First of all,Happy Thanksgiving to all of you!! Thanks for those last comments about the relevancy of history. I think that what we all landed on was that the presentation of what we want students to learn is really the key. Whether it is math,history,english,etc. if it doesn't "make sense" then we loose the battle right away. The other part of the experience is to use something that brings the students world into play. I have really been encouraged by exploring the different forms of information transfer that we have studied in tech class this quarter. Looking at Kurt's Google map,for instance, made it very clear about his personal knowledge of what he could teach someone about Iraq and the "history" of that time. I believe that what we have learned is one of the most powerful things that has been taught to me in many years.

I am taking a class in Adolescent Development and last night we were discussing "Ecologic Theory" of social development. I will leave it up to you to research the particulars of this theory as I want to discuss one thing that struck me as somewhat unsettling. That is the idea that what we know as individuals changes in relevance to other ,through time. Now as a wannabe history teacher this might be one of those "duh" moments. But on a personal level it made me feel some what irrelevant. I mean,what I know about the 1960's, the Civil Rights Movement,the anti-War Movement,etc. comes from some very personal experience and observations. Does this mean that if I become a history teacher that my students will not see the value that is inherent in what I bring to class because it happened too long ago? How does this work in the real world? any ideas?

Tonight I made a breakthrough in creating My Google Map. After fighting the "Help" page for adding video to my map, I finally received some hands on help. Success! Now,under the light of self reflection, I see two things happening; the creation of a teaching tool and the opening up of my abilities to help others learn. I believe that History needs to be as visual as possible. Reading about a place and why it has historical meaning only leads to a desire to see what it looks like. For instance,until I actually stood in front of the Palace of Versailles I never understood what the concept of "Palace" meant. The overpowering weight of the actual building,the way it is positioned to those approaching,everything done to influence the observer that the person that lives here is the most important person they will meet. So being able to present this to a student might make it possible to think in more than "one dimension".

Tonight I want to share a couple of the blogs that I have been following. One is the Tempered Radical and the other is History Tech. After reading their most recent posts I was really taken by the mix of both what it is to teach and how to teach that they talked about. They make the same appeals and observations about teaching and how to teach that we talk about in class. I find this to be very assuring that what we are being asked to think about exists in the real worl d of teaching high school and is not theory. Try them out!

I woke up this morning and thought that I have lived and am living in a period that has now surpassed the first part if the 2oth century in historical significance. After all those years of pledging alligience to "liberty and justice for all" I see that maybe it wasn't just "for show".

After posting my first blog(ever), I hope I have given any reader a sense of why I am back in school attempting to gain a Ma.Ed. so that I can teach high school. With the passing of at least one generation it seems like a long haul. When I have spoken to friends who are teaching at the high school level I find that many of them are heading for retirement as fast as they can. So, why am I going against the grain? I really enjoy teaching and learning. The process of understanding and then being able to transfer that understanding is something I have never gotten tired of. I have found ways to do it in all other jobs I have held or made for myself. So, I am looking for input from others in this profession to teach me so that I can teach others. I have found several blogs that I have subscribed to that have helped me so far and might be of interest to others. Right now I am trying to understand the problems that teachers face with cirriculums that are based around passing state competency exams. I spoke to a 9th grade teacher who explained it in terms of budget. That is, if the state requires passsing levels in certain subject areas, then that's where the money goes. Not bad if you are a recipient,like a science teacher, but not so good if you aren't. Also, what are pro's and con's of teaching to the tests? I think these are important as the comments that I hear from many of the teachers have to do with the requirements of teaching with the state exams as the main goal. I would appriciate any input. I am sure that there is alot of opinion on this.