Overwhelmisms

I was going over my notes in preparation for the final exams, and I was asking myself which philosophy would I lean more on. The different -isms each present advantages and disadvantages in education. For instance, a fully existentialist school would not be so much advantageous, just like the story that Ma'am told us in class.

A group of children were told to explore the field, and go as far as they want. Unexpectedly, they played closer to their guardian. When told to play only up to this area, and were asked not to go beyond, they children were able to run around in wider distances.

So as far as existentialism is concerned, restrictions, ironically, creates a wider opportunity for children to explore. Setting limits and expectations gives the child a sense of how far he can go, in terms of exploring.

I realized that you cannot really commit to just one -ism. I think that when thinking about education, we should consider looking into different points of view, looking into the different -isms. It's always going to be a combination; what's really important is to find the most effective "combo" (and mind you, there is also no perfect "combo", it really still depends on many factors like the individual, the culture, the time, the place, etc) to improve learning behavior and thinking skills.

So looking back at my question at the middle of the semester: Why do we need to go to school?

I really don't have a definite answer now, maybe I do, but there's just so much I can say. I can speak from an idealist's point of view, or from the perrenialist's perspective, or argue that the progressivism goals for education is the answer to my question. But all these will only resort to me contradicting and arguing myself altogether. :)) I'm sure there's more to learn in the years to come as I finish my degree, and (hopefully) proceed to my doctoral studies. I am hopeful that someday, I'll definitely know for sure why we need to go to school.

Perhaps, what I've appreciated most in creating these blog entries, was the opportunity to think philosophically about education.

WILLIAM

If you're wondering why I have a huge photo of myself up there as a teacher, it's from PETA's hit rap musical WILLIAM. :)

(here comes the shameless plug)

After dominating the recent Philstage Gawad Buhay awards, the Philippine Education Theater Association (PETA) is bringing back the award-winning Shakespeare rap musical “William” for a special show at the Cultural Center of the Philippines this September 28.

“William”, about teenagers who develop a love for the Bard while preparing monologues from William Shakespeare for a class project, took home seven trophies, including Outstanding Play, Outstanding Direction for Maribel Legarda, Outstanding Ensemble Performance in a Play and Outstanding Original Script for playwright Ron Capinding.

The play also bagged most of the acting awards, namely Outstanding Male Lead Performance for Ian Segarra, Outstanding Female Featured Performance for Meann Espinosa, and Outstanding Male Featured Performance for Jojo Atienza.

“William” first opened Peta’s Shakespeare Season as a primer for high school students who may fear Shakespeare or may not know the Bard at all. During its short run last year, “William” successfully engaged students and captured the interest of local theatergoers as well as several international news organizations.

A video report by Marek Pruszewics of BBC News described the play as a “modern twist on Shakespeare”.

Director Maribel Legarda shared that the play’s concept came from FlipTop, a Pinoy rap battle league known across the country. “In many ways,” Legarda said, “rap is poetry.”

“I brought in rap and hip-hop as the contemporary voice and language of young people today. I hope that Shakespeare’s poetry and today’s rap find a point of conversation and evolve into engaging dialogue and drama,” Legarda explained.

The cast of “William” trained under a true Tondo rapper Shielbert Manuel, a.k.a “O.G. Sacred”, who has appeared in the 2007 Cinemalaya Best Picture, “Tribu,” an indie film by Jim Libiran.

The rap performances, choreographed by John Tan of the Urban Dance Crew, are topped with hip-hop moves like crumping and breakdance, while also adding ballroom and jazz hip-hop. “William” features 10 original rap songs composed by Jeff Hernandez. The titles include “Nosebleed” “O Shakespeare” and “What’s in a name.”

Through “William,” PETA aims to help audiences overcome their fear of the English playwright and poet. The goal is to make Shakespeare a familiar friend rather than someone to fear, thus replacing “Shakes-fear” into “Shakes-peer.”

I'll be playing the role of the teacher, Ms. Martinez, on Oct 16, and 19 at 2:30 pm at the PETA Theater Center.It's a special show for Ateneo students so come! :) Please watch if you have time. I think you'll learn a lot, not only about Shakespeare, but also about teaching. I've learned a lot playing the role, see for yourself! It's a rap musical so it's going to be fun, I promise!! Tell me if you're watching! :)

What Teachers Make

Happy Teachers Day to everyone! Please take time to watch this, it's really beautiful. :)

FINALS WEEK: GRADES ARE NOT EVERYTHING!!

To be honest, I've been frustrated with everything I had to do for my grad classes. There are just too many, I began asking "Why did I do this to myself, why did I have to go for an MA degree!" I was cramming everything, and I still had a lot of pending jobs to do for work.

It was also perfect timing that my mentor in theater, (our moderator in Ateneo-Entablado, which I am an alumna of) also a professor in the Filipino department posted this on his wall:


Jethro Tenorio wrote:

para sa mga kukuha ng pangwakas na pagsusulit sa susunod na linggo:

bagaman totoo ang sinasabing hindi sukatan ng karunungan ang marka, tinatangka namang sukatin ng marka ang tiyaga, sigasig at pagsasakripisyo na kaya mong ibigay para sa karunungan. sa madaling sabi, ang marka ay pagtatasa ng karakter, hindi panghuhusga sa kakayahang mag-isip"

kaya mag-aral mabuti. good luck sa lahat! :)


GOOD LUCK EVERYONE!!!!

A Little Boy

During our report on Existentialism, we included in our handout a story written by Helen Buckley entitled "The Little Boy". Unfortunately, we did not have time to read it with the class; it was a beautiful story. It was a LONG Story actually, but I found this very cute animation of the story, and I think everyone will appreciate this more. :)

Progressivism is much like existentialism; both highly value the individual, his freedom and the choices that he makes. But I also liked the story that Ma'am told us in class. 

There was this group of children with their guardian, and they were told that they can play in the field and go as far as they want. You would assume that the kids WOULD really go far and do whatever they want, but it was the opposite; the kids played in closer proximity to the guardian. When these children were told to play only in a certain area, and that they were not allowed to go beyond the fences, the kids played further, even far from the guardian, but still within the limits. 

I was thinking about this, and there really is truth to this. But I was also thinking that maybe, if children used this freedom to extremely explore to the farthest corners of the field, they would understand the consequences that came with their choice to do so. If the kids chose to, say, run away from the guardian, and later on get lost, wasn't it a learning experience? To know that because they went too far and out of sight from the guardian, they would get lost? :)) but of course, this would be very unethical if we were to experiment this on our children. haha! They are our responsibility in school after all. And after the teachers go looking for their lost students, the children would finally then learn what would happen if they went that far, and that the next time they're told to go explore, they would not go as far anymore. 

This would then instill fear, wouldn't it? HAHA. I am totally contradicting my thoughts. I really don't know. I'd really like to point out that this freedom to act however they wish to act, came with learning the consequences of their actions, and that they are able to learn on their own the limitations of this freedom (oh, the irony!!)

And I was also thinking, if we completely become existentialists, what about our roles in the society? I know in my previous entry, I was scowling at how rigid and "un-self-centered" pragmatism is, again, I AM CONTRADICTING MY THOUGHTS! HAHA I am confused! :)

I would like to see and experience a fully existentialist school. 

KAYO ANG BOSS KO.

That's a popular line from PNOY's speeches. I was thinking about Pragmatism and how it emphasizes that people go school to be useful to the society. Basically, that's it. We study, we learn, we improve ourselves and our intellect, so that we can contribute to the society.

Why did I use Pnoy's quote? Because it's what Pragmatism is asking us to do! I'm not totally against it, there's nothing wrong with becoming a good person for the society. In fact, we need more of those people nowadays in our country! But in general per se, what happens to us? To our individualism? Can't we WANT to be what we want to be, just for ourselves? I want to become a rock star because I know it will improve my confidence and self-esteem, get wealthier and live a comfortable life. But from a pragmatist's point of view, I will become a movie star so that I can help the economy of the Philippines by producing movies that people will buy tickets to, and I want to be a movie star so that I can run for office in the senate and be a public "servant".

Again, I am not totally against the idea of people wanting to be a "man for others". But one must also not forget the self. We have to think of ourselves in the things that we do; be careful that our aspirations and dreams do not get in the way with our self actualization. That while we strive to achieve our goals and find a place in the society, we should not forget that we should also be striving to become better persons.

Sandali lang!

This happened in my class a few weeks ago, I just had to share it! Z was able to finish his food ahead of his classmates, so he heads over to the reading area to read while waiting. 

Teacher: Z, why don't you practice writing your name on the board?

Z: Teka sandali lang nagbabasa pa ako eh!

We just laughed. Oo nga naman. We were just astonished with how our student responded, but of course, we told him to repeat what he said, in a proper manner. I guess my point for this blog really was my realization that the kids deserve to choose what they want to learn in school. After all, it IS their skills and capacities that are utilized in school. Teachers must align the curriculum with the child’s pace and capabilities. There is even this quote that I read somewhere, it goes something like this: “your child designs his own curriculum” I liked the way the school put it, and it is exactly why I am a strong believer of progressive education. It may not be fully feasible to be able to design a curriculum for each individual child, but to be able to work WITH the child, and not ask the child to work for the grades or anything else. To facilitate learning, and not to direct everything; for cooperative learning, and not a one-sided classroom.

Education in the Philippines

What’s happening with the education system in our country is that, we are still striving to send EVERYONE to school (and what I mean by school is an educational institution). We highly value Education in our country, and we would like to think that the government’s efforts to provide education for everyone are already manifesting and taking place. There are even private sectors developing programs for the youth like “library-on-the-go” or that container van roving school that goes around impoverished areas to teach children regularly. There are countless of these programs, and it is commendable.

Perhaps the next step that our country should focus on is to improve that quality of education. Who says it hasn’t started yet? The DepEd has already begun implementing its K-12 program, and though many say our country is not yet ready for such elaborate and complex system, it was a good first step. The government should also look into the welfare of teachers; their training and further education, perhaps also increasing incentives and compensation. The government could also look into improving educational facilities, provide more instructional innovations, asking the schools to keep up with the times, and provide the technology needed for instruction, such as projectors, computers, internet connection, etc.

What is most important in taking this big step is to look at what our children are learning in school. A question was posed in our class discussion a few weeks ago; “Is there any difference with the curriculum before and the curriculum now?” Perhaps there are many we could say, such as subjects using technology, history with more current information, etc etc. But some of my classmates did point out something when they said that there is not much difference between what our grandparents learned in school, and what we teach our children now. We still do teach math, science, language, reading—perhaps in different teaching strategies and approaches, and these are but superficial changes from then and now.Our education system for the longest time has been very realist; very content-centered, more weight on the textbook definition of concepts rather than the actual understanding of the students, mastery of the skill more than the students' ability to apply the skills to practical use. We learn how to balance chemical equations, but did we ever actually use them in our daily lives? We spend months studying math proofing, but I cannot remember if I ever encountered it again. Our students have become somewhat like robots who study what they're told to study, and learn what they're suppose to learn according to a curriculum set by the "experts" in school. On the end of the students, in a realist's point of view, it's rather degrading and neglecting on their part; neglecting their abilities for higher order thinking skills, for critical thinking, for reflection and discernment on the reality that they are swimming in. On the part of the educators, idealism is more evident. The educators implement this curriculum of what is supposedly the "truth" or the "knowledge" that these children should learn. If this is how our education system is being run, then why don't we just assign babies the moment they are born, into specific life paths; this baby should grow up to be an engineer, so everything he should study must lead to that career, etc etc, regardless of the times, of current issues, of the individual capacity and talents of the student.

Perhaps, there will never be a perfect equation to solve problems relating to education, but we should never stop trying. Aside from the basic concepts taught in school (ex. math, science, langauage, geography), we should also be able to bring to class relevance; our curriculum could maybe cover environment, technology (not just its uses and functions, but issues such as proper use, new innovations, etc), current events --- in other words, more subjects that would entail our students to use higher order thinking skills rather than mere memorization of facts, to think critically about its reality, and to be able to reflect on how to react to it. I guess this is what it means to be philosophical about our education. To criticize our reality as perceived by our senses, to reflect and discern on the present situation and what needs to be done as a reaction or response to it. And we should aim for our children, and our educators as well, to think philosophically about their education as well.

WHY DO WE NEED TO GO TO SCHOOL?

I remember after preschool, it was so important to my parents that I go to this prestigious school. It was a Chinese school, and we weren't Chinese, so they had to make me go through a Chinese crash course tutorials just so I could pass the entrance test. I passed, and spent half of my elementary years there. When we moved to Iloilo, it was a big sigh of relief because FINALLY, I didn't have to study Chinese anymore. I asked my parents why they had to send me to that school when we weren't Chinese. They said they wanted me to learn Chinese, because it will be useful in the future, when I go into business, when I go out of the country, etc---- it was the trend back then. I really didn't understand why.

Fast forward to my senior year in high school; that year was just all about ATENEO. It was the only option, it was everyone's dream school for me, and all the preparations I did for entrance tests, were geared towards passing ACET. I'm very grateful for having received wonderful and exceptional education, but looking back-- why did I really want to go to Ateneo? According to many, having ATENEO plastered on your resume was a sure ticket to a career. That was it. So did I go to Ateneo for the right reasons? Would it be the same logic as buying a Chanel bag just for the label, and not for its functionality?

This was the big question that I had in mind for our class. After reading Kohn's article on "What it Means to be Well-Educated", I reflected on my beliefs in education, my experiences as a student and as an educator. When Steve Jobs died, a lot of memes circulated online, about him dropping out of Harvard and ending up the way he did--- successful and filthy rich. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg were just some of the names that had the same fate as Jobs did. So should students follow the footsteps of these tycoons? Would it be okay not to go to school? During the time of Plato and Aristotle, these scholars went to school to learn and to broaden their knowledge. It's very different now; people attend these establishments, sit in four-walled classrooms for hours, listen to the experts, mindlessly highlighting words on their textbooks to absorb these facts in the short-term memory--- they go through all this trouble for what? Do these nursing students really want to become nurses? Or do they do it just so they can go abroad, earn bigger, and support their family in the future?

This is what society wants us to accomplish. This is the ideal. In this day and age, is it even "acceptable" not to go to school at all? In the Philippines, everyone's end goal is always to finish college at the very least. In the US, going to a university is a privilege that only a few can enjoy. In other countries poorer than our own 3rd world Pearl of The Orient, education in itself is a privilege. BUT DOES IT HAVE TO BE? What is education? Does it happen inside a classroom? Outside? Should there always be a teacher who gives out grades? Or can it simply be an exchange of ideas, or learning or expanding your knowledge with other colleagues?

I am getting carried away with my thoughts, or rather, questions on education, after having read that article. Who dictates what we do, and who we are anyway? Who dictates these ideals? Who says what is beautiful and what is not? Knowing these ideals would perhaps lead to a better understanding on our goals for education, to knowing why we really need to go to school. Perhaps to understand our reasons of why we go through all these to become "well-educated". How important is it to stay true to these ideals? And where does individualism come in?

Teacher, why can't I play with it?

kid:   Teacher, why can't I play with that toy?
me:   Because I need to fix it first. (I needed to prepare/reset it first before he could play with it)
kid:   Why? Is it broken?




If it's not a toy, don't play with it.
There are just some things that people love to play with, to meddle with, to objectify it like it's a toy. You don't play with feelings. You don't mess around with relationships. It's not a toy; you can't just put it aside when you're done with it, or when you don't have any need for it anymore. Some people just need to know the difference. Kids know way more than you do.

If it's not broken, you don't have to fix it.
Some people just need to know the difference between damaged, broken and irreparable. But apparently, there is no difference. What's done is done, and even if it looks good as new, even if you hide the cracks and smudges, the damage has been done, and you can't erase that. You can never fix that. If it's not broken, you don't have to fix it, it's broken anyway.

Hey Genius!

It's not you, It's me

I was preparing my materials while the kids were playing, when I overheard one of my students say "It's not you! It's me!" I stopped, glanced over my shoulder to see who made that remark.

We often hear this in a breakup scene of two lovers, rarely in a classroom with 4 year olds. It's a rather lame excuse for ending a relationship; trying to put all the blame on yourself to make it sound like the weight of the emotional burden should be on your shoulders, when really, it's an easy loophole to get out of the relationship.

However that is not the context my students were in. They were playing with some toys when they accidentally hit a friend. The kid was not involved in the incident, immediately said "i'm sorry!!" That's when the perpetrator (haha!) said "It's not you! It's me!"

She told the truth. Usually, some would pretend they didn't have anything to do with the accident for fear of getting scolded at, but I'm proud of her for telling the truth. Really, it was me. 


Maybe in relationships, this line doesn't work so well anymore, but my kids tell me something else.

Tell the truth.

Even if it hurts.