BLOGGING FROM BLAVA--PAST NA OKO

-an exile writes from BLAVA--WHERE POST-sOCIALIST REALITY BLENDS WITH THE CRUELTY OF aMERICAN CAPITALISM TO PRODUCE A GREETING WITH ALL THE SUBTLETY OF A SLAP ....

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Question

Administrators have a capacity for shutting off the milk of human kindness, for ignoring the obvious.

That's thought by some psychologists to correspond to a species-universal ability.

On other hand, that ability can interfere with reasoning. And some researchers think that intelligence includes the ability to ignore the deliverances of a pragmatic module related to the folk psychology ability... eg stanovich

But when administrators ignore the obvious,it is not intelligence that's being displayed, (I think....)

Monday, January 29, 2007

IBO TOK Workshop 2005

A few years ago I took an IB TOK workshop. I wrote to the IB organization to tell them what I thought, and they did not pay me the courtesy of writing back or even acknowledging my letter.

Hence, I now make the letter public.....

The letter has its weak points; but about the fundamental complaint that my time was wasted, I remain firm.


Bratislava
Slovak Republic, Europe
July 10, 2005

Events Unit
International Baccalaureate Organization
Route des Morillons 15
1218 Grand-Saconnex
Geneva, Switzerland

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have just completed a TOK in English Diploma Programme Workshop, held at Gymnazium Jura Hronca, Bratislava, Slovak Republic, 04 July-08 July, 2005, for a total of 22.00 hours.

Please allow me to inform you of my reaction to and evaluation of this Workshop.

I do not believe that the workshop has made me better informed or will make me a better teacher. On the contrary, it has been a drain on my energy and my time would have been better spent elsewhere. Indeed, had I not been at the workshop my time would have been largely spent in the Reading Room of the Slovak Academy of Science, doing research on TOK-related subjects.

I did not find the Workshop Leaders to be especially well-informed or especially skilled teachers. During the last session about mathematics, it did emerge that Mr. XXX is personally engaged with his subject of mathematics, and able to reflect upon it. His personal engagement with mathematics is pure and ego-less. That purity stands in sharp contrast to other teaching methods which I witnessed during the workshop. When someone loves a subject, the subject takes center stage. Unhappily, there were times when I felt that with one discussion leader the center of attention was the leader’s own cleverness.
(On the other hand, allow me to acknowledge that teaching styles are personal. Two competent professionals might choose a different approach in the classroom, and both might succeed in capturing the interest of their students, and might be equally successful in educating them.)

I shall now describe some of the failings which I saw on display. What follows is not an exhaustive description. The examples I mention could be multiplied. My goal is to illustrate the general level which I witnessed and to back up my assertion that my time would have been better spent elsewhere. The examples which I describe are merely among the most egregious.


The first day we were shown a slide taken by one instructor in his home. We were asked to describe what we saw. Later, we were asked questions about our descriptions.

This activity was inspired by well-known research done by the American psychologist Loftus, research published several years ago, research which shows the unreliability of eye witnesses. Since that time Loftus has gone on to develop and extend her thinking about memory. It soon became apparent that the discussion leader was not aware of the more recent research. That in itself is excusable, but the fact is that in discussion the discussion leader lost track of the point and began to introduce information into the discussion, information available to him only because he was in the privileged position of being a person who lives in the house in the picture. “Did you see the bed?” he asked. Well, the fact is that we didn’t and that’s good, because it would have been impossible for anyone who didn’t live in the place to know on the basis of the picture—especially considering the quality of the projection on the wall.
An excess of enthusiasm perhaps, but also possibly a desire to appear clever….

Because the discussion leader knew nothing of her more recent work, he missed the opportunity to make a variety of points related to TOK. He missed the chance to discuss the nature of the “Human Sciences”, and he missed the chance to make a real world application. For in her later work, Loftus has tried to explain why eye-witnesses make mistakes. One proposal is that the imagination is crucially involved. And, that shows us how the social or human sciences can develop an explanation of a phenomenon which we wouldn’t notice otherwise. And once when we start to talk of imagination there may well be a connection with emotion…There is also a real-world application because Loftus has suggested that she can create false memories (and has done so). Moreover, she has suggested that advertisers try to create false memories—e.g., some people seem to think that they’ve eaten in McDonalds when they were young, though they haven’t……

Everything I’ve just written has formed the basis of classes in TOK which I taught in Bratislava before attending your workshop…. I did not need an “experienced teacher” from an IB Diploma Programme school to bring Loftus’s reasearch to my attention. Nor did I need an experienced IB teacher to show me how to engage students. I’ve been telling students about Loftus’s research since the 1990’s when I used to teach at the University of Toledo-Ohio.

On another occasion, the same individual gave our group a problem involving the arrangement of letters. We had a code to crack, and this was to be a group activity. And, when we were done, the group leader delivered to us his pronouncements about what he had “seen” in our group interactions.

I put the word “seen” in quotation marks because I have never in my life seen a clearer example of the way theory (or beliefs/expectations) can influence perception. The discussion reader had read something about the way scientists work in groups, and he was bound and determined to find it in the behavior of our group.

This was not a convincing pedagogic exercise, and, it was, moreover, a bit manipulative. In any case, as an illustration of scientific reasoning, it is flawed because it represents only certain sorts of scientists. I doubt whether it is a good model, e.g., for the sort of biology that involves field work.

A persistent weakness in all of the presentations by all of the discussion leaders was the heavy-handed and uninformed use of the concepts of language and emotion. There was no serious discussion of what an emotion is. Neither did the brief hand-waving by Mr. YYY in the direction of Steve Pinker’s most famous popular book constitute a serious consideration of the nature of language as revealed by the relevant science—the discipline of linguistics. You may think that it would be counter-productive to take language seriously, as an object of scientific study. Students are already burdened with work. However, I am talking about what instructors should know. It is always possible to treat more technical matters with a lighter touch in the classroom—assuming the instructor has adequately mastered the subject in the first place.

Instead of argument or serious inquiry we were submitted to scare tactics, suggestions along the lines of “Maybe we are controlled by our language or our culture.” Again, in the case of “culture”, the word was bandied about to scare us in a way that would suggest to a naïve listener that no one had ever made a serious attempt to understand what culture is.

Mr. YYYY used the word “hooks” and it is certainly true that one needs to get the audience’s attention. However, once one has done so, what comes next is very important. My consistent impression during the week was that the content of what we were subjected to amounted to little more than hooks with no real knowledge behind it.

I might also cite the way in which our teacher for a mini-lesson in propositional logic was unprepared to discuss the oddities of the traditional interpretation of “if” (or “If….then”). If someone is going to use a formal system to interpret ordinary language, one of the first and most basic tasks is to understand how the formal system falls short—and to be able to justify it or explain it. Our discussion leader couldn’t and had to refer us to a standard introductory logic text. I would not fault him for his immediate inability to explain the advantages of the usual way of doing things.

But it was especially sad that he didn’t seem to realize that among experts in the field—people interested in human reasoning and natural language rather than pure mathematics--the interpretation of “if” which he was teaching as the “right” one is not commonly accepted. A recent book on the subject has three theories, and the first one is the one we were being taught. And, the authors of the book in question quickly dismiss the first theory as inadequate. (See Philip N. Johnson-Laird’s review article “If bears eat in the woods…?” in the February 2005 issue of Trends in Cognitive Sciences.)

You might say that this goes to the heart of the course “Theory of Knowledge”. A teacher must have the resources to adequately respect a student’s question or challenge. In the example I mention, the teacher was not completely up to the challenge. The point is that the student had a reasonable objection. The teacher said the answer was in a certain textbook. But, a more adequate answer is that experts in linguistics and psychology would agree with the student. Reasoning cannot be identified with formal logic.

And that is the sort of lesson I would have thought that TOK is supposed to give us. There is more to human reasoning than logicians and mathematicians have managed to dream of. It’s frightfully hard to actually say or know what reasoning is and it’s frightfully hard to actually say or know what “if” means, even while young children can competently use the word! (And if you want to say that children know how to use the word, that’s okay too; but that would be the start of another discussion, one which I did not witness during the workshop.)

A third example occurred in a discussion of Ethics. The discussion leader made the elementary mistake of identifying “Consequentialism” and “Utilitarianism”. I will spare you the explanation, but the mistake is a bit like thinking that every theory of evolution must be Darwin’s. It is the mistake of a beginner, not the mistake of someone qualified to be charging money to be heard.

I did not profit from my week spent with certified IBO teachers. I recognize that they were doing their best, and I am sure that their students profit from them, but I did not. I would not challenge their sincerity or their good intentions. Indeed, they are likable individuals. They were doing their best, but their best was less than I would need to improve my teaching. On the contrary, my time would have been better spent elsewhere.

Let us be clear about the main point of this letter. I went through the trouble to come to the workshop—neglecting pressing work in order to take the role of a student. When I sat on the student’s side of the room, I put myself in the humble position of one prepared to listen and learn. I was, moreover, being addressed not as an individual, but as a member of a group. The context itself defined the knowledge of the group leader as a precious thing in short supply. The situation itself defined my own knowledge as a thing of considerably less worth. But, the end result was that I was witness to displays which evidenced inferior knowledge, and less than ideal teaching methods. I didn’t belong in that situation. I shouldn’t have been there.

It was no fault of the teachers, the “Workshop Leaders”, that I was there. It was not their decision which required me to be there. Despite their limitations, I would only wish to praise them. The blame should not be placed on their shoulders. The blame must be placed higher up in the decision-making hierarchy of the International Baccalaureate Organization.

IBO owes me a personal apology. I attended the workshop only because my school’s Director cited a legal agreement between the school and IBO, an agreement which requires all teachers without exception to attend IBO training. That blanket requirement ignores the possibility that someone, such as myself, might have acquired the skills and knowledge needed to be a successful TOK teacher without IBO training.

By making such a blanket requirement IBO is being dogmatic. By making such a requirement, the IBO is failing to exhibit the virtues which TOK and IBO itself should be propagating: openness, a willingness to consider the possibility that a good rule has exceptions, respect for differences between individuals, an ability to recognize the possibility that an individual may have acquired skill or knowledge in ways that were not anticipated.

Not only have I lost a valuable week, but my own knowledge and education, as well as the knowledge of my teachers, have all been disrespected. That is an error for which IBO and my school share blame. However, it would appropriate for IBO to give me an official apology. And, if the apology is sincere, IBO should also apologize to my school, and refund the money my school paid for the workshop, sending the refund together with a letter acknowledging that I was competent to teach TOK prior to the workshop.

Sincerely yours,



PS As I did my best to talk with every Leader, and have some feeling for their level of understanding, I believe that I can also say: The problem would not have been solved had I attended a Workshop for More Experienced Teachers. The mistakes which the Discussion Leaders made did not occur because they had made adjustments for new teachers.



























filename: Reflections on IB TOK Workshop

Friday, January 26, 2007

Solidarity?

Solidarity, as everyone knows, is the socialist virtue extraordinaire....

Yet, here at the pretty-good International School (sometimes called QUANTITY international school) we seem to be heading in a socialist direction.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of listening to a teacher-led discussion (facilitated by a sheet photocopied from a book or some internet sight) about KINDNESS and POLITENESS.

One moral was about including people...

Of course this is sheer hypocrisy at a school whose principle of selection is: can you afford to pay our tuition?

Secondly, I have previously mentioned that due to the hierarchical and top-heavy (fascist) nature of local organization structures, mere faculty (such as the present writer) are not included in any decision-making processes....

The point could be developed if I had the time....

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

RING BELL

RING BELLS!!

students In
students OUT

RING BELLS
students in
students out

like a factory
or like hell

Monday, January 22, 2007

Coke Chugging at the Pretty Good International School

chugging is drinking something as quickly as possible--I guess you're not supposed to come up for air.

The first time I witnessed this was at the University of Texas when another freshman proudly drank a can of beer, and then burped.

As I recall, he wasn't wearing a t-shirt, and his stomach was sticking out. -not that he was obese, it just seemed part of the routine.

Coca-cola is a company which exists in poor countries and makes extreme demands upon the local water supply.

It is also a company which reputedly has been responsible for the assasination of people who tried to organize.

My current employer sponsored the following lunch-time activity last week: A Coke Chug

The winner got a red (100percent cotton) t shirt to wear, a shirt advertising coke--what else?

Is this teaching virtue? Or is it teaching conformity to capitalism?

I note in passing the following thought (roughly that of Adorno) In Capitalism, leisure time activities must be as mindless and stupid as possible to effect a shart contrast with work.

Anything that requires concentration must be work. Only stupid things can be play.

I say: disgusting and (truly) immoral

But here at the quantity school, we teach conformity and we teach obedience.

An additional point, which I can't develop, is the teaching of disrespect for food......

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

A Fairy Tale

Bloodless Brutality and Perversion;

Life at an American-Run InternationalSchool;

A fairy tale/fantasy for adults

The following is pure FICTION.
Any resemblance to reality is imagined.


COPYLEFT (c) 2005 Mark J. Lovas

COPYING FOR EDUCATIONAL OR CULTURAL PURPOSES IS ENCOURAGED SO LONG AS ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP IS ACKNOWLEDGED; COPYING FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN


Last week I met the new boss. Strictly speaking, “boss” is an appellation which is too colloquial or perhaps too lower class for an international school. Therefore, let us refer to my new boss as the new school Director.

During the first two days of the week we were required to participate in a variety of group activities. What I remember most vividly right now are two instances where two different individuals were visibly uncomfortable with this requirement. A young woman who introduced herself with the confession “I am painfully shy” looked as though she wanted to die when, later, during a group activity, she stood before the assembled faculty as part of a bit of theater. Secondly, one of the Slovak workmen engaged in remodeling our school, was recruited to sing a children’s song in English, a language which I suspect he’s not studied, with a chorus saying “you are special”/”I am special”, etc. One’s being special, apparently, doesn’t absolve one from the requirement to behave like everyone else when the Director demands it.

My axiom is that the individual is the ultimate minority. If we disrespect individuals, then we show contempt for all of humanity.

How did I come to be in this situation? How can a civilized society come to behave so barbarously?

More than one Slovak colleague freely offered a comparison with the techniques of indoctrination used during the recent past by communists. Indeed, that comparison is not inappropriate, and it shows how far Americans have come from an understanding of the principles of democracy. The great icon of America’s war for independence, Thomas Paine, complained that aristocracy was a system which placed inferior and untalented individuals at the top of the heap. During Communism there were ideological tests placed upon individuals who wished to make progress in their careers. At the school where I work, it is noteworthy that two individuals on the management team are singularly inexperienced. Our Director of Instruction finds it difficult to speak a coherent sentence. He embarrassed both himself and the assembled audience when, at a graduation ceremony, he was unable to pronounce a multi-syllable word without stumbling. At a recent gathering of teachers he was heard to say words along the following lines: “If everyone has a different opinion. . . that would be diversity…and we don’t want that…” He was explaining why the school had to have rules that everyone agreed to follow. It is cruel that his bosses have put him in a position where public speaking is required.

Moreover, his spouse was recently put in charge of the “International Baccalaureate
Program”, replacing a much more experienced and more qualified woman, an M.D., who is the head of a department at a local hospital. According to local gossip, what both these characters have in common is that they satisfy an ideological test: they are Christians of the right sort. And, that behooves the Head Manager of the chain of schools that my school belongs to. Indeed, whether there is a hidden religious agenda or not, it is significant that employees are forced to posit such a hidden agenda to explain why the people filling key management positions are inexperienced and/or incompetent.

The new Director has a fondness for shouting. Her loud vocalizing might be either an expression of joy or an expression of displeasure, as I learned one day when I asked what was, at that time, “the wrong question”.

During one of our group meetings the Director told us something along the following lines: I have been told that you need a dress code. More accurately, she said something like this, “One of the first things I heard was ‘Oh you’ve got to do something about the way that students dress…’”

Now, who told her this? I happen to know that it came from the mouths of one or both of the Director of Instruction and his wife, the individuals I described above. They are both Americans from the Midwest, also the place of origin of our new Director. I know this because I spoke with them about this last year. In fact, I wrote a long email in which I pointed out that what they found objectionable was not immorality but the simple fact that young people imitate other young people and certain pop icons whose style of dressing is not our own. And, I suggested that there was nothing immoral or disruptive in that. Rather, it’s probably a sort of natural law. And, I also suggested that when young people enter the workplace they are smart enough to understand what’s appropriate by way of dress there.

My lengthy letter was answered by a short email, “Thank you for your contribution. Have a nice day!”. Or words to that effect.

Today I would further add the following. Young women in Slovakia dress in ways that the average American might find provocative. This may produce misunderstandings when foreigners come here. Despite the fact that Slovak girls dress sexier than the average American girl, the country tends toward conservatism. Something like more traditional gender roles are largely taken for granted. Of course, there are thoughtful feminists in Slovakia, but I am speaking about a broad pattern.

Nonetheless, as the new Director was taking advice from other members of the “management team”, my sage words were ignored. We began one session with the question: what sort of dress code do we want? No question about whether there should be a dress code.
And we were given as a model the Dress Code from the school where the Director was in charge last year. An interminable discussion ensued. My new colleagues threw themselves into the discussion with great energy. We must get it right, they said; otherwise, you know how students are. They can find a way around every rule. I found myself muttering that the insights of philosophers, linguists, and others were surely lost on this bunch. Since when has it been recognized that no rule can be so water-tight as to exist without interpretation? Might it be that the reverent attitude which Americans sometimes take toward the country’s founding documents was inspiring them? If our country’s founders could get it right, then so can we? But even the very existence of the US Supreme Court shows the need for interpretation.
In any case, my new colleagues (not all Americans) applied themselves industriously to finding the Perfect Dress Code.

I regard it as especially significant that our set of rules began with an awkwardly worded sentence saying how we respected the individuality of our students. That’s why we don’t have uniforms.

But the Director did give us clear guiding principles. Under no circumstances would hats be allowed. (I felt great relief, speaking personally, when I heard that…otherwise we might be living in the New Babylon…)

I also confess that the enthusiasm with which my new American colleagues threw themselves into this debate about fitting angels on the head of a pin increased my sympathy for the old Slovak suspicion of authority—based upon the quite reasonable but unspoken grounds that it’s very likely to be illegitimate.

Finally, a set of rules was agreed to. Democracy triumphed. It was another case of the time-tested American method of rule from above, with periodic endorsement from below. The parameters of discussion had been set without discussion, and that really took a load off my mind.

At least it did, until, unfortunately, I began to think about all this. Consider, my alter-ego said, the rather breasty, long-legged young lady, whose tops often serve to emphasize her natural endowments, a woman who does not hesitate to wear short skirts. And, consider the most sex-obsessed teenage boy in the class. When she dresses in that fashion, what does it do to him? He must be distracted by it, musn’t he? Yet, she’s one of many such young people. Every summer, the streets of Bratislava are filled with attractive, slim, young women, who dress freely.
I believe that experts call this the problem of base rates. When young Fero—to give him a Slovak name—sees young Eva dressed in what Americans call a “provocative” way, he thinks, “just another very pretty girl”. My American colleagues probably think, “my goodness! She is dressed like a prostitute!”

Base rates: Locally, young women tend to dress that way. It’s not unusual. That’s like: don’t say college professors are forgetful until you’ve compared how forgetful they are to other professions/the general population. (Something I learned from the late Z. Kunda’s psychology textbook.).

As common sense says: Young Eva just dresses the way that many other girls her age do.
And, I reply to my colleagues, “No, she doesn’t look at all like a prostitute. Three nights a week, a prostitute is standing on my front doorstep Prostitutes look tired and bored, and sometimes they look unhealthy.”

(And I am not joking; there is a woman standing in front of or just around the corner from my door several nights a week.)

My naughty question, which provoked an incident of shouting, as well as a later apology, was about research allegedly establishing that dress codes improve student performance. On the day when we were allowed to debate how many inches a young lady’s skirt needed to be, we were told that dress codes improve student performance. And the remark was made with a prefatory tag suggesting we’d better not argue: “Research shows…” On Friday, a full three days after the original discussion, I dared to ask, “Where was the research done?”
I was told that we were not allowed to discuss this matter any further—as if we’d ever discussed whether there needed to be a dress code! As if our Director had shown extreme tolerance in allowing us to exercise our free speech by debating the skirt-length issue, and I was self-indulgently ignoring her previous generosity. But, after recovering from the shock of being yelled at, I did manage to tease out the answer that while the research had not been done in Central Europe, it had been done “all over the world”.

Later my Director apologized for screaming at me. Indeed, no one in my life has ever screamed at me in the way that she had, and the memory of that will always be stronger than the apology which came afterwards. But the absence of logic which became transparent at that point leaves an even more burning and powerful trace in my memory.

This little incident shows that we who teach at this school, having come to a foreign country, allegedly with the noble goal of improving the young people we encounter there, we who call ourselves “educators” are simply ignorant about the local culture. Or, perhaps, we are (rather dangerously) assuming that a law of nature has been discovered, even though no one has tried out the experiment locally In other words, we are behaving as if there were no such thing as a local culture. The research may have been done everywhere but here, but if it hasn’t been done here, you just don’t know about here. And, if we don’t need to do it here—and the Director’s behavior suggests that we don’t—then that must be because there’s nothing special about the local environment. QED: There is no local culture. Logically, the result is elegant and water-tight: you don’t need to know about it, since it doesn’t exist.

Side-by-side with the picture I have painted, please set another one. Imagine me earlier in the week sitting in the office of another boss-figure. I visited another new Director--not of the school this time, but of the International Baccalaureate Program, known among the cognoscenti as “IB”. She wanted to know how we could improve student test scores, specifically by increasing “higher level thinking”.

My response was immediate: the culture goes against that. I.e., the culture does not encourage higher level thinking. How could you reasonably ask me to teach something to the students when the surrounding environment is hostile to it?

I suspect that the IB Director’s take on my words was: “Slovak culture does not encourage higher level thinking.” She is an American, and I have often heard my fellow Americans lament this deficiency in the Slovak soul.

Of course, the IB Director misunderstood me. But, I think what I said-- or, what I meant--is true. I meant culture-in-general, both American and Slovak, and our general capitalistic power-from-the-top-down style of living. (Lest we forget: In no country of Europe—“old” or “new”—did a majority of the population support the idea of sending troops to Iraq; yet Slovakia, among others, has sent troops there.)

My little story about the lack of free speech at a school run by citizens of the world’s reigning superpower illustrates the general absence genuine discussion and genuine consideration of alternatives in our democratic countries.

And, let’s return briefly to the case of young Fero as he gazes upon the very feminine and visible form of young Eva. Eva is pretty. He likes to look at her. He thinks, “Pretty.” And he assumes that she’s just a normal pretty Slovak girl. My American colleagues say things like, “That way of dressing is not appropriate.” Their word “appropriate” itself needs unpacking. Where did that word come from?

It might have been appropriated from discussions of taboo language in sociolinguistics. Cursing, the invocation of the gods or naughty body parts is universally frowned upon during somber occasions of high state business and in churches. Linguists report that while such language is thought to be out of place on high occasions, it is obligatory on “lower” ones: you can’t be a proper macho jock without “bad” words..

But, I suspect that the use of the term “appropriate” that I’m hearing has little in common with such a neutral level of description. Would my colleagues really concede that while sexy clothes are out in school, they are positively required at the local Disco? Strictly speaking, their language seems to leave open that possibility. However, I am not convinced that they are so broad-minded as their language might suggest.
What would a more honest description of their attitude be? Might they not actually believe that sexy dress is outright wrong? Well, why would someone think it’s wrong? Maybe, because Fero just might get a little bit of immoral pleasure from the way that Eva dresses. And, even worse, maybe Eva knows it. Maybe Eva even likes the idea that Fero gets turned on. Of course, this was never said. Perhaps I am spinning a fairy tale. But, someone who held such views might well hesitate to express them openly. And, if my speculation has any basis, then we are talking about the barefaced assertion of American Puritanism. And, in that case, we are not only ignoring the local culture, but asserting a foreign one. Just as if we’d learned nothing from the errors of the old Soviet Union or the British Empire.
Oh, and by the way, if Eva turns Fero on, and she knows it, maybe Fero knows that Eva knows that he’s turned on… and, in her heart, Eva knows all that too. So, maybe they are actually, tacitly, engaged in a sort of cooperative activity. And, even if they’d never talk about it, I suspect that this is the truly horrible and unthinkable thought which frightens and shocks my American colleagues. And as if that were not enough, given what I said about base rates, they’re all doing it! Which means that Eva’s choice of unthinkably and unspeakably immoral attire is also upsetting because it reminds our American Puritan of the immorality of the local culture. They’re all shameless here! But, perhaps my American colleagues don’t want to know that. And, since we can’t change the surrounding society, we can at least change the school. An island of virtue in a sea of sinfulness.

I once read an essay on sexual perversion by the well-known American philosopher, Thomas Nagel. If my memory serves me well, he identified the sort of mutual awareness I described above as the basis for healthy sex. It’s lacking in cases of perversion and cases of true sexual immorality. The basis of a healthy sexual life is willingly giving and receiving . . . (close your ears if you are Puritan) . . . . pleasure. And, if that’s right, my school’s Puritan dress code is perverse.

Mark Lovas
Bratislava
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Latest Revisions: Sunday, September 3, 2005

Note:
Of course, Eva might also unwittingly turn on another Slovak boy—let’s call him “Brano”. I was imagining that Eva likes Fero. Brano is a different problem. In that case, Eva must use what they call “encounter regulation”. Oddly enough, every actual Slovak Eva I’ve ever met seems to have acquired a large repertoire of skills which enables her to regulate her encounters with undesirable admirers. Anyway, I suspect it’s the case of Fero which really drives Puritans crazy. Another moral: By denying students the freedom to dress as they like, the school is actually preventing them from acquiring the skill of regulating encounters.--A problem only if you assume that the school’s primary goal is to develop the talents of the student, as opposed to spreading an ideology or assuring that profits are skewed toward individuals currently at the richer end of our inegalitarian world.

An AFTERTHOUGHT:
Defending the right to enjoy one’s physicality in public is not the same thing as endorsing conservative sexual roles. I mentioned above that Slovak society seems “conservative”. The sort of thing I have in mind is depicted in all of its misery by Elfriede Jelinek in her novel “Lovers”. (Die Liebhaberinnen) Insofar as sexy dressing belongs to the world Jelinek describes, it is no part of happiness. But Jelinek’s criticisms seem to me to be very different from the Puritan reaction of my American colleagues.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

letter to the Big Boss

Bratislava
10 January 2007

Dear Mr. BIG BOSS

Recently I received a registered letter signed by MAGGIE THATCHER informing me that my contract with THE PRETTY GOOD AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL would not be renewed.

There was no explanation of this decision. In fact, since the letter went on to thank me for the work I had done in the past, and since I’ve been working forPGAIS for three years, that naturally raises the question why my contract will not be renewed. My work has been good enough for three years, but, now, suddenly, it’s not good enough? Has MAGGIE suddenly really discovered the truth that everyone else missed? (I don’t think so.)

However, before I address that question, I would like to point out that MAGGIE'S letter was very irregular and, in fact, disrespectful.

When you hire an employee you require him to provide evidence of his qualifications, and you provide information about your school. The employee is encouraged to ask questions and learn about the school. The beginning of the relationship is one of mutual respect.
An employee deserves no less respect at the end of the relationship.

Furthermore, it is standard practice among many American companies to have an “exit interview”. This allows employees to comment upon their time at the company.

So, MAGGIE'S was irregular both from the standpoint of decent human relationships and from the standpoint of standard business practice.

And that raises the question of the basis of her negative judgment. How did she decide I should not have another contract?

Since MAGGIE did not say, I must speculate, but I have little doubt that I know MAGGIE'S true reasons. I don’t know what she told you, or anyone else, but I know MAGGIE THATCHER.

MAGGIE THATCHER is neither polite nor tolerant. During her time at PGAIS, I heard her use the word “please” exactly once, and I heard her use the word “thank you” exactly once. And, she never used those words in conversations with me. When she makes a decision, she is not interested in hearing about other possibilities.

MAGGIE THATCHER had no use for me because I was unwilling to be totally passive and accept whatever she had to say. I wasn’t willing to shut up and let MAGGIE walk all over me.

There were cases where her judgments were in error, and I pointed that out to her. For someone with her character, that means I was a threat. She doesn’t tolerate anything (which she interprets as) a challenge to her power—even when the “challenge” (as she thinks about it) is coming from someone who has no other goal than saving her from making a mistake, or correcting a gap in her knowledge. MAGGIE is like a tyrant. There are some things she doesn’t want to hear. She is intolerant of original ideas which don’t fit her game plan.

I will only mention one incident which illustrates how MAGGIE was unable to comprehend that there are limits to her knowledge and competencies.

MAGGIE openly confessed to me that she knew nothing about the subject “Theory of Knowledge” or TOK. TOK is an International Baccalaureate class which draws heavily from traditional philosophy and mixes it with cognitive psychology.

I received my Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1989. I’ve taught at universities in the United States and in Europe. I’ve been to the IB’s workshop for TOK teachers. I have, in fact, presented original research in the States and in Europe, and I have a modest list of publications in professional journals, as well as in more popular forums. No previous employer has ever had a bad word to say about my teaching.

MAGGIE came unannounced to one of my TOK classes, and she couldn’t understand what was going on. She could not understand my methodology, and she could not understand the subject-matter.

How she imagined she could evaluate my teaching performance when she knew so little about the subject is a mystery to me. After she had visited my class, when I met with her, and had explained a little bit about the purpose of the course, MAGGIE asked a question like, “How do you grade that?” I chuckled to myself when she asked that question. Yes, it’s hard to grade a subject like philosophy. But I’ve been doing it since the 80’s when I was a teaching assistant. It was hard at first, but eventually you figure it out. I understood her question very well because that’s the sort of thing I myself would have once asked—about twenty years ago.

But my point now is that MAGGIE was so ignorant of the subject that she couldn’t even imagine how to evaluate it. She didn’t even know the most basic thing. And, despite this ignorance, she thought she could walk into my classroom and somehow evaluate what was going on there. That indicates a kind of blindness, a kind of ignorance amounting to arrogance, a stubborn refusal to admit that one has limits.

On several other occasions MAGGIE visited my classroom—always unannounced. She always went away unsatisfied because she never saw what she wanted to see.

I draw the conclusion that she doesn’t understand my teaching methods.

Plainly, she has a different approach to teaching, and it’s probably a good one for elementary students. (I teach teenagers, and most of them are college-bound.) But, I will tell you now what I told MAGGIE in different words: I have no reason to think there is one universal teaching method that MAGGIE THATCHER has discovered and which everyone good teacher must follow.

In fact, since MAGGIE THATCHER is, as a person, very close-minded and doesn’t like free and open discussion, I doubt whether her favorite methods would have any relevance in a classroom where the goal was to encourage free discussion and the examination of ideas.
And, I told MAGGIE that too.

To make a long story short, I don’t think MAGGIE THATCHER liked it when I told her that. And she probably even hates me because I would not slavishly following “her” teaching methods. (I don’t for one minute think there is only one way to teach, and I don’t think MAGGIE THATCHER has discovered any original teaching method. In fact, as I told MAGGIE, if she thinks she if following Madeline Hunter, she’d better think twice. What I’ve read about Hunter is that she didn’t like cookbook teaching. But, as far as I can tell, that’s what MAGGIE is advocating.)

In fact, I’ll go further. I have done a bit of reading in psychology and cognitive science in the past fifteen years. And, I don’t see that anyone has discovered a one-size-fits-all way to teach. Anyone who thinks they’ve found such a method is kidding themselves. The cognitive sciences are just not so far developed that anyone can say they know exactly how the brain works. No one knows exactly how we learn. It’s all a big mystery, even though the research trying to figure it all out is fascinating, and it does contain lots of hints and suggestions that can inspire a teacher.

But MAGGIE THATCHER would not like to hear that. She acts as though she knows the way we learn, and the way to teach.. She acts as though all of the questions have been answered. What I found myself trying to do, in a very small way, was trying to point out to her that there are limits to what she knows….But MAGGIE didn’t want to hear that. For her it was a personal challenge.

That’s why MAGGIE wrote me such a cowardly letter.

Now, it is true that one time when MAGGIE visited my classroom I was unprepared. I spoke with her about it at the time, and I explained to her why this happened. I will not repeat to you what I told her then. I am not going to make excuses for myself because I am sure that every professional has a bad day. MAGGIE visited my classroom on four different occasions. In the same calendar year, xx visited my class twice and YY visited my class once. On one of those seven occasions I had a bad day. That’s not a good enough reason to decide not to renew someone.

But, I’ve already explained to you the real reason why MAGGIE reached a negative judgment about me. She could not accept the idea that I have my own ideas about how to teach. She could not accept the fact that I would not blindly follow her. She probably resents the fact that I showed a little bit of independence. Unfortunately, what MAGGIE doesn’t understand is that criticizing someone or disagreeing with someone is, itself, a form of respect. When two professionals meet, some disagreement is to be expected. (Excuse me for saying the obvious, but that’s one way we learn.) I am no less a professional than MAGGIE, and it would be irresponsible of me to blindly follow every opinion that MAGGIE has.

If I think about normal standards of decency and politeness, MAGGIE’s letter is surprising. When I think of MAGGIE THATCHER the person, the letter is not at all surprising. It was, unfortunately, totally in character.

Sincerely yours,

International Schools: Unjust by definition?

As I was typing a letter to a potential employer, I kept recalling something I'd heard recently:

People in the employ of the Great American International School who are hired at a job fair have a very advantageous contract. The school pays for their trip to a job fair to find a new job.

I think of this because one colleague started this term late, as he'd spent a week away, looking for a new job--all paid for by my current employer.

But I believe that I am in no way inferior to this person.... yet as I was sitting in the teacher's room, typing a letter to a potential employer, I had to endure interruption by another colleague with the most advantageous form of contract...

And then there are my colleagues who are citizens of our host country--even more badly paid, with even fewer privileges.

Something is wrong with this picture.

Monday, January 15, 2007

The Equivalent, metaphorically, of a death sentence

The last day of the school year, the lady I have referred to as our local answer to Maggie Thatcher, left a letter in my mailbox, informing me that my services would not be needed in the next school year.

As I didn't check my mailbox before leaving on vacation, she had to send it to my home--registered mail, no less.

Interestingly enough, no explanation was provided.

I cannot say that I shall miss the tender mercies of this place. I think, for example, of the waste of time represented by a weekly faculty meeting in which we are encouraged to think of ourselves as fish salespeople, happy to keep the customer satisfied..... with no realization that teaching is not a form of selling.....