
Some work is going to be tedious. There is no getting around it. The professional tennis player hits 300 backhands in a row during practice. The professional pianist practices scales and chords until their hands are numb. HoneyFern School, on Friday, sifted through buckets and buckets of fine silt and sand to look for macroinvertebrates in our adopted stream. These are tedious, time-consuming, occasionally mind-numbing tasks. HOWEVER. They are a means to an end, part of the larger process, and thoroughly necessary.
Don't get me wrong; there are some wretched teachers out there still assigning 30 problems of homework a night to students who can demonstrate mastery in 10. They are assigning 3rd grade spelling lists to students who are reading/writing on a high school level. Those assignments, my friends, are busywork. The problem with busywork becomes when there is no grander purpose, and no attention paid to the individual who is receiving the work.
Attention, though, students and parents. I am not a tap-dancing pony. I do not wear bells or a frilly cuff. Although I do my best (with your help!) to make learning that applies to you, there will be things that are not thrilling or exciting. Yes, my 3rd grade tutoring student, you must learn your multiplication tables. Yes, my 6th grade student, you must properly cite your sources in your research essay. When we try to make everything fun, we fail miserably. Some things in life are not fun; laundry, dishes and vacuuming spring to mind. But if we want clean clothes, something to eat our food from and to win the War Against Dust Bunnies, we must do all of these things.
(Or else assign these chores to your children. Just kidding. Sort of. Not really.)
The point is that if a teacher needs to have an ultimate objective that takes the student into account, and they need to be able to explain why the task is necessary. For gifted kids, fake explanations that are manipulative will be easily spotted, and the teacher will lose all street cred instantly. The truth is that not everything is fun, but if it is connected to something meaningful then, although still tedious, it may be a little easier to digest.
Off to wake up The Child. We have some dishes to do.
Friday, March 16, 2012
How Gullible Are You?
I have, apparently, taken most of this week off from reaching out and blogging/tweeting. It has not been intentional. Sometimes it seems as if the message is stale, and repeating it over and over gets tedious for both writer and reader.
Today, though, I break my silence to comment on citing sources from the Internet and our general laziness when it comes to figuring out if a source is accurate and reliable or not. I got into a plagiarism discussion with The Feminist Breeder (do not visit this site if you are easily offended; she speaks her mind and has posted some controversial things), and I listened to a story on political dirt-digging on NPR. These two events came together this morning when someone forwarded me a ridiculous, completely untrue story from an unreliable source about Pepsi using aborted fetus cells in its beverages (I refuse to post the link. Google it if you must).
It seems that we are so lazy about our information that whenever it comes across our desk, we skim it, believe it and send it along without checking the source, the bias or even pausing a moment to think about its possible veracity; the authors of We're With Nobody call this "truth by repetition." We believe whatever we read because it has been around for so long or we have seen it in multiple places. The fine art of vetting a website remains largely untaught, and people everywhere take at face value whatever they are reading. Even those who follow up with "research" don't take the time to consider the sources they are using to prove or disprove whatever they have read, ending up drawing faulty conclusions based on opinion, conjecture and bias. We are, essentially, looking for sources that confirm what we believe, rather than looking for sources that will reveal the truth.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. ~Mark Twain~
The granddaddy of the zinger (Ben Franklin being the great granddaddy) was correct. We can take information and twist it to whatever purpose we have, but that twist doesn't change whether or not something is true; the twist makes it more convenient for the twister. It makes it easier to continue to proceed through life without ever learning anything new, without ever opening your mind to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, your assumptions are wrong.
Perhaps if we all sat down and took a hard look at facts we might believe differently. If we combine that hard look at facts with compassion, perhaps we might all act differently. For now, though, I will settle for people simply taking the time to ask the question, "Where did this come from?" before simply forwarding the link/story/soundbite.
Thank you, and have a great weekend!
Today, though, I break my silence to comment on citing sources from the Internet and our general laziness when it comes to figuring out if a source is accurate and reliable or not. I got into a plagiarism discussion with The Feminist Breeder (do not visit this site if you are easily offended; she speaks her mind and has posted some controversial things), and I listened to a story on political dirt-digging on NPR. These two events came together this morning when someone forwarded me a ridiculous, completely untrue story from an unreliable source about Pepsi using aborted fetus cells in its beverages (I refuse to post the link. Google it if you must).
It seems that we are so lazy about our information that whenever it comes across our desk, we skim it, believe it and send it along without checking the source, the bias or even pausing a moment to think about its possible veracity; the authors of We're With Nobody call this "truth by repetition." We believe whatever we read because it has been around for so long or we have seen it in multiple places. The fine art of vetting a website remains largely untaught, and people everywhere take at face value whatever they are reading. Even those who follow up with "research" don't take the time to consider the sources they are using to prove or disprove whatever they have read, ending up drawing faulty conclusions based on opinion, conjecture and bias. We are, essentially, looking for sources that confirm what we believe, rather than looking for sources that will reveal the truth.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. ~Mark Twain~
The granddaddy of the zinger (Ben Franklin being the great granddaddy) was correct. We can take information and twist it to whatever purpose we have, but that twist doesn't change whether or not something is true; the twist makes it more convenient for the twister. It makes it easier to continue to proceed through life without ever learning anything new, without ever opening your mind to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, your assumptions are wrong.
Perhaps if we all sat down and took a hard look at facts we might believe differently. If we combine that hard look at facts with compassion, perhaps we might all act differently. For now, though, I will settle for people simply taking the time to ask the question, "Where did this come from?" before simply forwarding the link/story/soundbite.
Thank you, and have a great weekend!
Monday, March 12, 2012
Do What You Say You're Going To Do
This message delivered beautifully today by Danielle LaPorte: "Do what you say you're going to do." Imagine a world where everyone follows through and does this. Happy Monday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)