The surprising truth about what motivate teachers

What really motivates us?  Once basic money is off the table (i.e. get enough to buy the basics), there are really three main things that drive us:

1. Autonomy:  We like to be self-directed.  Pink says employers should realize their employees probably want to do something interesting; they just need to get out of their way.  

2. Mastery:  It is fun and satisfying to get really good at something (i.e. learning the guitar, working on open source software).
 
3. Purpose:  We want to feel we are doing something important with our lives. Additionally, when the profit motive is not aligned with the purpose motive, bad things happen - a common problem in healthcare!

What consequences does this have in education?

I think these apply very well to a teacher’s life, and explain why we will push ourselves very hard - we enjoy our autonomy, we enjoy mastering our skills, and our high level purpose is fulfilling.   However, what we don't like is when others try and tell us what to do (i.e. Junta de Andalucía, politicians, other teachers, parents, students), when we are told to master something we don't particularly enjoy (i.e. not all teachers love doing millions of continuous formation courses especially when they are really useless), and when we start feeling like our purpose is to fill loads of papers - bureocracy - instead of focusing on students.  

As for students, I think this theory helps explain why we fail so often at helping them.  They need to feel they are doing it themselves (autonomy), they need to find something they enjoy mastering (a lot of students don't like homework), and they need to see a tighter link between their actions and their ultimate "purpose" (which is likely to pass their tests).

So as we talk about further doing continuous formation courses, changing constantly our methodology, reforming our educational programmes again and again, and changing the very nature of teaching... let's remember both students and teachers are still human, and will be driven by these old motivations.  In other words, when making a change... think deeply about how you can best align autonomy, mastery and purpose - and you will clearly improve your chances of success!

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” (George Bernard Shaw)

The 1931 Constitution granted suffrage to women

The Second Republic (1931-1936) generated important legislative work and women were granted many new rights of which they had been hitherto deprived. The 1931 Constitution granted suffrage to women. Spain was therefore one of the first among South European states to enfranchise women. In 1932, laws on divorce and civil marriage were passed. Women were accorded full legal status; abortion was legalised, the crime of adultery was abolished and legal measures ensuring women's equal access to the labour market were taken.

The Second Republic: The conquery of women’s vote

Women’s vote was given in the context of the reforms introduced in the legislation of the Spanish Second Republic (1931-1936). The political coherence of politicians self-called “democratic” forced a revision of discriminatory laws and the concession of women’s right to vote. The process was a complex one. It was common ground for both left and right wing parties that most women, with the strong influence of the Catholic Church, were deeply conservative.

Some important feminists such as Margarita Nelken (on the left) and the radical socialist Victoria Kent (on the right), who had been elected MPs for the Constitutive Parliament of 1931, rejected the concession of women’s right to vote. They thought women were not yet ready to assume the right to vote and if given, their vote would be in the benefit of the most conservative forces.

Clara Campoamor

Clara Campoamor, also MP of the Radical Party, assumed apassionate defense of feminine vote. She argued at the Parliament that individual rights required an equal treatment for both men and women and democratic principles had to ensure the writing of a republican Constitution based on equality and on the elimination of any discrimination based on sex. According to a decree passed by the provisional republican government in May 1931 men over 23 were given the right to vote. Women and priests had no right to vote, but could be elected to Parliament. Clara Campoamor and Victoria Kent were the only elected MPs among 465 members in the Parliament. Margarita Nelken entered Parliament by the end of that year.

The debate in the Republican Parliament

The debate which took place in the Republican Constitutive Parliament regarding women’s vote is one of the most interesting of the period, due to the alteration of the classic division between right and left. Left wing republicans, radical socialists and radicals were the political groups which opposed most to the concession of women’s right to vote. The central idea of their perspective was

the belief that women’s vote would be a conservative one. However, within the debate some droll arguments slipped in: that women’s vote could turn into a source of disagreement for couples; that women were not capable of voting as they were mainly dominated by emotion and not reflections; women lacked

intelligence and drive etc. To avoid these women’s incapability some MPs proposed to limit the right to vote to women over 45, or it was even considered

to pass an election law that allowed women’s vote provisionally– it it was discovered that women’s vote was mainly for the most conservative parties women’s vote would be suppressed again!

The result of the debate

In the end suffragette thesis won 161 to 121. Socialists voted for women’s right to vote in coherence with their ideological principles, with some relevant exception as Indalecio Prieto who even stated that women’s vote was a ‘tab against the Republic’. Some small republican groups and the right wing parties also voted for women’s right to vote. The right wing parties led by the idea -later proved to be wrong– that women’s vote would be massively conservative. The fact that in the 1933 elections, the first ones in which women could vote, the parties of the right won made many state the feminine natural tendency towards voting conservative. The 1936 victory of the Popular Front came to deny such ideas.

The 1931 Constitution

The 1931 Constitution meant an enormous advance in the fight for women’s rights. Not only did it include in its text women’s right to vote but everything related to the family was legislated from a perspective of freedom and equality: marriage based on equality between husband and wife, right to vote, parents’ duties with their siblings...

The Divorce Law (1932) also meant a milestone in the attainment of women’s rights. Very advanced for the time the law was passed after a great controversy in which the Church threatened not to administer the sacraments to the divorced who remarried. Despite the absence of a powerful feminist movement, the Republic was placing Spain in legal aspects at the same level of the most evolved

countries concerning equality between the sexes. In this aspect, the 1936 military rising and the Civil War put an end to this evolution. The division of Spain in two opposing and belligerent societies had an immediate reflex in women conditions.

Historical events

Here you have some possible explanations for these sentences

King Mansa Musa, emperor of Ghana, goes on pilgrimage

Musa's pilgrimage to Mecca became famous. He began it in 1324. His magnificent journey through the Egyptian capital of Cairo was long remembered with admiration and surprise throughout Egypt and Arabia, for Musa took with him so much gold, and gave away so many golden gifts, that 'the people of Cairo earned very big sums' thanks to his visit. So generous was Musa with his gifts, indeed, that he upset the value of goods on the Cairo market. Gold became more plentiful and therefore worth less. In the cities of Cairo, Medina and Mecca, the sudden influx of gold devalued the metal for the next decade. Prices on goods and wares super inflated in an attempt to adjust to the newfound wealth that was spreading throughout local populations. To rectify the gold market, Musa borrowed all the gold he could carry from money-lenders in Cairo, at high interest. This is the only time recorded in history that one man directly controlled the price of gold in the Mediterranean.

A river of blood crossing the ruins of Bagdhag

Before his death in 1227, Chinnggis Khan, pillaging and burning cities along the way, had reached western Azarbaijan in Iran. After Chinggis's death, the area enjoyed a brief respite that ended with the arrival of Hulagu Khan (1217-65), Chinggis's grandson. The Mongols under the leadership of Hulagu, the Mongol ruler, from the far east swept west and gained control of the land, he marched on Baghdad with two hundred thousand Tartars.

al-Musta`sim Billah's army and the people of Baghdad jointly faced them, but it was not in their power to stop this torrent of calamity. The result was that the Tartars entered Baghdad on the day of `Ashura' in AD1258 carrying with them bloodshed and ruin. They remained busy in killing for forty days. Rivers of blood flowed in the streets and all the alleys were filled with dead bodies.

Hundred of thousands of people were put to the sword while al-Musta`sim Billah, the last Abbasid caliph, was murdered, trampled to death under foot. The Mongol (Tartar) left the countryside the way they left many other countryside's, totally ruined. While in Baghdad, Hulagu deliberately destroyed what remained of Iraq's canal headworks. The material and artistic production of centuries was swept away.

The surprising map of Piri Reis

The Piri Reis Map, shown below, is the oldest surviving map to show the Americas. It is not European, surprisingly, but Turkish. It bears a date of 919 in the Moslem calendar, corresponding to 1513 in the Western Calendar. It is in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, a fabulous museum and the locale for a truly awful movie in the late 1960's. (I've been there - the real place bears no resemblance to the place in the movie.) The map was lost for a long time and only rediscovered in the 20th century.
Apart from its great historic interest, the map has been alleged to contain details no European could have known in the 1500's, and therefore proves the existence of ancient technological civilizations, visits by extraterrestrials, or both.

Centaur Gods arrive in the City of Gold

Cortes was unaware of the spiritual implications that surrounded his expedition. His arrival in the Americas coincided perfectly with the predicted return of the Plumed Serpent named Quetzalcoatl, the Aztecs main god, credited with creating Man and teaching the use of metals and the cultivation of the land.
The expectation among the Aztecs about the return of Quetzalcoatl was considerable. Cortes’ armada arrived at Veracruz on Holy Thursday of 1519. Moctezuma Xocoyotzin II contemplated how to approach the strangers, one of whom could be Quetzalcoatl. Ruling Tenochtitlan from 1502 to 1520, Moctezuma was devoutly religious and well-read in the ancient doctrines.
Moctezuma sent envoys to greet the newcomers, and the Spaniard fired shots to intimidate the greeting party. Reports went back to Moctezuma, saying: "The noise weakened one, dizzied one. Something like a stone came out of their weapons in a shower of fire and sparks. The smoke was foul; it had a sickening, fetid smell." Another message characterized the visitors as people with "very light skin, much lighter than ours. They all have long beards, and their hair comes only to their ears"
The envoys also described the visitors, who traveled on horseback, as beasts with "two heads and six legs". Montezuma decided to meet Cortés, who ultimately, aware of his superiority, conquered Tenochtitlán.

Playing the Great Game across the land of Asia

Afghanistan has both benefited and suffered from being strategically located. India lies over the mountains to the East, Persia across the deserts to the West and Turkestan (now Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) over the Oxus river to the north. The Silk Road from China to the West passed its northern border, meeting a major trade route through Afghanistan from Persia to India. It is a mountains-and-valleys country which has sheltered many ethnic groups over time, and it is difficult to control centrally. Whoever controls Afghanistan controls more than its landmass: the Great Game concerns control of central Asian land-routes and whatever travels along them.

To the lighthouse: Virginia Woolf's voice and short video about her novel

 

This is the only surviving recording of Virginia Woolf's voice. It is part of a BBC radio broadcast from April 29th, 1937. The talk was called "Craftsmanship" and was part of a series entitled "Words Fail Me".
The audio is accompanied by a slideshow of photographs of Virginia Woolf.

Besides, I have found a great video related to "To the Lighthouse". It's very short and it can also help you with your reading.

Furthermore, there is a film about the book. Maybe if we find it, our reading will be more succesfull. Here you have a short extract. If you want to buy the film it's here.

Talk about "To the Lighthouse"

Interesting Interview about Wirginia Woolf's' To the Lighthouse

Online chat with Reynolds Price '55,Author and James B. Duke Professor of English, and Frank Stasio, Host of the "State of Things".  I've only watched a few minutes and it's quite interesting. I don't know if it's better to watch it now or after reading the book. I think I'll do it while I read the book. To my mind, it can help. Hope you like it.

To the Lighthouse

Virginia Woolf : To the Lighthouse. This link will help you reading this novel. Of course, it doesn't have to do anything with Mandela's Way. I have just started with the first few pages and  find it quite hard to understand it.  Here you have the index. It  can be helpful.

Table of Contents

Context

Plot Overview

Character List

Analysis of Major Characters

Themes, Motifs & Symbols

Summary & Analysis

The Window: Chapters I–IV

The Window: Chapters V–VIII

The Window: Chapters IX–XI

The Window: Chapters XII–XVI

The Window: Chapter XVII

The Window: Chapters XVIII–XIX

Time Passes: Chapters I–X

The Lighthouse: Chapters I–III

The Lighthouse: Chapters IV–VII

The Lighthouse: Chapters VIII–XIII

Important Quotations Explained

Key Facts

Study Questions & Essay Topics

Quiz

Suggestions for Further Reading

How to Cite This SparkNote

Chomsky's summary

Maybe it's a little bit late, but I always forget to put Chomsky's summary on my blog. Here it is.

Summary

Those who control the energy reserves in the Middle East would control the world. Therefore, the US delineated a “Grand Area” within which they would maintain its military and economic supremacy. Moreover, they would ensure the limitation of any exercise of sovereignty by states that might interfere with its global designs.

Hence, there exists the perception in the Arab world that the US and its allies support dictatorships and block democracy and development. If public opinion were to influence policy, the US and its allies would be expelled from the region. Moreover, the US was facing similar problems in the early 19^th century. However, after the World War II the US displaced Britain as global hegemony.

Western power remains hostile to democracy in the Arab world for good reasons. Instability is only caused by those who oppose the US and its allies. First, the Iranian threat: Iran’s potential deterrent capacity and its efforts to extend its influence to neighbouring countries. Second, China’s growing military and commercial power is also a threat. China is expanding its dominant role in Iran’s energy industries and, what is more, it is not impressed by US warnings.

Although, the Grand Area doctrine still prevails the capacity to implement it has declined. Wealth and power have narrowly concentrated. Furthermore, the main architects of the crisis are richer than ever. Therefore, propaganda must seek to blame others: public sector workers, their fat salaries, exorbitant pensions and so on. Immigrants are a fine target, too. This is also happening in Europe, where racism is probably more rampant than in the Us.

Another externality that is dismissed in market systems is the fate of the species. No one will come to the rescue if the environment is destroyed. Business leaders understand full well how grave is the threat. But they must maximize short-term profit and market share. Markets will lead our lives while we are passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the invulnerable.



Mandela's Way

What do I take from Mandela's book?

That's quite complex; but, don't worry I'm not going to write a book about that. I'll just mention a few things. First, Know when to say know. From my point of view, Mandela is right when he says there's no point in postponing a negative answer: it can be worse. So I'll try to say "no" at the right time. Second, see the good in others. I don't completely agree with him about this idea of the goodness of people.You can sometimes get deceived. Maybe, you can think I'm not a good person, nevertheless I always have in mind the Spanish saying "Piensa mal y acertarás" and it sometimes turns out to be true. For me, it's quite difficult to trust people unless I know them very well. I know this is not a virtue, but we are not perfect; well, at least I'm glad I'm not perfect. Third, I totally agree with him when he talks about self-respect. We have to be proud of ourselves, of the way we are, the way we do things, ... Dignity is a very important concept for me. And we all have the right to be treated with dignity: treat everyone as you'd like to be treated. And... to finish, I would like to comment on the idea of love. Love is a must and it should be important and a necessity for everyone: we should love our family, our friends, our workmates, ... that is, everyone. To my mind, you receive what you give, so if you give love, you receive love or there will be more chances to receive love. But don't forget: love begins with ourselves: we have to love ourselves. I'll end up offering you two pieces of advice: Don't take anything for granted and First think, then act. I really like the book and I hope to get some benefit from the lessons Mandela taught us.

New Year Resolutions

So, are you still working on your 2011 New Year resolution? We all make promises to improve ourselves at the beginning of each New Year. It has become quite a part of our New Year celebration and 2012 is not going to be an exception.

Although 2011 is still in progress, it is not too early to look forward to 2012. At least we can plan ahead on how we are going to improve ourselves in the next year. Hence, let us take a look at the possibilities of planning ahead for the 2012 New Year resolution.

The beginning of every year brings in new hope and enthusiasm. We look forward to a new beginning and hope things to improve from the last year. We like to forget about our pasts and its daunting memories and wish for a new start. Hence, New Year is celebrated with pomp and joy by every race around the world.

New Year brings in new promises. Hence, it can’t hurt to plan ahead for your 2012 New Year resolution which will help you make a better person.


The previous webpage of New Year Resolutions is quite entertaining, but I really like this one written by Rhoda. 'Rhoda: Her First Ninety Years' and 'After Ninety: What' It's worth reading it.

The Muasher doctrine

I've read the lecture given by Chomsky in Amsterdam. I've also listened to it as Emilio has asked us to do. But to do a summary it's not something simple or easy: you can't do it unless you understand it. And I have to admit that Internet is a very potent and interesting tool for everyone. What I mean is that undestanding the text was a deep intensive race I had to run in order to do the summary. I must also admit that I sometimes look over your blogs: some findings are entertaining and amusing and others are really very useful. In this case, as I was having problems with Chomsky's lecture, I decided to have a look at your blogs and I particularly find two of them quite enlightening: Borja's findings about the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and those of Jose Enrique's about the Grand Area,The Strait of Hormuz and Chomsky. Here, what I'm posting is a little brief explanation about something that Chomsky mentions several times in his discourse: The Muasher doctrine. Hope it helps you to understand better this text. It did help me.

AV: Can you describe what you’ve been calling the Muasher doctrine?

Chomsky: What’s been going on in the Middle East, basically—and they don’t want to admit it—is the US and its allies have been supporting really harsh, brutal dictatorships for a very long time. And they’ve known for years, it’s not been a secret, that the population is strongly opposed to US policy. This guy Muasher, he’s a former Jordanian high official, which is a dictatorship of course, and he’s now the Middle East specialist for the Carnegie Endowment, and he was describing the principle that as long as people are quiet and subdued, we don’t really care what they think. Everything is fine.

It works in the United States, too. As long as people don’t make too much of a fuss, we’ll get away with whatever we can. In the Middle East it’s been going on for decades, in fact all over the world. But what’s striking right now is people aren’t quiet, and therefore the US and its allies and Israel are pretty upset, because you can’t count on your favorite dictator to keep everything under control. And of course, since Washington and everyone else is terrified of democracy, they have to find some way to keep the thing under control even if their favorite dictator isn’t there.

Incidentally, this happens over and over. People act as if it’s something new but it’s as old as the hills. You just look through the record: Somoza, Marcos in the Philippines, Duvalier in Haiti, Mobuto in the Congo, Suharto in Indonesia. You support your favorite dictator as long as you can, and if it becomes impossible to continue to support him—like maybe the army moves against him, and you can’t do it anymore—well then, what you have to do is shelve him somehow, put him out to pasture, and pretend that you’ve always been a passionate supporter of the people and of democracy, and then try to reinstall the old regime. Try to make sure that the basic system remains, even with a change of names. And that’s done all the time. There’s nothing new in this.

If you want to read all the conversation go to this link.

Contours of Global Order-Chomsky

Here you have Noam Chomsky giving this deep, interesting talk in Amsterdam. Hope you enjoy it.Noam Chomsky's talk in Amsterdam