On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Dan Kennedy wrote:

> Hello,

>

> Can I move the discussion back to what I-Shien brought up in relation to

> Hanan's original comments?

>

> It seemed to me that Hanan was in fact using the 'jewel' reference as a

> way to 'attach value' to the concept itself. The term 'jewel' could be

> replaced by some other term, however for Hanan that particular term has

> incredible value. The real issue, to me, is that there are underlying

> opportunities in dealing with students (and other people), which if not

> addressed delicately (by that I mean with forethought) damage of some type

> occurs. For example, approaching the opportunity to shape the future by the

> way you instruct the students of today has incredibly different

> possibilities than simply instructing students because they have to be there

> and it's your job. The former seems to intimate a more concerned

> developmental approach while the latter is simply 'factory work'. Is it

> possible that 'western' cultures do a better job of educating or is it just

> that they do a different job for different reasons? I don't know if we can

> be sure that our way is the best way. I find it interesting that we in the

> US always guage others by our own measuring stick...and assume that others

> should do the same...we're quick to 'tout' what we think are our successes,

> but don't seem to adequately address our weaknesses. Here's an example: it

> seems that we as a society (here in the US) feel strongly about the impact a

> good education and good educators have on our young (and ultimately to

> society as a whole), on the other hand we seem to do everything possible to

> make education as frustrating as possible to those who are actually engaged

> in the process (and ourselves as well as the folks who do the paying). From

> the issue of adequate funding, to teacher compensation, class size, and on

> and on. Why do we do this? What is the guage of our commitment? And our

> success? Is it because of the amount of money we spend? From my view, this

> is a bad barometer (populations with higher incomes may appear to paying

> more for education, but what is that as a percentage of the Gross National

> Product of the country...is the amount increasing as wealty increases, or

> remaining constant, or heaven forbid, is it decreasing???). Maybe it's part

> of our own cultural perspective that seems to want the best for ourselves,

> but being extremely cautious when we're asked to do the same for others. Is

> that selfishness? I don't know if that's the case. Perhaps it's more

> practicalism...what is good for me is great for you, what's good for you is

> not necissarily good for me (especially if it causes me to pay more or costs

> me -- maybe it's cost benefit analysis again...or maybe it's better

> described as cost benefit citizenship).

>

> I'd love to see a world where each individual child is being treated as the

> important future citizen they can become, but in reality no one can be there

> (but shouldn't our reach exceed our grasp, else why reach?). Who has the

> control, the responsiblity, and who is charged with the interpretation and

> the implementation. The counseling side of me argues that all people should

> be treated as equal, each an important part in the whole...if one is missing

> the whole can never be attained, but the pessimistic side of me argues that

> given each of us striving to become a better 'us' we forget the needs of

> others, or at least rationalize our own need as being more important than

> anothers.

>

> >From my perspective, I hadn't heard the reasons WHY we should do what we do

> (or our charge as members of the human race) put so aptly as Hanan's 'jewel'

> example. In fact, I think it has implications much farther than for just

> children...since interaction with others (whether in person or via some

> other medium) is really the way education occurs, each of us has a

> responsiblity to try (although we'll often miss the mark) to ensure that any

> interaction with another has that same aspect of the 'jewel'...we each need

> to feel as though our needs are being addressed and we each need to try to

> make the step to protect what really is most precious to ourselves and that

> really ultimately comes down to the quality of our interactions with others.

>

> Sheesh....sorry, got on a roll there.

>

> I'll still send what I'm doing from UNESCO....

>

> talked to Bill today on the phone....

>

> Can we also think about providing comments on our writing to each other (for

> the folders)?

>

>

> see yunz on Tuesday

> Dan

>

> PS...I ordered the entire UNESCO document from the UN...hopefully I'll have

> it for Tuesday...

>

>

>

 

Dear collaboratives

In my country there is no contradiction between women status and what I

have said about "jewls".

This is why we keep insisting on understanding cultural differences. In my

country women are considered "jewls", this is why people in Egypt are

trying to protect their women.They believe that women should be protected

from anything can hurt them in life, thus they believe that men should

work hard to offer a good life to their women. At the same time women

should stay at home away from the the outside world and its trubles and

take care of her children. Women are men's honor and dgnity. Therefore,

men should keep them safe from any danger in life.But this may what womem

in the past wanted, but now everything changed. Women now are educated and

they can have jobs, but still men think of them as fragile creatures,

uncapable of protecting themselves. Thus they think that they can take

decisions about their future better than women can do. In my country men

are responssible for everything concern their women.So, as you can see

some times over protection can be as harmful as neglecting.

Hanan

On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, I-shien Lei wrote:

>

> Dear collavoratives,

>

> Since we had some discussions about treating students as jewel, here is my

> opinion.

>

> I really can't validate this statement because it seems like merely some

> rhetoric kind of statements to me. First, the price of the jewel

> depends on who the person is speaking. If the one is me, for example, I

> personnaly don't like jewel and I don't feel it is precious, then

> why bother seeing students as jewel? It's getting worse. The point is not

> how are we going to view students as whatever something, instead, in

> reality, how are we really treat them is the matter. I mean, if we only

> look at what Americans want students to be, it is not bad at all.

> Americans like trainning kids to be critical thinker and problem

> solver. However the results is not like that. To me, verbal representation

> (the rhetorics, or symbol, or slogan, whatever) means nothing.

>

> I would say, if Hannan's government really do as what they advocate (treat

> students as jewel), then the women status (as Hannan pointed out in

> proseminar class, it is very low) in that country is not going to

> be like what it is now because ever since kids start schools, girls should

> be treated as precious as boys. (Or is it because boys and girls are

> different jewels for them?)

>

> Anyway, good weekend for all of you.

>

> I-shien

>

>

>