Stepping outside the immediate family and slightly away from home education as such but two people who inspired my outlook on family life (which is a cornerstone of home education) were two ladies who probably don’t know to this day how significant they have been in my life choices.
The first, a lady whom recently celebrated her 60th birthday, yet when we were both much younger she provided a place in her home for me for many weekends of my young life. she was the first stay at home mother I had come across and I admired how she not only put her time and energy into her own 4 children while her husband would work for months at a time abroad but also provided a loving stable home for many foster children. I admire and respect her deeply and often hoped i would provide an equal amount of care, time and love for my own children.
secondly the mother of the first large family I encountered. a small home bursting at the seams with 6 children but always happy to see you and always had time for her children. I too hoped i would have a family as happy.

Still before our home ed years and years before i had children of my own there were another two ladies that I would have put in my role model category, Ladies I learnt about in childhood books.
One being Helen Keller and her story of her huge obstacles and difficulties and her challenge to overcome them and her determination to learn, who then went on to teach other students who faced the same difficulties she had faced. How can that not be an inspiring tale and give you the value of determination?
Another was a lady called Margaret Mead, An anthropologist who studies various tribes in her quest to find out how to be happy in life. though a childrens book the tale it’s self is something many people could learn from. She would study the development of children and their interaction within the community to see how it would benefit them later in life and how certain tribes were much happier than others because of what they taught their children.
The book truly shaped my way in the world and I was forever fascinated about the inspirational woman called Margaret Mead.

Coming full circle, back to home education My one true role model would be Michelle Duggar from the Duggar family. I have followed this family for several years on television and though i am aware there are many out there that judge her choices, I respect every single one. She has home educated all of her 19 children, manages to fit in public speaking and book writing while maintaining an amazing home and has many emotionally well developed children who are a credit to her and a benefit to society. Her family values echo my own and I would have truly loved to be lucky enough to meet her one day and in another life I’m sure we would get on great

MY COMMENT: Welcome to the World of smart and tech savvy kids. Old geezers like me are passe. Why? First technology scares me. Maybe at my age, I have become a slow learner tech wise. That makes me fearful of computers and gadgets. Trust them, No. I prefer to rely on my common sense and inborn faculties, flawed as they may be. I imagine what happens when we are overly dependent on computers and related technology for doing business and accessing information when the system breaks down or keeping in touch with family, friends and associates.

I have experienced  situations when the system break downs in my friendly bank. The staff will apologise profusely, but the bottom line is that I can’t do business with the bank until the system is restored. It could take a few hours or days to sort out the bugs. What happens? Second, how to deal with information overload and you can’t separate fact from fiction. Read the ‘wrong’ stuff, you end up getting screwed up with your thinking.

As in all things, we must not be overly dependent on technology. People to people contact remains the most reliable way of communicating. It reminds us that we are human, not some robot devoid of personal and social skills. Educators beware. Pers0nal and social skills development must remain the priority. My friends, CLF and Frank, Hamzah et.al may have something to say on technology and its uses. –Din Merican

Rules for Thinking with Tech

by Annie Murphy Paul (06-17-13) <anniempaul@gmail.com>

Is technology making us stupid—or smarter than we’ve ever been? Author Nicholas Carr memorably made the case for the former in his 2010 book The Shallows: What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains. This fall we’ll have a rejoinder of sorts from writer Clive Thompson, with his book Smarter Than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds For The Better.

My own take: technology can make us smarter or stupider, and we need to develop a set of principles to guide our everyday behavior, making sure that tech is improving and not impeding our mental processes. Today I want to propose one such principle, in response to the important question: What kind of information do we need to have stored in our heads, and what kind can we leave “in the cloud,” to be accessed as necessary?

The answer will determine what we teach our students, what we expect our employees to know, and how we manage our own mental resources. But before I get to that answer, I want to tell you about the octopus who lives in a tree.

In 2005, researchers at the University of Connecticut asked a group of seventh graders to read a website full of information about the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus, or Octopus paxarbolis. The Web page described the creature’s mating rituals, preferred diet, and leafy habitat in precise detail. Applying an analytical model they’d learned, the students evaluated the trustworthiness of the site and the information it offered.

Their judgment? The tree octopus was legit. All but one of the pupils rated the website as “very credible.” The headline of the university’s press release read, “Researchers Find Kids Need Better Online Academic Skills,” and it quoted Don Leu, professor of education at UConn and co-director of its New Literacies Research Lab, lamenting that classroom instruction in online reading is “woefully lacking.”

There’s something wrong with this picture, and it’s not just that the arboreal octopus is, of course, a fiction, presented by Leu and his colleagues to probe their subjects’ Internet savvy. The other fable here is the notion that the main thing these kids need—what all our kids really need—is to learn online skills in school. It would seem clear that what Leu’s seventh graders really require is knowledge: some basic familiarity with the biology of sea-dwelling creatures that would have tipped them off that the website was a whopper (say, when it explained that the tree octopus’s natural predator is the sasquatch).

But that’s not how an increasingly powerful faction within education sees the matter. They are the champions of “new literacies”—or “21st century skills” or “digital literacy” or a number of other faddish-sounding concepts. In their view, skills trump knowledge, developing “literacies” is more important than learning mere content, and all facts are now Google-able and therefore unworthy of committing to memory.

There is a flaw in this popular account. Robert Pondiscio, executive director at the nonprofit organization CitizenshipFirst  (and a former fifth-grade teacher), calls it the “tree octopus problem”: even the most sophisticated digital literacy skills won’t help students and workers navigate the world if they don’t have a broad base of knowledge about how the world actually operates. “When we fill our classrooms with technology and emphasize these new ‘literacies,’ we feel like we’re reinventing schools to be more relevant,” says Pondiscio. “But if you focus on the delivery mechanism and not the content, you’re doing kids a disservice.”

Indeed, evidence from cognitive science challenges the notion that skills can exist independent of factual knowledge. Dan Willingham, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, is a leading expert on how students learn. “Data from the last thirty years leads to a conclusion that is not scientifically challengeable: thinking well requires knowing facts, and that’s true not only because you need something to think about,” Willingham has written. “The very processes that teachers care about most—critical thinking processes such as reasoning and problem solving—are intimately intertwined with factual knowledge that is stored in long-term memory (not just found in the environment).”

Just because you can Google the date of Black Tuesday doesn’t mean you understand why the Great Depression happened or how it compares to our recent economic slump. And sorting the wheat from the abundant online chaff requires more than simply evaluating the credibility of the source (the tree octopus material was supplied by the “Kelvinic University branch of the Wild Haggis Conservation Society,” which sounded impressive to the seventh graders in Don Leu’s experiment). It demands the knowledge of facts that can be used to independently verify or discredit the information on the screen.

There is no doubt that the students of today, and the workers of tomorrow, will need to innovate, collaborate and evaluate, to name three of the “21st century skills” so dear to digital literacy enthusiasts. But such skills can’t be separated from the knowledge that gives rise to them. To innovate, you have to know what came before. To collaborate, you have to contribute knowledge to the joint venture. And to evaluate, you have to compare new information against knowledge you’ve already mastered.

So here’s a principle for thinking in a digital world, in two parts: First, acquire a base of fact knowledge in any domain in which you want to perform well. This base supplies the essential foundation for building skills, and it can’t be outsourced to a search engine.

Second: Take advantage of computers’ invariant memory, but also the brain’s elaborative memory. Computers are great when you want to store information that shouldn’t change—say, the date and time of that appointment next week. A computer (unlike your brain, or mine) won’t misremember the time of the appointment as 3 PM instead of 2 PM. But brains are the superior choice when you want information to change, in interesting and useful ways: to connect up with other facts and ideas, to acquire successive layers of meaning, to steep for a while in your accumulated knowledge and experience and so produce a richer mental brew.

That’s one principle for thinking in a digital world; over the next few months I’ll be introducing others. Now, your turn: Have you discovered any rules for using your mind in a world full of technology?

While I was cooking they would spatter hot grease onto me, able to blame the burns on my “clumsiness”, B would let the metal spatula sit next to the flame on the burner and if I made any form of mistake, over/under cooked anything, spattered grease on the stovetop, spilled anything, or just because she felt like it she would take the searing hot spatula and hit me on whatever bare skin she could find, the edges cutting into my skin as the hot metal singed me. While the others ate I had to clean, scrubbing the stove, floor, counters, doing their dishes, having to scrape partially eaten meals to the dogs or pigs  or having it thrown in my face for being “disgusting” instead of even being allowed to eat that much and if my stomach growled in desperate hunger I was hit.

I ached for the days my mom had no classes and would be home in the day so that I could eat and those occasions when I would have to go with her to class because she needed help carrying her books, during the summer I longed for school because I was guaranteed at least one meal a day on weekdays. I would steal whatever I could from the lunch room trash at school and stuff it in my pockets, frantically eating it every chance I got so I didn’t have to throw it away before I got home. The weeks when my mother was hospitalized each year I would sustain myself on dog and cat food and even steal fistfuls of horse grain from the neighbors farm as I fed the animals and cleaned stalls. I would hide in the corn fields desperately eating raw dent corn to fill my stomach so it wouldn’t growl as I cooked and cleaned during the summer months, sometimes to the point of getting sick, but I never let myself throw up.When we escaped there were several months where food was very sparse, my tiny family was scattered around town, finding shelter where we could, my mom could eat at work, my brother was always well fed at his friends house and I would sneak into dumpsters behind restaurants and eat whatever I could find there.

I was never overly thin because of the dog/cat food and dent corn, but I was seriously malnourished, my “diet” lacking in vitamins and nutrients. During the summer I could balance a little bit by stealing vegetables from the garden, and school lunches during the school year helped, but it all created a great deal of health problems as well as a very unhealthy relationship with food.  Hunger is all consuming, it breaks you down to the most basic of instincts, making you willing to do anything for food, to stop the hunger, the pain, pushed far enough anything suddenly becomes edible.

When I moved out of the area where I was kept I gained about 100lbs, I was constantly eating, if I had food available to me I had to eat it, I was terrified of my stomach being empty, of knowing hunger even in the basic sense. I also eat very very quickly, it is exceptionally difficult for me to slow down when I eat, a desperate attempt to finish before I am caught and it’s taken away, and I will even experience anxiety if there are leftovers. This is a constant battle for me, logistically I know that food will not be withheld from me again, that I can eat whenever I want and whatever I want, but there is a lingering fear, that knowledge in my core that it is always possible, that there could come a day where I will know that hunger again.

I now strive to eat healthier choices, battle with stopping when I am full even when there is food left on my plate and try to slow down as I eat. I do enjoy cooking, making new dishes, feeding the people I love so they never have to know what that kind of hunger feels like. My son loves to eat new things and has opened me up to a great many tastes and expanded my culinary palate (he is a very healthy eater and I have been careful to make sure that he maintains a healthy appetite, his weight has never been a problem) I have lost weight, but I am afraid of doing so.

I don’t know just how much damage was caused by chronic malnourishment as a youth. At 19 I was found to have a severe nutritional imbalance, having significant deficiencies in several vitamins. I was put on a regimen of daily vitamins, at first to balance me out, now to maintain that balance and I have found that if I neglect to take them my pain increases rapidly.

It’s been years since I’ve felt that level of hunger, but it still eats at me…

~E.S.

NONETHELESS, I am still able to have some patient interaction as I am in charge of inputting patient’s information (HPI, Vitals, etc.) into the computer so it is ready when the doctor walks in. During the history I ask the patient what the mechanism of their injury was, how long ago their symptoms occurred, and if there are any other issues of significance. I use this time to really connect with the patient and establish a sense of raport. Even though I am not the doctor (YET!) I enjoy understanding the unique story of each patient. I conversate as long as time permits because I believe that talking with and having them connect with someone in the office gives them an overall better clinical experience.

For various reasons, one must understand that doctors can not spend as much time as they want with patients. Listening to a patient’s life story might take away the doctor’s time from other patients who are in need. I try to replace this job myself by readily accepting to hear each patient’s story while taking their history.
I wanted to write this post specifically for premeds who are trying to gain clinical experience shadowing. I want them to know that there is a difference between working for a private employer and shadowing a doctor because I stumbled upon this unique experience unexpectedly.

Money has never been something my family tossed around. Like many other families, the recession took its toll on my family. A lot of decisions and downsizing had to made, but that’s the beauty of human nature- we adapt.

My parents taught me you don’t know the value of a dollar until you work minimum wage to get it. So I worked 3 jobs in high school to make sure I wouldn’t be burdened by asking my parents for money. I felt like I was sucking the life out of them every time I asked for money, but they still gave it to me when they shouldn’t- because they love me.

When the time came for me to decide on a college I had a very important decision to make. Go to the school that I had worked my butt off to get into or settle for a less prestigious school that costs less? After all, getting a 4.4 GPA while working 3 jobs wasn’t necessarily the easiest and most fun thing to do when all your friends were out livin’ up their high schools days. I had sacrificed a small part of my childhood, or more so really my “teenhood” in order to grow up faster and prepare myself for the real world- or at least the next stage of my life in college.

Selfishly, I chose the more prestigious and expensive school because I felt that I deserved it… Sometimes I wish I ‘d chosen the cheaper school to put less of a strain on my family’s financials. It’s a heavy burden to bear with a $50k annual tuition payment looming over your head.

Tuition costs have increased approximately 60% for private schools over the last 10 years and 104% for public schools! It’s ridiculous.

Students end up hopelessly in debt by the end of college and then can’t even get a job to start paying off their student loans. I’m going into my junior year, and lately I’ve been scared to death of what’s going to happen when I graduate.

What will I be? Who will I be? Am I going to make it, or will I end up jobless and moving back into my parent’s house as a failure.

The future freaks me out.On top of all this talk of the future, I’m worried about keeping my scholarships and maintaining my financial aid. As I posted earlier, the state already took their aid away from me, pretty soon I might not even be able to afford my school at all- it’s already expensive enough.

When I think of the future, it frightens me to think that my nearly  $200,000 college education might not pay off. 

Many people seem to think that it’s fine to throw a nice rug on the floor and maybe stick a poster on the wall and that will suffice. At least, that was me my first year. If you like the spartan look, then by all means, do your thing. But to me, it always seemed embarrassingly empty.

Not only this, but dorm rooms are kind of the same thing as fashion – the way you decorate it tells a lot about you. I remember one of my friends stopped by my room this past semester and gave a satisfied nod. “I’d know this was your room anywhere,” he said. It was a gratifying thing to hear, because I had put a lot of time (and money) into making it look as good as it possibly could.

Now, it’s never going to be your room at home, but it’s not trying to be. Accept it for what it is, and take the scratchy carpet, bare bed, and cluttered furniture as a challenge: see what you can make of it, I dare you!

And now for a couple of before and after photos from my sophomore year of college:

Of course, this transformation took time, dedication, and a fair bit of cash – but more on that later!

Related articles

• List of What a Dorm Room Consists Of: Understanding your new college abode (weberlifedesign.wordpress.com)
• Dorm Room Insights & Must Haves (fatwallet.com)
• College Tip Thursday: Dorm Decor and Storage! (arabellamag.wordpress.com)

Good tutors and trainers have always embedded the literacy and numeracy that their learners need. However, this usually happens in what I call stealth mode.

It’s hard to identify the specific literacy and numeracy that’s in your course if it’s in stealth mode. One of the first steps to get it out of stealth mode is to switch on your embedded literacy and numeracy radar.

This means that you need to develop your own heightened awareness of the actual literacy and numeracy that already underpins your teaching and training. And to do that you need to think about your own particular context.

You can develop these superpowers on your own. However, it’s easier if you get involved in some kind of professional development. Now you can do that online for free.

Make sure literacy and numeracy are on your radar today…

When your child has a question, don’t answer it immediately! Show them how to research the answer on their own, so they can know how to do it when you’re not around. There are many websites offering simple information which children of any age could understand, so point them in that direction.

Know that you do not have to work on every subject everyday. Most public schools do not even have children go to each class everyday; for instance, while your child may go to science on Monday and Wednesday, they go to math on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. This is the same kind of pattern you should use when homeschooling.

Let your kids take the reins. Simply pay attention to what your kid is interested in each day. If you see them doing something or even watching something on TV that you can turn into a learning lesson, use it to your advantage. By allowing your kids to learn about what they are interested in, you are going to make learning joyous and easy.

It is okay to use computers when homeschooling your children, do not completely rely on them. As you probably already know, computers are very prone to problems like viruses and freezes. Because of these problems, it is important that you continue to use textbooks and other physical materials as well.

Create a schedule for when the kids are in class and when they’ll get breaks. They can’t learn all day long! You need to adhere to the schedule as tightly as possible to ingrain the routine into everyone’s lives, even yours. The more you stick to the plan, the better the outcome.

Homeschooling is not complete without a library card. The library is the greatest resource you will find for homeschooling. With varied offerings like textbooks, music, movies and of course, books, you will have nearly everything you need at your fingertips. The library are also great for field trips during the week for the kids.

Give children household chores or hire someone to do them. It is hard to do everything. Grocery shopping, household chores, and childcare can really drain you quickly. You needn’t feel guilty about accepting help, and you should accept it every chance you get.

Finding time to cook at big meal at the end of the day can be tough when you are homeschooling children. Plan your meals ahead of time and precook as much as you can. Baking a lasagna during the weekend and freezing portions can really be a lifesaver during the week when you don’t feel like cooking.

Language

Teach your children Latin and Greek root words. So much of the English language is rooted in these two. Your children will gain a greater comprehension of the words they see and hear. It will also help them on college testing. Understanding how language works is beneficial in a number of every day applications.

Look for thematic activities. There are a number of books on the market for this. You can also create your own. This is where you take one activity and apply it to several different applications. Incorporating math, science, and language arts into am activity increases the learning for children. It can also simplify your planning.

Hopefully this article has given you some insight into why homeschooling is becoming more and more popular. The tips that have been presented to you are aimed at helping you become part of an educational process that is both meaningful and rewarding for your child. Make use of this information and get the ball rolling.

You may also visit: classical language program

“It definitely is not a good news budget. We’re looking at more than 300 staff having to be reduced because of this budget, and that is the worst news,” said EPSB Chair Sarah Hoffman following the meeting.

“Those people, no matter what capacity they work in, they work to support students.”

The decision comes after the board was forced to cut $46.9 million from next year’s budget.

“Unfortunately, our provincial allocations have been cut so substantially that we can’t continue to maintain the status quo,” explained Hoffman.

“The hardest part is that we were planning for a two per cent budget increase that was promised, and instead we’re facing more than a three per cent budget cut.  And it’s really sad news.”

Hoffman says the board will try to focus the cuts on central supports instead of classrooms, in the hopes of protecting students and much as possible.

Of the jobs being cut, about 180 will be teaching positions.

“We’re doing everything we can to make sure that we see as many staff reductions through attrition through people retiring or going on leaves, but there will be a net difference of more than 300 less people to serve student needs and that’s definitely bad news.”

The board hopes 70 per cent of the cuts will come through resignations or retirements.

Still, Hoffman says the district will be dealing with more students with fewer staff.

“We will have more kids and we will have less teachers, so of course, class size will be impacted to some degree.”

The board’s budget document shows total projected student enrolment for 2013-2014 is 84,661. That’s an increase of 1,220 students.

“It’s really unfortunate. We wish that this wasn’t the budget that we were handed down by the province, we’re doing everything we can with the resources we have, but it won’t be easy.”

Hoffman says it’s been very difficult telling staff about the cuts.

“It’s been hard… it’s never easy to say goodbye and thank you. We wish we weren’t in this situation.”

View the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting here.

Follow @Emily_Mertz

From June 3^rd- 7^th Deidre Clark, Kuumba Community Art’s Founder attended the The Straight A’s Institute  with teaching artist Karen Erikson. During the four-day training, which was held at the Birmingham City Museum, participants learned  to create arts based curricula that is consistent with Birmingham City’s School Standards.

The teaching artist covered a number of ways to integrate arts into almost any lesson plan, which would lead to better student engagement, stronger arts instruction and higher academic achievement.

Straight A’s (Arts Advance Academic Achievement) is a federally funded program that was created to integrate arts into elementary and middle school curricula.  This is the first time a federally funded program such as this has been implemented in Alabama.

“The Straight A’s training was particularly helpful because of how it fits into Kuumba’s goals of using art as a tool to foster learning and self-esteem in elementary and middle school children,” said Deidre Clark.

Straight A’s is a joint partnership between the Kennedy Center, Birmingham City School District, and the Cultural Alliance of Greater Birmingham.

For more information on Straight A’s please visit: http://goo.gl/isrkc

]]> http://stephenmath.com/2013/06/19/qr-codes-in-maths/ Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:03:32 +0000 Stephen McConnachie http://stephenmath.com/2013/06/19/qr-codes-in-maths/

How do you use QR codes in your Maths teaching? Here’s one suggestion on a homework sheet, keen to hear your ideas!

Product Description

Abilitations Pea Pod Jr. is an inflatable student calming station that provides deep-touch pressure to help calm children with sensory processing issues. Its sides help add a cocoon-like calming effect and assist with defining spatial boundaries. Most children can get in the pod themselves to apply deep, even pressure to many sensitive areas of the body. It is made of heavy gauge vinyl with triple-welded seams for strength and durability and a soft, flocked vinyl surface for comfort. Pea Pod Jr. is 48″ (112cm) and is surface washable. Special needs products are designed to improve sensory processing, positioning and mobility, fine and gross motor skills, and language and communication skills for students with learning challenges. Sensory processing products and exercises can help the nervous system receive messages from the senses and turn them into appropriate motor and behavioral responses.School Specialty manufactures and distributes instructional materials and supplies under dozens of brands, among them Abilitations, Think Math, Delta Education, Frey Scientific, Childcraft, School Smart, and Speech Bin. The company, founded in 1959, is headquartered in Greenville, WI.

Tag : 01-Abilitations Integrations Pea Pod Inflatable Student Calming Station – Junior Size – 48 Inches – Green, 02-Abilitations Integrations Pea Pod Inflatable Student Calming Station – Junior Size – 48 Inches – Green, 03-Abilitations Integrations Pea Pod Inflatable Student Calming Station – Junior Size – 48 Inches – Green, 04-Abilitations Integrations Pea Pod Inflatable Student Calming Station – Junior Size – 48 Inches – Green

Before converting training materials to an online format, the training manager should consider whether or not the trainers and trainees are familiar with the required technologies. First and foremost, the manager should consider what technology will be used and determine whether or not the participants know how to use it. Once a course management system is chosen, the training manager should decide what portions of the LMS are going to be utilized in the training; for example, usage of the course calendar, announcements, assignments, discussion forums, Web links, and grade books (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012). If it is determined that trainers and trainees do not know how to use the required technology, the training manager should implement training programs to show all users how to effectively utilize the LMS and new learning materials. It is essential for designers to effectively train all users in the software they will be using (Laureate Education, 2012). The training manager should also consider the general ability of the trainees, as to whether or not they will take charge of their education and succeed in a hybrid format (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012).

Since the main purpose of creating this training in a hybrid format is to improve communication, this program can be enhanced through the use of discussion forums. In a face-to-face course, some students may not participate because the conversation is monopolized by more outgoing students, and introverts can easily be left out. By creating an online discussion forum, all students are required to make an initial post and respond to a specified number of classmates in order to receive credit. This requires participation from all students in the class/training program, whereas discussion in a face-to-face classroom is not as easily measured. “During discussions, some students may need a brief period to prepare an adequate answer to a question. Advance warning that a question is headed their way can ease discomfort and give the students time to think of an answer” (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012, p. 231). This can make trainees feel more comfortable participating in training discussions.

When creating a new delivery format for a class or training program, the trainer should consider how their role will change when interacting with the students/trainees. According to Dr. George Piskurich, the methods used to facilitate online and traditional courses are the same (Laureate Education, 2012). Facilitators must stay in constant contact with the students, participate in discussions, and show learners that they care about their success in the same manner in a face-to-face course as they would in an online course (Laureate Education, 2012).

The training manager can encourage trainees to participate in online discussions by: training all of the participants on how to use the required technologies within the LMS, require active participation in order to pass the class/training, and partake in the discussions while asking students probing questions to promote critical thinking and discussion. It should also be made known to the trainees that all discussions in the online forum will be continued within the face-to-face component of the course, and that all materials and discussions in the LMS are used to increase participation and make access to materials more readily available.

View the Best Practices Guide for converting the face-to-face training to a hybrid training here:

WK7GuideJurgessR

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance. [DVD]. “Facilitating Online Learning”. Boston, MA: Dr. George Piskurich & Jacqueline Chauser.

Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp (2011). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5^th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

One of the items on my check list was to attend a retreat with my colleagues titled Searching for Your Heart of Gold. When I first arrived at the retreat, I had a laundry list of things that I could be getting done racing through my head. Breakfast was served and still, all I could think about was pushing forward to the next big thing so that I could hurry even faster to something else. Finally the speaker arrived and she gave an assignment to complete: define who we are. I was so grateful to have something to do so I could push forward to what’s next that I was quick to get started. But I realized that rushing through her assignment wouldn’t do me any good. I took a deep breath and slowly began to open myself up to the activity of defining who I am.

We couldn’t define ourselves by the roles that we have like being a mom or our jobs. Rather we had to define what characteristics make us unique, what qualities feed our souls. I’ll be very honest, it was so hard to do. It took me many moments to define me and remember what feeds my soul. It’s something that is still on my mind, how can I take care of myself when I am losing myself in the day-to-day checklists I keep creating.

After the speaker finished and we had time for lunch and reflection, I took a walk around the space we were in. The sun was shining and I literally took time to slow down and think about the things that make me, me. I am creative. I am faithful. I am observant. I am kind. I am reflective. I am a thinker. I am a reader. I am passionate. I am a planner. I am a worrier. I am loyal.

I realized that in creating my check lists, I wasn’t part of the list. Everyone and everything else was on my list, but I was nowhere to be found. I wasn’t nurturing my soul so that I could continue to be the best me I can be!

In the field of early childhood, there are so many check lists that need to be taken care of, observations that need to be written, toys that need to be cleaned and rotated, parents that need to be greeted, children needing lunch, tables needing to be cleaned and sanitized. I could go on. My hope for all of us professionals in the field of early childhood is that we take time to add ourselves to our check lists. Take time to care for yourself so that you can continue to be rejuvenated and refreshed in the work you do each day.

- Angie

Reblogged from Assembling Digital Media - Summer 2013:

We learned the basics of creating animated GIFs in Photoshop. How do you like my amazing realistic kinda awful seagull?

I can hear the fundamentalist guardians of the truth bleating already. After all, you can’t mention their Bible without the hackles being raised. Not if you’re queer, anyway.

Sheep though they may be proud to be, I doubt their shepherd would have any problem with the terms ~ either of them!.

But then, The Shepherd would know what Biblical Dysphoria is, and what the alternative is also.

I can’t see those who consider they own the term ‘Queen of Heaven’ being exactly thrilled either.

So why use these terms?

Is it to offend?

Certainly not.

I am defined, clinically, by the term dysphoria and do I find it offensive?

I’m called a lot worse, too.

The word dysphoria comes from from the Greek dusphori, meaning distress, from dusphoros, meaning hard to bear. Dusdysphoria is, then, a state or mood of dissatisfaction, restlessness, or anxiety.

Dysphoric is the adjective.

Dictornary definitions vary and include:

dys•pho•ri•a (ds-fôr-, -fr-) ~ An emotional state characterized by anxiety, depression, or unease;

dysphoria – abnormal depression and discontent;

Others speak of depression – sad feelings of gloom and inadequacy, discontent (again), discontentedness, discontentment – a longing for something better than the present situation

Dysphoria is, of course, the downside of euphoria.

So where does this fit as a term to define some aspect of The Bible.

Simple ~ literalists consider those with gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder or Harry Benjamin Syndrome as being sinners because of it.

The question is often asked: “What does the Bible say about transsexualism / transgenderism? Is gender identity disorder / gender dysphoria the result of sin?” http://www.gotquestions.org/transsexualism-gender-identity-disorder.html

Of course, the answer is yes, because Bible literalists ~ like Joe McCarthy and communists ~ see sinners under every bed.

The following answer is provided on the listed website:

‘Transsexualism, also known as transgenderism, Gender Identity Disorder (GID), or gender dysphoria, is a desire to change one’s sex or to fulfill the role of the opposite gender. Transsexuals / transgenders usually describes themselves as “trapped” in a body that does not match their gender. They will probably practice transvestism / transvestitism and may also seek hormone therapy and/or surgery to bring their bodies into conformity with their perceived gender.

The Bible has plenty to say about human sexuality.

Most basic to our understanding of sex is that God created two (and only two) genders: “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). All the modern-day speculation about numerous genders—or even a gender “continuum” with unlimited genders—is unbiblical.’

This, in itself, shows a certain degree of anticipatory manipulation. People experiencing gender dysphoria ~ whether M2F or F2M ~ still identify as male or female. The idiosyncracy is biological, not semantic, not binary.

Some even have the audacity to suggest they live outside the binary.

The website continues –

‘In Psalm 139, we learn that God fashions each one of us. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. . . . My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. . . . your eyes saw my unformed body” (verses 13-16). God’s creation of each individual must surely include His designation of gender/sex. His wonderful work leaves no room for mistakes; no one is born with the “wrong body.”’

It seems a long haul from, on the one hand, saying that what God has created is perfect and, on the other, that there is no room for mistakes. If the crippled child is as God made it and thereby perfect, so is the transgendered person. Doesn’t this mirror the literalist’s argument?

But that’s the literalist’s crutch, isn’t it? Not that literalists have an achilles heel. Oh, no, they have God on their side.

Don’t they?

It’s all about choice for the literalists.

Their cyclic argument would have it that being transgendered (how I hate that word), being gay or lesbian is a choice rather than a condition made ` or allowed ~ by God.

I guess if you live in a cave and have never met a queer person you might think that ~ but it’s simply baloney.

The web-answer is further developed:

‘After the fall of man, it did not take long for gender issues to become confused. In Abraham’s day, homosexuality was widespread in some cities (Genesis 19:1-7; Jude 7). The Bible is unmistakably clear that homosexuality is a sinful perversion of God’s gift of sexuality (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).’

I’m seriously concerned that Leviticus is missed from this litany of interpretive misrepresentation.

‘In the Law, transvestism / transvestitism was specifically forbidden: “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this” (Deuteronomy 22:5).’

Yet priests wear frocks … sorry, robes.

And most of the representations of Jesus I was presented with as I grew up had him in quite a comely smock.

‘Another possible reference to transsexualism is 1 Corinthians 6:9, where “male prostitutes” is listed as a separate category from “homosexual offenders.” The King James Version uses the word “effeminate” here; that is to say, the “male prostitutes” might be transsexual men who act as women.’

And the literalists fail to remind us that the King James version is a translation from a translation, never a particularly reputable method of ensuring accuracy.

‘The Bible calls all such gender distortion sin.’

‘Transgenderism is not genetically based’ ~ the author says ~ ‘and it is not simply a psychological disorder; it is rebellion against God’s plan. But following this realization is good news: sin can be forgiven and lives can be changed through faith in Christ. The Corinthian believers are an example of such a change: “And [homosexuals] is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). There is hope for any sinner, transsexuals, transgenders, and transvestites included, because of God’s forgiveness available in Jesus Christ.’

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

It’s as simple as that.

Well, it is if you’re as simple as that.

But if you’re not, then you’ll know that gender dysphoria is a medico/clinical condition with an hormonal in-utero source.

Like many birth disabilities it can be corrected ~ and without the need to ever suggest that God got it wrong.

God got it right ~ he gives us all specific challenges and this is the challenge for the gender dysphoric.

This, and dealing with the pervasive stupidity of Bible literalists.

And of course there’s good old ~ and I mean old ~ Deuteronomy.

Deut 22:6-12

6 If you come across a bird’s nest beside the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young or on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young.

7 You may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go, so that it may go well with you and you may have a long life.

8 When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.

9 Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled.

10 Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together.

11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

12 Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.

If we’re not allowed to dress like the opposite sex because the Bible says so, maybe we should be observing some of the other ‘laws’ listed above as well.

Mind you, I am careful to keep my ox and goat apart when I ploughing.

But what about those two offending verses that condemn the transgendered?

Do they really, when translated carefully and accurately, issue such a condemnation?

The first verse, from the two relevent translations, is:

Deut 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. (KJV)

Deut 22:5
A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. (NIV)

This verse presents difficulties because of the way it has been translated.

Put simply, an accurate translation from the Hebrew would be:

‘Never cause (or force) a warriors weapon to be used by a woman or weak person; neither dress warriors armour on a woman or weak person for to Yahveh, God of Host, disgusting is such that do so.’

The background to this is historical and is as follows:

‘Jewish soldiers adopted women’s dress as a camouflage during military operations. Josephus, first-century historian, recorded this custom as part of the strategy of a band of soldiers led by John of Gishala:

While they decked their hair, and put on women’s garments, and were besmeared with ointments: and that they might appear very comely, they had paint under their eyes, and imitated not only the ornaments, but also the busts of women . . . while their faces looked like the faces of women, they killed with their right hands; and when their gait was effeminate, they presently attacked men and became warriors . . . and drew their swords from under their finely dyed cloaks, and killed everybody whom they came upon.’ (Whiston, 1777:242)

The second verse is, mercifully, from the New Testament.

It’s worth remembering that this translation (and other versions that generate from this one) are the only ones that use the word ‘effeminate’.

Later we’ll ask why.

In this verse there are problems with the translation, the interpretation of some of the words and the translating from the original.

1 Cor 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (KJV)

1 Cor 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. (NIV)

It has to be said that these two versions are so at odds with each other and the original as to be meaningless in a modern context.

There is considerable room for debate around the use of the term ‘effeminate’ and also the concept of ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ and the extraordinary ‘male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders’.

From the 16th to the 18th centuries the term “effeminate” did not mean what it means to us today but was applied to a class of men who were notorious womanizers.

They were flamboyantly heterosexual.

Another source tells us: ‘These men pursued women as a career, often living off the older rich women whom they seduced. These men were so interested in seducing women that they disdained the world of men to live in the world of women. So instead of being with the men in the hunt, in the tavern, and in the smoking room discussing politics, they spent all their time with women in the parlour, at tea and in the garden gossiping, playing cards and talking fashion.

These men were concerned greatly about fashion, but only about male fashion. The most famous of these men was Casanova. This is the kind of man that people thought of in the 16th-18th Century when the word “effeminate” was used.

An etymological look at the time which backs this up is the word weakling, coined by Tyndale 1526 from weak as a loan-translation of Luther’s Weichling “effeminate man,” from Ger. weich “soft”.

Thus we can see how to the KJV translators the word “effeminate” might have seemed to them an appropriate term for the idea of the morally soft and weak.’

If this is correct then the term ‘effeminate’ had nothing to do with men who want to be women but, rather, men who, in the eyes of the real men of the day, had no moral fibre.

The above alternatives to the bigot translations simply observe that there is no scriptural basis for condemnation, scorn, or reproof of the transgendered but another, historically accurate, interpretation altogether.

The following is an interesting article which argues the same premise but from a literalist’s perspective. I have reproduced it in its entirety.

Homosexuality, Bisexuality, Transgender in the Bible

When we use the most conservative sources available today for our Bible research, we find the Bible does not condemn persons whose sexual orientation is other than heterosexuality.

When studying what the Bible has to say on Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Transdender Expressions, we use The Strong’s Concordance, Young’s Concordance, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, The King James Version of the Bible, The New King James Version of the Bible, the New International Version Study Bible, Hebrew and Greek Interlinear Bibles, Liddell and Scott Greek Dictionaries, Vine’s Dictionaries, and many other “Conservative” standard resources.

These are the very sources of scholarship used by so-called “Christian” groups that claim the Bible condemns us. What we have found is these are the very sources of scholarship that clearly show we are not condemned in the Bible. We have found that the more “Conservative” the approach to the Bible, the more one leans on “Conservative” resources such as those named above, the more clearly one will see the Bible makes no condemnation of us. In fact, there are wonderful and famous examples of male and female same-sex loves, bisexual loves, and even a couple of gender alternative expressions in key places in our Bible. Therefore, we declare in the Name of Jesus Christ, that the Bible does not condemn the Christian Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender person, or Heterosexual person who supports us.

The writer of this paper, Br. Shawn Francis Benedict, Pastor of Ray Of Hope Church, starts from the point of view that the Holy Bible is the inerrant (contains no errors), inspired Word of God, and is the ONLY infallible (unerring, certain) authority on which the Christian can base his or her Salvation. To be frank, this is just about the most Conservative Hermeneutical (science of interpretation) approach one can take to the Bible today. When this Literal method of Biblical Interpretation is correctly applied to the subject of Homosexuality the conclusion is astonishingly the opposite of the teaching that is often proclaimed by “Conservative Christians” or the “Christian Right.” “Conservative Christians” claim to be interpreting the Bible “literally” when studying Homosexuality. In fact, it will be shown here that their own method of Biblical Interpretation (the Literal Method) proves the Bible in no citation of chapter or verse ever condemns true Homosexuals or their mutual expressions of Love.

At the same time, we do not abandon the Holy Scriptures for a “Liberal Left” point of Theology. To abandon the Literal interpretation is spiritual suicide for the GLBTQS Christian. The Holy Scriptures are our ONLY sure defense to show God’s position in this matter. Sometimes I summarize the problem this way: the Christian Right believes they are SO RIGHT that they end up totally WRONG, and the Christian Liberal Left has gone so far to the “left” that there is nothing LEFT in their theology or belief system. Both positions are not Biblical. The Bible actually defends us against both the “left” and the “right.” To assist the reader with further inquiry the sources used herein are listed on the last page. Sources will be referenced in this paper by listing the author’s last name and citing the page of the source where the ideas and information are confirmed by that author. For example, (see Boswell page 1).

WHAT THE BIBLE DOES CONDEMN THAT IS MISREPRESENTED AS HOMOSEXUALITY:

The Bible clearly mentions SAME – SEX ACTS and unconditionally condemns them when they are in the context of ritual cult prostitution, idolatry, engaged in by married heterosexual men, AND general ‘free sex’ usually referred to as “fornication” by most denominational dogmatic systems.

SPECIFIC PASSAGES SUPPOSED TO CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY:

THE STORY OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH Genesis 19:1-26

Statement:
“Surely the word “SODOMY” comes from this story.”

Response:
Actually, the name Sodom was not attached to Homosexual relations until the Middle Ages. The closest word for “homosexual” in Latin or any vernacular was “SODOMITA”. (see Boswell, page 93)

The etymology (origin and development) of the word “SODOMY” has rendered it to mean many things throughout history including ordinary heterosexual intercourse in an atypical position, even oral sexual contact with animals, exclusively male homosexuality, and even almost exclusively heterosexual excess. (see Boswell, page 93)

Even in some States “Sodomy” can mean sexual contact between married Heterosexual persons.

Statement: “Surely the sin of Sodom was that the men of Sodom tried to rape the Angels of God.”

Response:
There is absolutely no indication that the men even entertained the thought of doing such an act. Would this mean that all the men of Sodom were Homosexual? That is absurd in and of itself. This wrong interpretation is based on the phrase : “Bring them [Lot's visitor's - angels in some traditions, men in others] unto us, that we may KNOW them.” (Genesis 19:5) To “KNOW them” is supposed to mean “to have them sexually, to rape them”.

Statement: Of course it meant sexually!!

After all, in Genesis 4:1 Adam KNEW Eve….

Response: True enough with Adam and Eve; however, the same word is in verse 3:7 “They knew they were naked.”. Surely this same word did not mean sexually… To clarify the issue we have to be LITERAL here and look at the Hebrew (original as we have it) word and see what word was used in Genesis 19:5. The Hebrew word is yadha. In the Strong’s Concordance numbering system it is word #3045.

According to Biblical word scholars F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, the word yadha appears in the Hebrew Bible 943 times. D.S. Bailey (1955) argues it is used only 10 times, excluding Gen 19 and its derivative Judges chapter 19, to denote any sense of sexual intercourse (sexual coitus). (See Bailey, page 2)

The 931 times the word yadha , to know, appears in the Hebrew Bible, it means simply to be acquainted with, or be informed about just as plainly as it does in English. McNeill asserts the very few times it might be used used to denote sexual coitus, it is always heterosexual intercourse . McNeill explains the word normally used in the Old Testament for both homosexual and heterosexual coitus and bestiality is shakhabh (word #7902).

(See McNeill, page 42 & Boswell, page 94F)

Statement:
If this is true why did the men of Sodom demand to be informed of who was in Lot’s house? And, why were they blinded by the visitors??

Response:
The men of the City demanded to know who was in the house because Lot was violating the city rules. He was not a citizen by birth right. He was only a ‘sojourner’ and therefore had only limited rights.

Genesis 19:9
And they said, “Stand back!” Then they said, “This one came in to sojourn, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them.” So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door.

Because Lot was himself an alien to the city he had the obligation to inform the others when strangers were staying with him. He did not do this. The men were enraged when Lot refused to hand over the persons he was housing without their permission. Lot was a good and holy man. He was Abraham’s nephew. Lot was far more concerned with ancient Laws of Hospitality to Strangers (and travelers) than he was about the laws of the City of Sodom.

Exodus 22:21
“You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Exodus23:9
“Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 19:33 ‘
And if a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him.

Leviticus 19:34
‘But the stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Lot was more willing to hand over his own virgin daughters to the men than to have the Laws of Hospitality violated with his guests. Choosing the “visitors” over his own daughters seems horrific to us today but it indicates how seriously these Laws of Hospitality to the Stranger were to be observed.

Biblical scholars have embraced this interpretation (that the city was destroyed for disregarding the sacred laws of hospitality to the stranger, and in this case visitors sent from God) since around 1955. Scholars also recommend that sexual overtones in the story are faint, if suggested at all. In the original interpretive traditions the moral of the story was about hospitality to the stranger and failure to respond to the offer of Salvation made by the visitors. (See Boswell, page 93)

Personally, I also believe Lot knew how serious the rejection of the offer of Salvation was. Lot clearly heard the messengers announce that everyone who wanted to be saved from the destruction of the city needed to leave, that is, be “saved.” Lot believed them and realized they were not only “strangers” according to the laws but he knew they were God’s personal messengers of Salvation. For Lot, the protection of God’s messengers was even more important than his own daughters, for surely they would have been “saved” if they had died for the message of God. However, do notice they are NOT harmed and are clearly mentioned in the story as escaping the city in the morning.

Statement:
JESUS talked about the destructions of Sodom and Gomorrah……

Response:
YES He did and we are so thankful He mentioned it the way He did. Jesus made reference to the sin of Sodom as inhospitable treatment of visitors sent from the Lord.!!!!

Jesus refers to Sodom and Gomorrah only in the context of sending his own disciples out to preach the Gospel.

Matthew 10:11-14:
Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. and when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive yo nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and gomorrah in that day of judgement than for that city!

Luke 10:8-12:
Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, ‘the very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you. But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city.

Jesus tells them to go into a town. They are, therefore, sojourners, travellers, strangers bearing the message of God’s SALVATION for the people. This is exactly what the ‘visitors’ of Genesis 19 were. Only now, in the Church Age, Jesus’ disciples are delivering the Gospel, a far more important message (by implication only, for salvation is by Grace in every dispensation) than the salvation message the Old Testament Good News bearers were bringing to the cities of the Plains. Jesus tells His disciples, the Ambassadors of the New Covenant:

“Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement, than for that city.”
(Matt. 10:14-15, CF Luke 10:10-12)

In other words, Jesus says the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and burned because they would not receive the Word of God in the Old Testament; but any City that will mistreat you (my disciples) or refuse to hear the Word of God in the New Gospel of Jesus Christ shall bear a heavier punishment.

So how is any of the above dysphoric?

You will recall some hours ago when you began reading this diatribe that I went to considerable length to define dysphoria as an emotional state characterized by anxiety, abnormal depression, unease, discontent, sad feelings of gloom and inadequacy, indeed, a longing for something better than the present situation.

Now that we have that set of sociopathic semantics firmly in place you won’t be surprised to find that people who identify as transgendered suffer, according to the American Psychological Association, from GID (Gender Identity Disorder), Harry Benjamin Syndrome (after the foremost researcher in this field) or, yes, you guessed, Gender Dysphoria.

Interesting ~ in that my personal experience would suggest that most M2F transsexuals (whakawahine in my country) are quite the opposite. They are happy to be what they are, they are no more discontented than the average Josephine and, apart from a tendency to clinical depression relating to the oestrogen and testosterone blockers they take experience no more doom and gloom or anxiety than anyone else owning a petrol engine in 2008 might enjoy from their daily life.

On the other hand, Bible literalists are forever anxious, anxious and fearful in ways that only those deeply uncertain about their certainty might feel, longing always for the next world which will be infinitely better than this one and ultimately inadequate, even in their smug assurances that they alone know ‘the truth’.

Which is where we came in – if I remember correctly.

And why this Biblical dysphoria, this anxiety, this dissatisfaction?

My instinct is it has something to do with a thing called ‘faith’.

And an ultimate distrust in the certainty that they live and which they so often call ‘faith’.

But that’s never going to work, is it?

Why?

Because the whole point of faith is that it isn’t certain, it isn’t proven, it is … well, it’s faith, isn’t it?

Simple faith.