"The world needs a new, non-polarised, and non-contentious politic; one not made possible by those in situations which promote a left-right, black-white, capitalist-communist, believer-infidel thinking. Such systems are, like it or not, promoting antagonism and destroying cooperation and interdependence. Confrontational thinking, operating through political or power systems, has destroyed cultural, intellectual and material resources that could have been used, in a life centered ethic, for earth repair." Bill Mollison, Permaculture: A Designers Manual 1988 (1999 reprint.)
Chapter 14 is one of the most neglected chapters of the designers manual. There are a lot of Permaculture groups and clubs and societies and...and...and... There are also a few well designed Permaculture village communities. I have never lived in one of these communities, so I cannot comment on how they have been designed, or how they are run. Anyone should feel free to comment on any experiences they have in those places.
At the Permaculture Melbourne (http://www.permaculturemelbourne.org.au/) AGM it has been mentioned a few times that the group is not being run sustainably. Office bearers and volunteer workers are not getting the support they need, or are just simply getting burnt out. It has been suggested that ALL people on Trunk (the management committee) should become fully cognisant of chapter 14.
This has apparently not happened so far, as the minor changes in management style we have had are just barely moving in the direction of a chapter 14 style system.
We don't have party politics, we don't have an oppositional dichotomy. We are still holding decision making meetings (usually only the AGM) to make decisions on office bearers, and occasionally on matters of policy.
Would troikas make it any better? Maybe. We often have trouble finding people to fill positions of responsibility, because the work load is perceived as large. If we had an accounting troika, and a secretary troika (we have moved slightly toward this, by splitting up some parts of thee jobs.) these jobs should be more manageable: we have enough trouble electing the six needed by our constitution, so that is not likely.
Local groups are managed differently. Trunk takes care of insurance and details required to remain an incorporated body, so local groups don't need to do that. Our local group (http://www.sesuburbspermaculture.org.au) doesn't elect office bearers. We have a treasurer and a convenor with the recent addition of a website designer/manager. All these people have volunteered for these positions, and that has been enough. My understanding of chapter 14 is that this is how troikas should be organised: people with relevant skills volunteer. We still have the problem that it is always the same people volunteering, and that communication seems to not happen very well. Our current convenor has asked over the last 12 months for someone else to step into the role.
We also have a bit of an issue with the convenor being seen as the dictator/organiser. We ask for input from others, we ask for other people to organise things, and it just doesn't happen. What else can we do? How can we organise so that the workload is shared? So that people aren't taking on too much and getting burnt out? So that peoples ideas and opinions are seen/heard and valued?
I have to read chapter 14 again. And again. And take some good quality notes. I hardly remember much of it being discussed in my Design Certificate Course. Stay tuned. I'll see what I can come up with. After all, the problem is the solution...
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Education beef. (no, not cows...except in the sense of "don't have a...")
O.K., so the title of my 'blog is supposed to refer to Permaculture ethics, but today, I am looking at education, an important aspect of "Care of People."
I could look at all sorts of issues here: schools saying they have a "student lead curriculum," students being (often wrongly) drugged to modify their behaviour, schools which emphasise that they use "individualised learning programs"...
Beef 1. All students are individuals. (that covers all the three things mentioned above. I may expand later.)
Beef 2. Performing monkeys and language education.
I am a language teacher. I speak a little German, Indonesian and Chinese. I have a university degree that includes a minor (although mot recognised as such by the university, they only recognise majors) in Linguistics. So, why would I not be anooyed with a principal who wants to keep my daughter back in Prep on the basis of her language skills? (He thinks she can't read.)
Point one: Bilingual children (although that is a little bit of a stretch) often develop certain language skills behind monolingual children, but take the final step more suddenly: for example, a bilingual child will often start speaking later, but is more liklely to START with complete sentences then individual words.
Liora CAN read. She is impatient, and would rather guess a word than slow down and work it out. But I can read her a German picture story book, and she can tell me in English the basics of the story.
The problem we have with the school, is that Liora is shy. She will "perform" on things she knows she can do well, but will flatly refuse to do something she is scared of (climbing a ladder for example), lacks confidence in (reading for example) has not done outside of home before (saying names of hebrew letters for example) or doesn't want to do (using pencils when there are markers available....)
SO!! Performing children, who will confidently read for their teacher, but do not have any of the multitude other skills that Liora has, WILL be advanced to grade one. Shy students will be kept back.
The VELS states "The first challenge for children at school is to socialise and connect with teachers and other students, and such engagement – behavioural, emotional and cognitive – remains critical to success throughout schooling. "
(http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/interpersonal/stages.html accessed 17/12/2010) I have italicised that last part, because THAT seems to get to the nub of the matter here. Liora is already shy, and takes time to form new friendship attachments, specially in a large group, like a class. Holding her back is likely to set her back in terms of this "first challenge" which may prove detrimental to her sucess "throughout schooling."
Liora is being partially homeschooled (hence the plethora of language oportunities to which she is exposed) and was sent to school, after discussions with the principal to determine his willingness to accept a partial enrolment, and with the emphasis that we are doing this PRIMARILY for her social development.
The system needs rebuilduing from the ground up if it can't cater for all students with individual differences as small as these. Sure, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But if you've blown a head gasket, a new paint job (such as introducing a "new" national curriculum) won't make a jot of difference.
I could look at all sorts of issues here: schools saying they have a "student lead curriculum," students being (often wrongly) drugged to modify their behaviour, schools which emphasise that they use "individualised learning programs"...
Beef 1. All students are individuals. (that covers all the three things mentioned above. I may expand later.)
Beef 2. Performing monkeys and language education.
I am a language teacher. I speak a little German, Indonesian and Chinese. I have a university degree that includes a minor (although mot recognised as such by the university, they only recognise majors) in Linguistics. So, why would I not be anooyed with a principal who wants to keep my daughter back in Prep on the basis of her language skills? (He thinks she can't read.)
Point one: Bilingual children (although that is a little bit of a stretch) often develop certain language skills behind monolingual children, but take the final step more suddenly: for example, a bilingual child will often start speaking later, but is more liklely to START with complete sentences then individual words.
Liora CAN read. She is impatient, and would rather guess a word than slow down and work it out. But I can read her a German picture story book, and she can tell me in English the basics of the story.
The problem we have with the school, is that Liora is shy. She will "perform" on things she knows she can do well, but will flatly refuse to do something she is scared of (climbing a ladder for example), lacks confidence in (reading for example) has not done outside of home before (saying names of hebrew letters for example) or doesn't want to do (using pencils when there are markers available....)
SO!! Performing children, who will confidently read for their teacher, but do not have any of the multitude other skills that Liora has, WILL be advanced to grade one. Shy students will be kept back.
The VELS states "The first challenge for children at school is to socialise and connect with teachers and other students, and such engagement – behavioural, emotional and cognitive – remains critical to success throughout schooling. "
(http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/interpersonal/stages.html accessed 17/12/2010) I have italicised that last part, because THAT seems to get to the nub of the matter here. Liora is already shy, and takes time to form new friendship attachments, specially in a large group, like a class. Holding her back is likely to set her back in terms of this "first challenge" which may prove detrimental to her sucess "throughout schooling."
Liora is being partially homeschooled (hence the plethora of language oportunities to which she is exposed) and was sent to school, after discussions with the principal to determine his willingness to accept a partial enrolment, and with the emphasis that we are doing this PRIMARILY for her social development.
The system needs rebuilduing from the ground up if it can't cater for all students with individual differences as small as these. Sure, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But if you've blown a head gasket, a new paint job (such as introducing a "new" national curriculum) won't make a jot of difference.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)