Khamis, Disember 27, 2012

Kalimah Allah: Sedalam Mana Sensitiviti & Keprihatinan Politik Kita?


Kalimah Allah: Sedalam Mana Sensitiviti & Keprihatinan Politik Kita?

Oleh Amidi Abd Manan (Presiden ABIM)

Pernyataan kedatangan agama Kristian beraliran Nestorian ke rantau ini di blog 1Malaysia Datuk Seri Najib, mengundang beberapa persoalan. Apakah tujuan pernyataan tersebut? Adakah ia bertujuan ingin menyatakan bahawa kehadiran agama Kristian adalah seusia dengan kedatangan Islam atau lebih awal lagi?

Adakah pernyataan ini ingin mengangkat fungsi dan watak agama Kristian yang mewarnai rantau ini dalam merubah masyarakat? Atau adakah ia sekadar pernyataan politik yang bertujuan menyantuni pengundi Kristian?

Pernyataan sumbangan Kristian terhadap pembangunan rantau ini perlu dibuat dengan berhati-hati apatah lagi apabila merujuk ke abad yang ke-7. Ia boleh mendatangkan kekeliruan tehadap latar belakang pembentukan budaya dan peradaban di rantau ini.

Menurut Tan Sri Prof Dr Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, Islam telah memainkan peranan yang jauh lebih signifikan dalam pembentukan budaya dan peradaban di rantau ini. Ia telah membebaskan dan membentuk weltanschauung atau pandangan sarwa masyarakat di sini.

Pengaruh Islam telah jauh meresap ke dalam urat nadi umat manusia di sini yang terpancar dalam pemikiran, budaya, kesusasteraan dan peraturan hidup.

Kedatangan Islam telah merungkai pengaruh Hindu-Buddha dalam peradaban masyarakat di Nusantara. Prof. Dr Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas menegaskan bahawa kehadiran Hindu-Buddha gagal merubah pandangan hidup masyarakat dan seterusnya tidak mampu menghasilkan satu kelainan yang memerdekakan masyarakat daripada fahaman animisme yang telah bertapak terlebih dahulu.

Dari pernyataan ini juga ia turut menatijahkan bahawa kedatangan Kristian juga gagal membentuk dan memberikan pengaruh yang bermakna terhadap kebudayaan dan peradaban masyarakat di sini. Tambahan pula Kristian aliran Nestorian yang merupakan aliran minoriti yang bermula di sekitar abad yang ke lima di Parsi.

Aliran ini mempercayai bahawa Isa (Jesus) merupakan anak angkat tuhan yang bertentangan dengan kepercayaan majoriti penganut Kristian yang menyatakan bahawa Jesus adalah anak tuhan dan bersatu dalam satu jasad. Ajaran Nestorian ini akhirnya terpencil dan semakin mengecil walau pun ada usaha untuk mengembangkannya sehingga ke tanah besar China.

Penyebaran Islam di rantau ini telah dilaksanakan dengan begitu teliti dan berhati-hati oleh para pendakwah Islam. Warna Hindu-Buddha yang begitu pekat perlu dicairkan dan diganti dengan warna Islam yang indah. Ketelitian itu turut melibat persoalan bahasa.

Bahasa memberikan makna dan seterusnya membentuk persepsi yang dikehendaki dan menanam keyakinan yang hakiki. Justeru itu menurut Prof. Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, penyebaran agama Islam di rantau ini menggunakan bahasa Melayu dan bukan bahasa Jawa. Ini kerana bahasa Jawa telah diresapi oleh pengaruh Hindu-Buddha yang begitu pekat.

Para pendakwah ketika itu tidak menggunakan perkataan 'brahma' bagi merujuk tuhan yang esa sebagaimana yang digunakan oleh agama Hindu. Ini kerana konsep ketuhanan yang berbeza yang hendak disampaikan kepada mad'u. Tidak menyamakan 'dewa/deva' dengan malaikat juga kerana sebab yang sama.

Justeru kalimah 'Allah' yang digunakan oleh masyarakat di sini adalah unik dan khusus kepada konsep ketuhanan yang diperakui oleh Islam sahaja. Maka perkongsian perkataan adalah satu usaha yang berlawanan dengan budaya masyarakat di sini. Tambahan pula tiada hujah ilmiah yang menunjukkan perkongsian itu perlu diwajarkan. Hanya dakwaan ia telah digunakan berabad lamanya di tanah Arab bukan satu hujah yang kukuh.

Ini kerana kalimah Allah tidak digunakan dalam Bible versi asli yang diturunkan dalam bahasa Ibrani atau Hebrew (bahasa kaum Yahudi). Perkataan 'helluvah' atau Elohim digunakan bagi merujuk tuhan dalam bahasa tersebut. Apatah lagi versi bahasa Inggeris yang menggunakan 'god' bagi rujukan yang serupa.

Jadi apakah hujah yang wajar bagi perkataan Allah digunakan dalam Bible versi bahasa Melayu melainkan hujah penyebaran agama Kristian kepada masyarakat Melayu?

Jika alasan ia telah digunakan selama lebih 50 tahun di Sabah dan Sarawak ia adalah alasan yang terbit dari satu kesalahan situasi yang lahir dari kefahaman yang salah. Adakah kesalahan ini mahu dibiarkan atau perlu kepada pembetulan?

Bukan kerana takut berkongsi istilah yang sama. Jika kita lihat perkembangan agama Islam di Sabah dan Sarawak dalam masa 50 tahun ini, ia telah menunjukkan pertambahan yang ketara. Islam telah berkembang sehingga ke pedalaman dan terus berkembang dari semasa ke semasa.

Penghayatan Islam sudah semakin baik dengan pertambahan institusi pendidikan Islam dan disambut baik oleh masyarakat. Mereka yang berhujah kekhuatiran ini memberikan gambaran bahawa Islam ini kerdil juga telah tersilap.

Penegasan Allah dalam surah al-Ikhlas, yang dengan jelas menekankan 'Allah' adalah tidak beranak dan tidak diperanakkan memberikan isyarat bahawa istilah 'Allah' jangan dipermudahkan.

Oleh itu gesaan Setiausaha Agung DAP, Yb Lim Guan Eng yang mahukan agar perkataan 'Allah' boleh digunakan oleh masyarakat Kristian dalam Bible versi Melayu jelas menunjukkan kejahilan beliau dalam persoalan ini. Ia hanya satu isu politik yang cuba ditonjolkan.

Polemik kalimah 'Allah' antara penganut Islam dan Kristian di Malaysia mesti dihentikan segera dengan menghormati waq'iy atau latar sejarah dan budaya masyarakat setempat.

Penegasan perasaan kesal yang mendalam terhadap ahli politik negara ini apabila isu kalimah 'Allah' ini digunakan untuk meraih sokongan sehingga menggadaikan maruah agama Islam dan memperjudikan keharmonian hubungan antara agama.

Pertubuhan dakwah di negara ini mahukan ketegasan yang ikhlas dalam memelihara agama khususnya agama Islam.

Jumaat, Disember 14, 2012

Teach For Us: Critics

Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
I'm Michel Martin, and this is TELL ME MORE from NPR News. As the school year winds down around the country, we decided to take a closer look at a widely touted success story in education that's getting new scrutiny.

When then-Princeton University student Wendy Kopp created the idea for Teach for America as part of a student thesis, an adviser told her she was, quote, "quite evidently deranged," unquote.

But the idea of bringing outstanding college students from a variety of fields to teach at needy or underperforming schools caught on. Since 1990, Teach for America has trained over 20,000 would-be teachers. And it is still a powerful draw for many college graduates.

Teach for America, or TFA, reports that nearly 50,000 applications were received for just about 5,000 openings in the most recent program here. But now, some graduates of the TFA program are among those criticizing the group, and questioning whether it is really helping struggling students and schools. One of those is Gary Rubinstein. He is a math teacher at New York City's prestigious Stuyvesant High School. He's a two-time recipient of Math For America's Master Teacher Fellow. He's written books about teaching, and is a contributor to Teach for Us. That's an independent blog for Teach for America alums.

One of his more recent blog posts was titled "Why I Did TFA, and Why You Shouldn't," and he's with us now. And let me just note that we will hear from a representative from Teach for America in just a few minutes, but schedules did not permit all of us to speak together, and that's why we're hearing from Mr. Rubinstein first.

Welcome. Thank you so much for joining us.

Courtesy Michael Lisnet/Math for America

GARY RUBINSTEIN:
Oh, you're quite welcome. Thanks to - having me.

MARTIN:
So let me just start by asking you why you were attracted to Teach for America. You've written a number of pieces about it - and recruiting pieces, in fact, talking about your affection for the program.

RUBINSTEIN:
Well, yes. I was part of the 1991 core, which was the second year of Teach for America. And I did it for the same reason that a lot of people nowadays do it. We want to give back to society that's treated us well, and we feel we maybe have something special to offer students.

MARTIN:
I was wondering whether your criticisms came over time; or was there kind of a eureka moment, when you said to yourself, well, wait a minute, this is not right.

RUBINSTEIN:
From pretty early on, I became critical of their training model. I felt like it wasn't preparing people. Teach for America has only five weeks of training, And I actually think that it could be enough time, but I don't think they use the time wisely. These student teachers sometimes only - they only teach for 12 days, one hour a day, and the classes often only have maybe 10 or 12 students in them. Some classes have as few as four students. So this is not a realistic training model, and you need to practice teaching to get good at it.

MARTIN:
You've got a number of criticisms, which you've kind of enumerated - lack of training or really, inadequate training. But you also said that the context has changed. You know, when you were hired - that you were filling vacancies. There were jurisdictions where there just weren't enough teachers. So it was kind of, somebody is better than nobody.

You're saying now, that situation has changed. Overall - I mean - is the most significant criticism that the context has changed, or you just think the program just doesn't work?

RUBINSTEIN:
Well, my most significant criticism is that their exaggerated claims of success end up, I think, harming the education system in a couple of different ways. For instance, they claim that their first-year teachers are doing really well. Like, on their website, it says that 41 percent of the first-years achieve a year and a half worth of progress in one year.

When I hear this, as a veteran educator, it's like hearing that there's a group of rookie baseball pitchers that all throw the ball 200 miles per hour. It just - it's not the way it works. I've been teaching for almost 20 years. I don't know that I get a year and a half of growth every year.

Now, these exaggerations are problematic. One, I think they give the trainees - the new trainees get a false sense of confidence. They hear all these stories about how great they're going to be. And I think at least subconsciously, it makes them not train as seriously as they might.

The second thing is, I think TFA might believe some of their own - sort of exaggerations, and that causes them not to improve their training model. But the biggest thing is that politicians hear these inflated successes, and then they buy into the current myth that we've got these old, lazy teachers that need to be replaced with these young go-getters. And that's also not the way it works.

But the huge issue - and the thing that got me, about a year ago, writing on this almost weekly - is the TFA alumni who, after two or three years, leave the classroom and go into a leadership pipeline. Now, there are some great Teach for America alumni that became leaders. They taught for a lot of years, and they became principals and things like that.

But I'm talking about a certain, small class of them. They taught for maybe two or three years, and then they were given the reigns to take over a district - and they have not done a very good job. A prime example is Washington, D.C., where Teach for America alumni are sort of at all levels, including the very top, and they haven't succeeded there. They have a policy of shutting down schools, firing teachers, given bonuses based on what I consider to be inaccurate metrics. And they've sort of bought into the whole corporate reform movement.

MARTIN:
I'm talking with Gary Rubinstein. He is an alumnus of the Teach for America program. He's now a veteran teacher, and he has become a critic of the program.

When you say corporate reform movement, what are you talking about, specifically?

RUBINSTEIN:
Oh, oh. Well, corporate reform movement is based on - sort of business principles; the idea that in business, if you don't get - if people aren't making a profit, you threaten them; if you don't get your profits up, we're going to fire you. And then there's competition with other stores, and that drives everyone to do better.

But in the world of education, it doesn't work so well that way. You have these charter schools that Teach for America alumni often are principals, and they lead charter networks, and we find that they sometimes get better results. And then when we look into why their results are better, we find that they don't serve some of the hardest-to-serve kids, which is the original point of Teach for America.

MARTIN:
Forgive me, Mr. Rubinstein. I'm struggling with a way to ask this question because I think that your comments should be addressed on the merits, but I can't help but notice that you are currently teaching at a selective high school. You're critical of the program for saying - you're saying that some of these schools massage the numbers by kicking out kids who are less likely to succeed. But kids can't even get into your school unless they pass a difficult exam. I'm just wondering how that frames your thoughts about this.

RUBINSTEIN:
Oh, I taught - well, first, I taught for four years in Houston, which was my original placement site; and then I also taught in Denver. So I taught in three different schools where students were suffering in this way and in that time, I learned a lot about that.

Now, I don't teach in a school like that anymore, and it's partly because I don't think I have the energy right now to do it - you know, with my family, and all that. So I've decided for myself, since I don't know that I can make the phone calls every night, and do all those extra hours of work that I would need to do, to do the best job that I could, I decided, you know, I'll teach at a place where I can - where I won't have to do as much of that after-school calling.

But I always made sure that I would train, and share what I learned about teaching in these other schools, with the new Teach for America teachers. So right from the time I left Teach for America, I started writing my advice about teaching. I volunteered to go to the institutes. I worked as a trainer for the institute, and I wrote books about teaching. So I've kept up on all these issues.

But you don't have to be in one of the schools to know what's going on. I have taught there. I've seen brilliant students in my old schools, so it's not that I think that poor kids can't learn - because I know that they can.I don't think Teach for America is proving that they've figured out how to really overcome it in a big way.

MARTIN:
Gary Rubinstein is an alumnus of Teach for America. He currently teaches at the prestigious Stuyvesant High School in New York City. That's a selective public high schoo. And he was kind enough to join us from New York. Gary Rubinstein, thank you so much for speaking with us.

RUBINSTEIN:
Oh, I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Who is Gary Rubinstein?
- A Houston 1991 alum (not charter corps since that was the year before).  Despite writing two books and teaching for thirteen of the past nineteen years.
- The author of two guidebooks for new teachers, “Reluctant Disciplinarian” and “Beyond Survival.” 
- Mostly ignored by TFA though have a lot of ‘suggestions’ for how they can improve.
- Also a two-time recipient of the Math For America master teacher fellowship.
- blogger for http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/
- Like to see TFA improve their teacher training since new CMs can’t afford to have a bad first year if they’re only going to teach for two years.
- His Note: "When you read my stuff, don’t take it as ‘gospel’ by any means. I want it to be fodder for you to think critically about what works, what doesn’t work, what works for some and not for others and why."


For more readings on TFA, go here:
http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2011/10/31/why-i-did-tfa-and-why-you-shouldnt/

Selasa, Disember 11, 2012

How to eliminate unnecessary meetings and turbo-charge the necessary ones.

How to eliminate unnecessary meetings and turbo-charge the necessary ones. 

It's true. People hate meetings. But for most business people, meetings are a necessary evil. Why are they so detested, and what can be done about it?

According to Forbes® magazine, a recent survey reported that a whopping 85% of executives said they were unsatisfied with the efficiency and effectiveness of meetings at their companies. Yet many of these management-level men and women spend more than half of their time in meetings.
Consider some of these alarming statistics about meetings:

    At this point in the meeting we'll open a discussion of whether or not we needed to have this meeting. Copyright by The Cartoon Bank
    "At this point in the meeting we'll open a discussion of whether or not we needed to have this meeting."
    • There are estimated to be more than 11 million business meetings in the US every day.
    • Most executives attend about 62 meetings every month.
    • An average of 5.6 hours per week is spent in meetings.
    • Research has found that over 50% of meeting time is wasted, equating to about one day per week of lost time per employee.
     
    So how do we eliminate the "evil" - the unnecessary meetings - while turbo-charging the "necessary" meetings we must have? Here are some ways your company can have fewer, better and more productive meetings.

    Eliminate Unnecessary Meetings
    Take an honest and objective look at your organization's meetings. You will likely find that a lot of meetings aren't necessary. 

    Ask these questions about your meetings: 
    • Is it just a habit? Many regular meetings have no objective. 
    • Is there a specific purpose for this meeting? 
    • Is there a defined agenda with a stated goal? 
    • Will the result of the meeting have a measurable outcome? 
    • Are there one or more decisions that need to be made? 
    • Will the decision-makers be in attendance? 
    • Consider placing this list, or something like it, in your conference room(s)! 
    Eliminating unnecessary meetings will allow you more time to focus on making the important ones better. 

    Make Meetings Efficient and Effective 
    Certain meetings are necessary. Projects must be managed, decisions must be made, and people need to be apprised of important information. If only 15% of meetings are effective, how do you make sure yours are part of that group? 

    The best way is by using visuals. SmartDraw gives you the tools to do this with a variety of easy to use flowcharts, graphs and other templates that will improve the efficiency and productivity of your meetings. Visual communication using SmartDraw has been shown to reduce meeting times by as much as 25%. Effective meetings use a visual agenda that allows you to build action items in real time. This process is known as live information capture and will produce results that are up to six times more effective than communicating with words alone.
    Here are some simple tips that will help make your meetings more effective and efficient.
    1. To communicate effectively - visually - use a conference room projector or connect attendees via computer using an online meeting platform such as WebExTM or GoToMeetingTM.
    2. Have an agenda prepared ahead of time. According to a survey conducted by Microsoft®, 63% of meetings in the US don't have a prepared agenda! Make sure that the agenda is structured around what you want to accomplish, rather than following a rote format.
    3. Share the agenda with other attendees in advance. Elicit feedback and make sure everyone is clear on the purpose and goal of the meeting. In the above agenda, the discussion items are clearly defined. Those attending are made aware - in advance - that decisions will be made, responsibilities will be assigned, and completion dates will be set.
    4. Document decisions, tasks and assignments during the meeting. Assign action items to each person right on the visual agenda in real time. Everyone in the meeting sees the action item assigned. There is no room for different interpretations of action taken and the person assigned the task is publicly accountable for completing it.
    5. Try to keep meetings brief, but don't sacrifice quality. The goal is to eliminate unnecessary meetings but make sure the ones you have are highly productive.

    Make Sure that the Right People Attend

    If decisions, particularly critical decisions, must be made, then be sure that the decision-makers will be there. If they can't, then the meeting will be a waste of everyone else's time and needs to be canceled or rescheduled.

    Too many meetings involve people who have no stake in the outcome. Those in attendance should be crucial to the decisions that need to be made or the assignments that will be given.

    Be Aware of the Morale Factor

    For many people in the workplace, there is a certain status attached to being included in meetings. They build their schedules around them and may not be happy about fewer meetings and fewer invites. 

    Letting everyone know in advance that the company is going to reduce the number of overall meetings, with a focus on making meetings more productive, will let them know they aren't being left out.

    The Key to Successful Meetings: a Great Visual Processor 

    To produce great results you need great tools. For effective meetings, use a tool like SmartDraw that is designed for live information capture. SmartDraw has a special template specifically designed for your meeting. It lets you create an easy-to-read agenda, edit in real time, and assign action items to attendees. Best of all, it gives everyone in the meeting a clear and concise plan of action with accountability.

    (Sumber: smartdraw@newsletter)

    Rabu, Disember 05, 2012

    Engaging Students in Mathematics


    The last month has seen a plethora of discussions about the necessity for teaching math beyond what most jobs consider necessary. Much of it started from Andrew Hacker's now infamous article on whether math is necessary, to which a bunch of us replied with equal fervor (Dan Willingham's and Sherman Dorn's pieces are great rejoinders). What we all seem to agree on is that, indeed, the way we teach math matters. Lots. Having a positive environment for kids where they feel like they can actually do math without feeling like they're complete failures matters a lot.

    Often, that starts with us as teachers.

    Developing an environment where students can experiment and gain entry into the language of math starts with having a person who can facilitate what Stephen Krashen termed a low affective filter environment. While his study was applied to English Language Learners, his hypotheses should apply to all subject areas, math highest among them.

    In my classroom, I have five principles for assuring that all students can enter into the math, and also for creating the conditions for math success.

    1) Allow More Mistakes

    I would suggest this to just about every teacher, but specifically math teachers, especially those of us who use the word "wrong" a lot. We should strike a balance between using direct instruction and exploration, leaning more on the exploration piece. Once we allow more mistakes, we let students into the process that our earliest mathematicians used in developing the axioms we believe today. Also, by admitting that we all make mistakes, it sends a clear signal to kids that they can be mathematicians, too. Surely, I'm not suggesting that we let the mistakes be. Yet, when I make a mistake on the board (intentionally or otherwise), I hope my students catch onto that, thus putting them in the position of expert. Speaking of which . . .

    2) Support Their Struggle

    At first, most of us get nervous when children struggle with mathematics, as if they need to get the math as soon as they receive the instruction. Even if it might look simple to us, the students may still be grappling with the skills, the concepts or both. That's OK. When students struggle with the material, they learn how to work problems out on their own as self-motivated workers. Of course, that also means the teacher needs to encourage them as often as possible to do so. If students think their efforts have no merit, then they often won't own it. In an environment where teachers support students' working through a problem, a teacher can tell when a student has quit. You have an option before you intervene . . .

    3) Let the Kids Teach, Too

    During the class period, I prefer the students speak more than I do. If I'm talking too much, that means I'm using too much of my speaking quota. In other words, they'll tune me out if I'm talking too much. Once I let the students speak (meaning, not just one student, but many), they take even more ownership of the math taught to them. This especially proves true during the class work time as well. Having them explain to each other (with the proper guidance) really empowers them to own the material and develop their own process for checking answers. Plus, I’m not exceeding my speaking quota. However . . .

    4) Answer a Question with More Questions

    If, in fact, a student asks us a question, we ought to validate their question by giving them another question. That way, we ensure that the onus for the "answer" falls on them. The type of questions we ask and the way we frame questions matters here, too. Questions that generate a "yes" or "no" answer simply won't do. Instead, we can leave them with a question that they can answer. I do emphasize the word "leave" because it's always good for you to walk away without explicitly telling them they were right. By the time you leave, they should already know this.

    5) Personalize the Questions

    Inserting children's names into the problems (appropriately) engages students in the material. As you start the problem, speaking about the student in the third person immediately gets him or her engaged, and gives the other students a window into the problem. Knowing the person in the problem (even if the situation itself is hypothetical) gives the entire class a sense of ownership and belonging within the math. Obviously, teachers should spread the wealth in naming people, because it may look like we're playing favorites or just focusing on the "struggling" children. All children need access to the math.

    This advice obviously takes time and a teacher's willingness to fail. This also might push some of my colleagues out of a comfort zone. Yet we as teachers have to set a precedent for the success of lifelong learners, not just until a standardized test comes. One of the ways we set our students up for this type of success is by providing conditions for questioning, experimentation and ownership to happen. Those of us who only want to "skill and drill" students perpetuate attitudes that Hacker alluded to in his piece.

    Math literacy matters. Let's do our part.

    (Source: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/engaging-students-in-math-jose-vilson)