Quote for the day

I am not done with my observations on the nature of evil--not by a long shot, but I wanted to take time out of that schedule to look at a revelation I've had and I want to share with you.

Given that I am currently in a Ph.D. program there are certain assumptions that people make about my past, assumptions which are generally wrong. The truth is, I was never in honors High School English. The truth is that when I did not pass whatever qualifying exam is needed to avoid Freshman composition my first year of college. Point of fact, I think I was put in some sort of remedial class. I remember vividly that my teacher didn't think much of my ideas. I also remember a girl in the class who stank of Pachouli oil, and who had something of a crush on me. She also couldn't understand why each executed prisoner cost the tax payers thousands of dollars. "Why do they need that much electricity to kill someone?" I remember her asking. I do not remember her name.

But I digress, because my essential point was about high school English, which was kind of a joke. Let me explain. First of all, these are the books that I read, or that I remember reading: Alas Babylon, Lord of the Flies, Macbeth, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, The Pearl (Steinbeck), Of Mice and Men, any number of short stories that I can't remember, and of course, The Catcher in the Rye. Anybody who knows me now can only imagine me with any of these titles, slumming it in public school, asked to deliver my "take" on these books. How in the hell is it possible that no one ever thought of me as "Honor's English" material. To this day, I am confused. Not that I would have wanted to be in honor's english--all of my friends were with me in my regular english classes, but still. The honor's English class read Sir Gawaine and the Aenied. A great disservice was done to me. Don't worry; I'll live.

What I wanted to point out is that my teacher for two of those four years was Ms. Hill, and Ms. Hill every day before class wrote some quote on the board which she'd found somewhere (who knows, my opinion of high school teachers, already bruised from having been overlooked, has not recovered now that I know people who are attempting to get licensed to teach high school). From these quotes, we were asked to respond. My own students are currently grappling with quotes. They can't introduce them--they can't explain their relevance. They drop them in as if quotes from John Berger are self explanatory (they, in fact, aren't). So, I was thinking of bringing in my book of quotes for a rousing class excercise tomorrow. I began to see Hill's quotes for their pedagogical power. They really taught a skill that is, otherwise, very difficult to get across.

But then it hit me: Hill didn't come up with this excercise. Like all other teachers of her sort, she got it from some book of excercises that closely fit whatever pedagogical model was popular that year. I've never heard of it precisely because it is no longer popular. It has fallen out of favor. But why? It was effective. So effective, in fact, that despite my total cynicism, 14 years after my graduation, I am still able to look back on the excercise as absolutely insightful.

Ponder that teachers, for insight is no grounds for immortality. The useful lesson is lost when the "theories" of teaching change and they are only recoverable in a sort of haphazard way--the teacher who kind of remembers doing something "helpful," even though helpful is no longer the correct word.

I will teach quotes tomorrow, and my students will learn; that, or I will return to the primordial version of pedagogy--lessons learned in order to avoid pain.