White water in the morning!

Pratt: Sir, there's an old sayin'. "White water in the morning."
Edwards: Yes?
Pratt: That's it.

At first glance Pratt’s famous quote from this excellent movie seems odd, yet there is a beautiful awkwardness in it that has made it one of the movie quotes I use the most even fourteen years after the movie.

Sometimes a single line sticks out to you and you don’t know why, so you read it over and over again trying to figure it out.

Is it worded wrong?

Am I interpreting it wrong?

Do I not know the meaning of a particular word?

Why does this one sentence stand out to me?

This happened to me today. It happened while reading the last line of the poem CLYDE POEM I: DOWN SOUTH from the book Locomotion.

The line is:

a place we both used to

a long time ago know.

I reread these two lines over and over again trying to figure out why they were sticking out to me. At first I thought the author had written them incorrectly. I thought maybe it was supposed to read:

a place we both used to

know a long time ago.

But the more I read it I realized the author made no mistake.

What happened was the author took a simple boring everyday sentence and made it beautiful.

While I thought that these two lines were incorrect I was actually mistaken because in fact they were the essence of poetry. The words rolled off my tongue, they flowed, they had a heartbeat, they were fluid and bumpy simultaneously, but they worked. The words sang to me.

This is how poetry is supposed to be. It is supposed to make you feel. I felt a lot of things during the short course of time that I was reading locomotion. Ultimately I think this is what every poet wants.

Even when a poet writes in free form styles and their work is almost unrecognizable as poetry the reader will see it as poetry when they come across that line in the poem that sings to them and makes them reread it ten times over.

I’m never quite sure what it is I am supposed to get out of multicultural education.

Thomas Builds-the-Fire: Hey Victor! I remember the time your father took me to Denny's, and I had the Grand Slam Breakfast. Two eggs, two pancakes, a glass of milk, and of course my favorite, the bacon. Some days, it's a good day to die. And some days, it's a good day to have breakfast.

I haven’t even gotten half way through this book when the inspiration for this week’s blog hit me in the face. It hit me so hard that I had to put down the book and immediately begin writing before this awesome idea escaped me.

As the title for this blog points out I am never sure what I am supposed to get out of learning about multicultural education.

Multicultural education classes do two things really well:

1)      They make white people feel horrible.

2)      They make people who aren’t from Alpharetta feel awkward.

The first one of these points is pretty self-explanatory. The multicultural education class at UGA is often referred to as the white guilt class. Basically what happens during the class is white males learn how they have had everything handed to them on a silver platter and they have oppressed all the other people in the world and are racists and bigots and simply horrible.

The second thing that happens in these multicultural education classes is people who did not grow up in a white-washed, white-flight suburb feel out of place. While all the white affluent people are gawking at the horrible way their relatives have treated all people of color and shrieking in astonishment to find out that some schools in Athens have no white kids and almost 100% free and reduced lunch this second group of people is shocked that a person could actually grow up in such a protective bubble.

Multicultural classes do not seem to be made to change people to be more accepting and open-minded because that would be indoctrination and Americans shy away from that, except in some forms (watch the documentary Jesus Camp on HULU). Multicultural education classes seem to focus more on awareness, awareness that there are lots of different types of people who are living in lots of different ways and for lots of different reasons.

I was already aware.

So it bothered me when I had to sit through a multicultural education class and read a book about Jewish immigrants and their struggles with assimilation.

I was already aware.

It bothered me to sit in that class because when I was in elementary school I asked my parents why I couldn’t be like some of my friends and get free breakfast in the cafeteria before school and they had to explain to me how some people get breakfast because they can’t afford it without some assistance.

I was already aware.

It bothered me to see classmates shocked at the demographics of schools that I went to.

I guess my point is that maybe some people need to learn about what exists outside of John’s Creek. I could have just signed a form at the beginning of my multicultural education class affirming that I understood that diversity existed.

If you want to expose me to a culture unlike my own take me to an all-white suburb school where teenagers drive BMWs and play lacrosse.

As for the movie Smoke Signals, I remember watching it when I was a kid. I thought it was great. But I didn’t think of it as being a story about some Indians in a coming of age tale, I thought of it as a good movie with likable and relatable characters.

So when I’m reading The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian I’m not thinking of this as a funny book about an Indian kid, I’m thinking of it as a funny book about a kid.

I wouldn't have a second Bar Mitzvah either!

(Kramer spits out his peach)

Bad peach?

 It's terrible!

 Did you get that at Joe's?

 Yeah, of course I got it at Joe's.

 That's surprising, his fruit is usually the best.

 You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna return this.

 You're returning used fruit?

 Jerry this peach is sub par.

Oh book, how I love thee, let me count the ways.

That is actually not sarcasm my friends. I truly love this book. I loved Pollan's level headedness and his open mindedness. I love his willingness to try different things. I loved the way he did not write this book like a super crazy extreme "my way or the highway" nut job. Mostly I love how this book took all the feelings I have towards my own struggle with the omnivore's dilemma and allowed me to finally see the light!

There was something else that happened when I was reading this book. As  I was reading I kept thinking to myself, "Self, I feel like I could have written this entire book because I feel like I already knew all of these things either in my heart or in my brain. So why are people still lining up at McDonald's to stuff their faces with horrible un-foods?"

So I sat there and tried to come up with an answer to why we pack 20,000 chickens into a small pen, why cows are force fed corn, and why people just don't care what goes into their food or where it comes from (not to mention what it does to their bodies)?

The answer quickly became clear. FOX NEWS.

OK, so maybe it isn't Fox News that is responsible for the inhumane treatment of animals or the gross neglect of our own nutritional needs. 

It's just that I can totally see Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh bashing this book and anyone who thinks that it is good.

What I mean is that there seems to be a stigma between the type of food you eat and one's political worldview.

Can't you all just hear it too: Rush: "Those tree hugging hippies with their organic beet juice and their grass fed beef are ruining this great christian nation! They are brain washing our children and trying to indoctrinate them into being anti-agriculture anti-American little tree huggers. This book was sponsored by Al Queda anyway."

Then there would be Beck: "America, yes you America (whisks glasses off his face), we are in dire times. Farmers, the backbone of America, are under attack. It is up to us to go out and eat from all the small business like McDonald's to support our fellow American farmers."

I think that this may be a bit of an exaggeration but my point is that if you only look at something subjectively you will never see the value behind a great book like this.

Unfortunately to look at this book objectively one must have an understanding of the food chain, animal behavior, nutrition and dietetics, economics, human evolution (the real one not the fake one), as well as a conscience, a desire to be healthy, an open mind, and a want to make the world a better place (those last four things are only if you want to go beyond simply accepting that Pollan is entirely correct in all the allegations he makes in this book).

Basically what I am saying is that if someone doesn't have an the knowledge to understand that Pollan isn't making up everything he says about cows not being able to eat corn, or high-fructose corn syrup being bad for you and society in so many ways, or that some fats are good for you, or that chickens need to roam free, then you can simply ignore this book.

To me, because I do understand the science and logic behind Pollan's book, made this not an opinionated read but a factual one. I agreed with everything he said. I never saw him as a nut-job or a food snob. I just saw him as someone who had the ability to put all the facts on the table (get it food joke) and then offer some ways to make progress.

If you don't agree with this book than you don't agree with education and knowledge.

Word!

Build It and They Will Come

“The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again. Oh, people will come, Ray. People will most definitely come. ... Field of Dreams”

Have you ever wondered about science?

Ok, that is a little broad. I will rephrase the question.

Have you ever wondered what particle physics is?

Still too broad, I will try one more time.

Have you ever wondered what protons, neutrons, and electrons are made of?

Well I have. I may be confessing my inner nerd but I wonder about these things all the time. I constantly am wondering what happened before the Big Bang, or matter could appear out of nothing, or how the universe can keep expanding, and what the theory of relativity really means. I constantly get lost on Google searching what a neutrino is and what dark matter is made of. I even watch NOVA for fun.

Unfortunately for me whenever I can actually find the answer to one of these questions it is usually such an abstract concept that I cannot even begin to make sense of it.

This is the part where I start talking about the book I read this week.

But first a confession: I didn’t finish the entire book. Actually I only got about a third of the way through it. This is totally my fault because I got the unabridged version which is somewhere in the realm of 550 pages. I don’t know the exact count because I have a Kindle and it uses Loc which no one actually knows what it means or how it derives it.

I am going to finish this book. I will also buy the hard copy. I will also encourage other people to read it, especially people who have ridiculous misunderstandings about scientific topics that when better understood will make them a lot less ignorant.

So the book I read was Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything. I’m not going to do a book report because the title tells it all.

I am not going to write about the funny anecdotes used to engage readers while reading about the history of geology, that is obviously an upside to this book.

I am not going to write about the vast amount of information that this book contains either, the length and title should allude enough to that.

I really think that one thing is worth mentioning other than sincerely expressing how great a book this is in all ways. So, what I would like to mention is that what Bryson does especially well is take complicated physics theory’s and  put them into words that regular humans can understand. Furthermore, when he feels that the theory is just plain ol un-understandable (based on the physicists own inability to understand their own theorem) he doesn’t make you feel inferior. All Bryson does in these situations is tell you that people don’t need to understand such things, nor could they.

I think this is the true genius of this book. Too often non-science types are made to feel inferior because we can’t grasp the concept of space-time. The truth is that space-time, and many other science concepts, are extremely complicated and difficult for everyone to understand. If it weren’t difficult to understand physics wouldn’t be a specialized field of study that requires years of education to enter into.

There are people out there that do what to know what is going on at CERN and what the edge of the universe is. Regular people with these questions should not be left out of the loop when it comes to the answer just because they don’t have two PHDs and can speak in binary code.

I once had an instructor teach me that when in a child asks about black holes or dark matter to steer the conversation towards a more answerable topic.

I say bullshit to this!

If a student asks me about something really complicated and difficult to explain, not to mention way beyond a middle school science class curriculum, I will tell them that I would gladly help them find out what ever there is to find out.

If a fourth grader is curious about dark matter awesome! Real learning is driven by curiosity and I would never what to shut that down.

Remember that kid from one of the articles we had to read who hated reading in English class, it was most likely because he had to read this book.

There was a moment last night, when she was sandwiched between the two Finnish dwarves and the Maori tribesmen, where I thought, "Wow, I could really spend the rest of my life with this woman".

Most of you probably don't remember Julio. He was that seventh grader that was followed around by researchers to understand what video games had to do with reading. He would choose to read a book about video games that was way above his tested reading level but would never even finish the book assigned for him to read in his lit class.

I wonder why he couldn't read the books in his lit class?

Maybe his teacher was assigning him books like Charles and Emma. The teacher probably was thinking, "I know the kids hate reading the book that Darwin wrote, but I bet they will love this one. It incorporates about ten whole pages worth of information actually pertaining to science while the rest is like watching a BBC Brit com on mute. The children will love it! Ooooo my little lovelies!"

That last part was the teacher referring to her class of seventh grade hoodlums.

The point is that Charles and Emma is exactly the type of book that a seventh grade boy would look back on and associate it with the exact moment he stopped reading.

I'll be honest I probably won't finish it. I'm about half way through it and it is terribly boring, nothing has happened yet except that ol' Chuck got married and had some kids and organized his specimens.


Add to the boring plot the fact that the voice in my head that says aloud the words as I read them sounds like Renee Zellweger which just sucks.

Now I am going to try to go and finish the book because now that the pressure is off it may actually be enjoyable and because I keep hearing Renee say, "You had me at hello."

Steinkuehler, C. (2010). Digital literacies: Video games and digital literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 61-63.

I would rather be reading the third book in the Ember seires than writing this blog, I guess literacy wins.

"It all comes down to this roll. Roy Munson, a man-child, with a dream to topple bowling giant Ernie McCracken. If he strikes, he's the 1979 Odor-Eaters Champion. He's got one foot in the frying pan and one in the pressure cooker. Believe me, as a bowler, I know that right about now, your bladder feels like an overstuffed vacuum cleaner bag and your butt is kinda like an about-to-explode bratwurst."

The Ember/Sparks books got me thinking about a lot of things: Religion vs. Atheism, Seeking knowledge rather than living in a state if ignorant bliss, communism vs. capitalism, feminism, entitlement/fairness, and war.

I am not sure which of these the author was really to get us to think about. I don't think  I am going to try and tackle all of these in one blog because its Valentine's Day and I am getting ready to go out to eat some Pho at Just Pho.

I think I will discuss the most alarming attribute of the characters in the book; their sense of entitlement and fairness as presented in the second book.

The Emberites and people of sparks seem to have this innate sense of entitlement. Actually it really only lies in the Emberites, the people of Sparks are just greedy. When the Emberites came to the city of Sparks they asked for help. I feel like this was a natural thing to do. I would do the same thing if I arrived in a strange new world and had nothing. I would ask the people I met to help me. The people of Sparks did the nice thing and made a plan to help them. What they should have done is incorporated the Emberites into their community. They would have had a larger workforce, and despite the initial scarcity of resources they would have faced everyone would have been OK in the long run.

The Emberites were guilty in making the people of Sparks hate them, besides Tick's stupid antagonism. They never offered to help do anything when they got there. All they did was ask for food and shelter and more of it. I guess that since they were use to the Builders giving them everything they had no sense of work, but it should seems obvious that they should have offered to earn their stay.

This trait of the Emberites made me really mad. I thought they should have been kicked out of the town of Sparks because they were acting like horrible guests.

 Luckily Doon and Lina were there to save the day through kindness and goodwill towards others.

Although I thoroughly enjoyed the book and plan on reading the third one as soon as I finish burning my tongue on some super hot pho I do think that the author was too naive in her vision of a post disaster world. She obviously has never The Road or 28 Days Later. In the post apocalyptic world there will be bands of murderers running around raping and pillaging those who have resources. The truth is that people hate to work and if they can stuff without having to do anything they will.

Maybe that is the point of the book. Not that war is bad, or girls rule/boys drool, or that curiosity and innovation are good things but rather that it is better to work for the things you need in your life and not just expect them to be handed to you.

So in addition to the other things I will do as a teacher (in case you forgot they include not using any technology and only allowing students to make a 100% on assignments) I will also devote a portion of every class to instruction on how to survive on your own. Lesson one: how to grow butternut squash.

The Digital Revolution Zealots Are Just Plain Annoying

After watching the two Frontline documentaries yesterday I came to the conclusion that two things are happening simultaneously regarding the digital revolution that is taking place inside and outside of the classroom.
1. There are a bunch of crazy people complaining about a completely unstoppable force called the internet.
2. People's concer with other people's well-being (basically sticking their noses where they don't belong) is stopping natural selection.

For me the internet has never created a problem, nor has it ever gotten close to becoming an addiction. I have an IPhone, home PC, laptop, Kindle, IPod Touch, IPod Nano, 2 Tv's with HDMI hook-ups, 6 GPS devices, a digital camera, and a TI-83 calculator. Never have I felt like these have casued harm in my life. They are all just tools that I use to communicate, be entertained, find my way, and play Mario (thanks TI-83).

Some people it seems play video games too much and forget to eat. Not really my problem. If it was my kid it wouldn't have happened in the first place. I say let the person get really hungry and then they will probably put the controller down and go eat some Doritos. I'm not really for telling someone else how to live their life. It should be a given that sitting in front of a screen all day is probably not the best thing for you. But if it makes you happy and you feel fulfilled then its cool with me, I don't want to stop anyone from being happy.

We are constantly trying to look out for other people, but it is in a very selfish way. Take the whole suicide thing. Yeah it sucks, but the whole reason for being against it is selfish. You don't want someone you love to kill themself because it will cause YOU pain, regardless of the amount of pain they are in. I'm not saying it isn't sad/bad/horrible, I'm just telling the truth.

If you do some research to find out if technology is good or bad print it up and then let people decide for themself. And if they want to smoke two packs a day that is there choice. I'll be honest cigarrettes are pretty tasty! Wait I was talking about technology, I meant to say electric vapor cigarrettes are pretty tasty.

When it comes to your children teach them what you think is good and bad, but don't worry about other people's kids, leave that up to the religious right.

In my classroom I am not going to have any technology. I am going to make every student handwrite everything and I don't want to use a smart board. Why? That way I will not have to grade any papers the entire year because kids these days don't know how to communicate other than via text message.

WHY HAVEN’T THESE ARTICLES BEEN MADE INTO A VIDEO GAME? Maybe then I would enjoy reading them!

Prensky, P. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Prensky, P. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part II. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Chase, Z., & Laufenberg, D. (2011). Digital literacies: Embracing the squishiness of digital literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(7), 535-537.

O'Brien, D., & Scharber, C. (2008). Digital literacies go to school: Potholes and possibilities. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 66-68.

Gough, P. B. (1995). The new literacy: caveat emptor. Journal of research in Reading, 18(2), 79-86.

"Did you see the way she was looking at me?"

"She's a Nazi, George, a Nazi!"

"I know, I know. Kind of a cute Nazi, though."

- George and Jerry, in "The Limo"

George may have thought the neo-Nazi was cute but Jerry was right, she was still a Nazi.

I think I agree with Gough from last week’s reading more now after reading about digital literacy. Gough seems to have the same sentiments towards literacy that Jerry does towards George’s attraction to the Nazi. Gough would argue that digital, visual, interpretive dance, it doesn’t matter, kids need to be able to read and write, PERIOD! Similarly Jerry doesn’t care how good looking the woman is, she is still a Nazi, PERIOD!

After reading the two articles on digital literacy (Digital literacies and Digital literacies go to school) followed by the Prensky articles I realized that there may be a fundamental error with the objectives that seems to be emphasized in all this literacy teaching stuff.

The problem is that as we attempt to teach kids to read all the different types of “texts” that are out there we are diminishing their ability to adapt and learn on their own. No one ever taught me how to read a webpage, a newspaper, a calendar, a cookbook. I was taught how to read books. I’m pretty sure I figured out the rest on my own. This is important in my opinion because we need to make the children of tomorrow more self-reliant and less dependent on others to get what they need (This is not a welfare government politics argument by the way).

There are more “texts” out there than a teacher could ever hope to expose their students to in a lifetime. Rather by focusing on making sure children are experts at the basics, reading and writing, they can and will figure out how to read all the other “texts” out there.

I mean if we as teachers give everything to the student we will never get them to figure out anything for themselves. It would also be a crime for their parents to sit down and teach them how to read a website or a newspaper or the town hall minutes.

I do see the need to use authentic texts in the classroom as were described in the articles and I do this is a good idea. But it also seems like a no brainer to me. Authenticity makes for meaningful learning.

Now it’s time for me to destroy the Prensky articles.

Prensky, I think you may have a good point, but for the class of 2013 you have no relevancy, even for someone like me who was supposed to be in the class of 2009!

I hate to break it to ya’ dude but the majority of people taking classes in the COE at UGA are digital natives.

That’s a big LOL ROFL!!!!! ;-P

Maybe this article is better for the teachers of the baby boomer generation who are about to retire. It would be relevant if the natives were not the students but the teachers and the immigrants were low SES students who have no access to technology.

Once again I revert back to Gough’s thoughts on literacy (notice the lowercase L), those being that the most important and ultimately the most crucial, fundamental backbone of all these articles and this class and this whole content area in itself is reading and writing. So I say that instead of adapting lesson into video games so students will actually pay attention to them, get the students to relearn how to enjoy a regular book or print article. I mean we have learned that brains can adapt right? So can’t they adapt back from their digital world to the print one?

If ferrets can do it so can kids!

 Check out my other blog at:
http://pihathepolymath.blogspot.com/



My name is Saul Tigh. I'm an officer in the Colonial Fleet. Whatever else I am, whatever else it means, that's the man I want to be. And if I die today, that's the man I'll be.

Gough, P. B. (1995). The new literacy: caveat emptor. Journal of research in Reading, 18(2), 79-86.

"You know, sometimes I think you got ice water in those veins and other times I think you're just a naive little schoolteacher. I've sent men on suicide missions in two different wars now and let me tell you something. It don't make a gods damn bit of difference whether they're riding in a Viper or walking out onto a parade ground. In the end, they're just as dead. So take your piety and your moralizing and your high minded principles and stick 'em someplace safe until you're off this rock and sitting in your nice comfy chair on Colonial One again." -Colonel Saul Tigh

This quote seems to fit right in with Gough's reading (well that's kind of a stretch, it actually is just a quote that exemplifies my feelings towards literacy research). He seems to do two things, the first of which I really appreciate, the second I just don't agree with. First he attempts to define literacy, which I like because none of the other scholars have tried to do. They either do not define literacy because they are afraid of pinning it down and therefore causing it to be a narrow field of study, or they do not define it because they simply do not have a good definition of what literacy is. There are other reason they may choose not to define it (maybe they assume it is something every preservice teacher should already understand and therefore they simply need to prove why it is so important to their audience) but the reason is not too important because they still do not offer a definition. Secondly Gough tries to define literacy by arguing what it is not. He argues that it is not social or political and even relative.

Why can't anyone just tell me what literacy is?

My first idea is that the whole mystery behind the definition of literacy is a big plot by the literacy academic community. Maybe they just want the preservice teacher to discover what literacy means to them in a kind of a-ha moment where you discover the definition and realize you just exemplified reader response at the same time. Yeah the higher ups in the literacy world would make you learn twice you to learn twice, the ultimate gotcha!

I don't think that I have formed a definition of literacy but I do think that I understand it better after these readings. I am going to compare what literacy is to a common saying. The saying is: There is a difference between hearing and listening. Reading is just hearing, but literacy is listening.

For me you have to be able to hear in order to listen, but you don't always have to listen while you are hearing. Reading is equated with hearing (Reading can also be viewing) and listening is equated with literacy. Sometimes you just want to watch TV or read a book without going deep into its meaning. Other times you either want to (or are required to) look beyond the surface of a book or movie and therefore need to utilizee literacy skills.

Therefore literacy involves looking beyond the words on the page and questioning the material and looking to understand it for more than just the words on the page (or lyrics or visual images).

In the end though  a theoretical definition of literacy is actually unimportant to me. Why? Well because it is irrelevant what it is because no matter what the definition is I think there is an overwhelming opinion that literacy is a good thing when you simply equate it to a person being able to hear and listen. Gough states that politicians no matter which side of the isle they stand on want children to be literate (Gough, 1995). And India sure seems to be making improvements to their poverty problems through literacy programs. So I think this is a pretty astute assumption

Honestly I think that since a great majority of people would agree that literacy is a good thing then the academic scholars can stop telling me how important it is and just teach me how to implement it.
 Colonel Tigh would probably agree with me, mainly because he is a hard ass who would probably just throw everyone out the airlock.

First Post Ever!!!!!!!!

To read or not to read, that is the question!

So I'm reading all the assigned readings for this week and all these thoughts about reading and content area literacy are flying through my head. So this post is going to be a reflection on some of the most important ideas that stuck with me after reading the readings for this week.

Warning: There were enough ideas flying through my mind while reading these articles that may cause the following reflections to appear as ramblings, streams of conciousness, or even incoherent blabberings. Please try to see through the chaos.

The first thing that hit me was that I was reading about some researchers who discovered that preservice teachers did not really enjoy blogging or feel as though they gained anything from it when it was implemented as an instructional strategy in their 'literacy class.' Honestly this was probably not the best thing for me to read because it got very close to making my mind completely shut down causing me to go into "go to school and not get anything out of it" mode. Once I averted that conundrum I moved into uber critical mode. This is where I criticize everything that is being written and come down hard on it with an iron fist (or "mindfist" since I am writing). So basically what I got from the first reading about college students blogging for class was this: A bunch of researchers really like the idea of using blogs in preservice teaching classes, but the response to blogging by the preservice teachers was very negative, yet none the less, the researchers did not want to give up on their idea so regardless of the results of their study they still want to push blogging. Personally I think that is pretty dumb. (I can say that because this is a blog right?)

The question that kept popping up in my head as I read these different articles was What do we want our students to get out of all this literacy when it is all said and done? Honestly this is the big question. We can take this one step further and ask ourselves as educators what do we want our students to be when we they finally break free from compulsory eduction? Well, I don't think blogger has enough space to delve into that second questionm, so I'll just try to answer the first one. I couldn't quite put my finger on what it is exactly that the esteemed authors of the various articles we had to read for this week really want students to be able to do when they graduate (grade level that is). From the literature/english teacher perspective it would seem that they would want the student to be able to read at grade level and be able to critically evaluate a reading. To this I say so what! I am not saying that that we sholdn't be fostering critical thinking and appropriate reading levels, but lets be real here for a second. No one is going to be able to get by in life with a resume that says: reads on grade level and can critically analyze the classics. A more appropriate goal is for students to be able to survive when they graduate. Critically thinking, analyzing texts, and reading comprehension are parts of surviving in today's society but they are not the only tools one needs to make it.

Why do I break it all down to surviving? Well at the heart of all humans is a will to survive, and that is really all we are doing in this life. The society, culture, and all the other fluff that fills our days is nothing more that time fillers because we as humans have become so good at surviving.

It seems as though I have strayed away from the topic, and you ask how can he bring it back? Well here I go: literacy is a survival tool in today's society (at least our nice American one).

I don't know all the answers to life, but I do know that if you are illeterate in the society that I live in you will have no chance of survival. The reason for this is because of the internet. The World Wide Web changed humanity (first world at least) and made it necessary to be literate. Everything peice of information a person could ever want (or need) is on the internet. But if you are illiterate you cannot reap the benefits of all the internet than you are really missing out. Because of my literacy I have been able to self diagnose running injuries through reading medical journals on the internet and learn how to fix my toilet. Although these are two of the minor accomplishements I have made via the internet and my literacy I think they demonstrate the vastness that is the internet. And don't try to act like the internet isn't everything, because I have and it doesn't work.

Ok so now I'm going to tie all my ramblings together. Blogging = not a big deal, literacy = pretty important, survival = everything, survival in our society = literacy (among other things).

Why did I go about writing my first blog this way? Well maily to do two things: the first to show that a blog is an informal way of exchanging opinions and thoughts, or at least that is what I got from the readings. Secondly, it is to show that I feel that although literacy is important I do not think that it is the most important thing in education now. But who knows, maybe my opinion will change by the end of the semester.