Journal

Think Locally, Act Locally

2010-01-29T11:31:32Z

Though not out of New Years Resolution, I plan to write 500ish word entries as much as possible. Why 500? I dunno. But it's about a page of A4 or Letter paper something, so I figure it would be about right. For reference, this part is 49 words long. Some will be rants, some will be random, some will just be me airing out my brain. This one will be me letting out some brain vomit.

Working at an international school, it's no surprise to see posters that declare "think globally, act locally". Though the concept is fairly old in community of expats and mixed culture communities, the entire idea of globalism and internationalism has become increasingly popular and mainstream with the rise of the Internet and the age of instant information. We're all encouraged to think about the Earth when we throw out our trash; think about the forests when we print; think about the kids in Darfur, Haiti and anywhere else there's trouble; think about the farmers when we get our coffee; think about the sweatshops when we get our Nikes. We're all thinking together as one big family!

Yet, over my Kim Chee Cheese Cup Noodles, it didn't really click. We can keep that all in mind, but what can really be done? If you asked all of those who walk around talking about fair trade coffee and refugees in developing countries to throw away everything they own, go to Somethingistan and help out, few would seriously consider it. Conversely, we don't really know what the heck people in Somewhereaguay are thinking, let alone if they want our 'help'.

Now, I don't claim to be a genius or even well informed. But I think I'm in the ballpark when I say that the Earth and its citizenry is incomprehensibly complex. The moment there was more than one of us monkeys wandering around the Serengeti, it all hit the fan and it got a lot tougher than when one guy was deciding to eat meat or boiled grass. Hell, we fight over chocolate and vanilla ice cream nowadays.

And that's not all of it! When we drill down to it, people are fickle and downright selfish. With some things you can assemble an army relatively quickly, others you'll just end up ruining the party. Globalization itself is one of those words that cut like a razor, sometimes to the point of it becoming polarizing.

So I propose an alternate. Think locally, act locally. Maybe if you're nice to everyone and everything around you, and in turn everyone and everything around you is nice, the world would be a much nice place. Maybe we're confusing the hell out of everyone by saying we're part of a much larger world, making things hard to perceive and get a hold on.

There is no doubt that keeping the world in mind isn't a bad thing. But there is only so much we can do as an individual. Perhaps maximizing the 'niceness' of our individual is what can lead to better things.

Thoroughly Musical

2009-12-01T14:17:28Z

The last two weeks have been a sort of personal hell, but it's all my fault anyways. Part of it was the YIS' annual Bridging the Gap conference, which I wrote about a bit back.

But more time was consumed by my participation in the high school production of Throughly Modern Millie, a musical.

Have I ever mentioned I hate musicals?

Regardless, it was an opportunity for me to try to pick up the alto sax and clarinet again. The last time I played anything remotely challenging was in the first trimester of my senior year at Woodinville High School. After the marching band season, I ditched and moved on to ASB Student Council.

So, seven years out of the pond and it's time to play. Yep. I sucked. To boot, our pit orchestra was all of six people. I've always had the weakness of being an ear player, relying way too much on the rest of the band to play. That's tough when you're the only one playing your instrument.

At first, it was horribly hard, but when the pianist arrived, things got better. And a little easier. It was fun.

But I'm not going to spend all day talking about my clarinet skills. I'll thank Aili, one of my students, for lending me her Yamaha custom for the show, but to move on...

The vocals for the musical, especially the lead, was simply amazing. MJ, as she's known, was simply stunning as the lead, Millie Dillmount. Where the original Broadway production featured a frail sounding broad of the Roaring Twenties, MJ brought a much deeper, soulful performance. Her performance was also buttressed by a strong assortment of supporting cast (though our production had all of three male actors, leading to girls taking on some of the male roles too).

And that led me to appreciate how amazing the talent we've had go through our school recently. The last two years, the musical talent has been simply good. Last year was highlighted by an amazingly talented jazz/blues combo. This year, pure vocal strength.

Which is amazing. I went to a lot of concerts and the like when I was in high school, but none were nearly as interesting as our schools'. And I'm a tough, tough grader when it comes to what I listen to (with regard to amateurs, I've heard exactly one street band in Japan I've liked so far), but this stuff is pretty damn good.

With that, I leave you with some samples from a concert last year to judge for yourselves. Round Midnight features our Millie Dillmount, MJ. Cry Me A River features Hiroko, while At Last and Georgia On My Mind are sung by Mits Iwasawa, both with the aforementioned talented Jazz Combo.

Yokohama International School 2009 HS Spring Concert by Genki U.

(This post is also a sad excuse for me to try Soundcloud :P)

Traditional Meets Progressive: BarCamp at Old School

2009-11-22T01:53:43Z

On Saturday, November 21st, 2009, Yokohama International School, a school of 85 years, hosted BarCamp Yokohama, with the theme of 21st Century Learning.

First thing I noticed was the fact that November 21st lined up nicely with 21st Century Learning.

Anyways, BarCamp Yokohama was constructed to coincide with YIS' annual Bridging The Gap Conference. In the past, people like Steven Heppell and Alex Kerr headlined the two-day conference as keynote speakers. But this year, the controlling committee decided to try to overhaul the conference with a much more casual, but academically relevant, feel. Instead of anchoring the first day of the conference with long, dragging keynotes in our auditorium, the format moved to workshop-style modules with guests Chris Toy and Kim Cofino. Additionally, teachers also presented topics regarding the matter.

(I presented on Learning in Motion/Questioning the Cutting Edge to all of four people, but the session was productive with a nice conversation with some colleagues. I think we came up with some good ideas, which I will recap in a later post.)

Day two of Bridging The Gap was typically required for all staff to attend, but the requirement was waived this year in the spirit of BarCamp. And this was one key point. Instead of gathering all teachers and staff, all of whom may not have been exceptionally excited to sacrifice half a weekend for a conference at work, the conference naturally gathered motivated, energetic teachers that participated energetically with a large crowd from the learning community that participated at BarCamp Tokyo in May.

The resulting unconference was an amazing confluence of knowledge, discourse and energy. For the first time in my three BTGs, the second day felt relevant. The content felt genuine and relevant to the entire conversation of the school, the 21st Century and education. It was also the first time since Learning 2.0 that I felt totally overwhelmed by what I came out with.

Although I hate resorting to writing with bullet points, the fragmented nature of being part participant/incendiary bomb, part photographer drives it that way...

I hosted one session called "The Design Process: It's Everywhere! Why Differentiate?". The idea? In school, we basically learn variants of the same process of trial & error, similar to the design process. Science calls it the scientific method. English has a basic writing cycle of drafts and edits. The Arts, especially visual art, use it in its most recognizable form. Engineering, computer science, they all use similar processes, but it's never really touched on. I think we all agreed that this was true, but it was interesting how it also turned into an analysis of teaching, learning and school as well. The conversation weaved in and out, but it was very interesting to hear.
It was quite interesting to see some discourse over education systems, including our own. This was yet another first, as from my window, I had never seen it be discussed at our school so openly. Though we (obviously) didn't find the Holy Grail, we were able to weigh the various types of education systems and have a conversation about the strains of our current system of a compulsory IB Diploma Program.
I particularly enjoyed the debate over what exactly the youth of the world need to learn in schools.
I am sad I wasn't able to participate in the more technological conversations this time.
Lunch of Thanksgiving turkey, roast lamb and the full fixings was amazing!
Probably thanks to the theme at hand, this BarCamp involved a lot of intellectual discourse over the raw technology at the last one. It was also much more political. From liberalism, centrism and conservatism, it was all covered and debated. Internationalism and globalism were also questioned. And it never got messy!
Colin Campbell's workshop on learning & technology was fun, as was Roger's workshop on the IB being a refined sausage machine. It was also great to have a workshop on juggling, hosted by Tara Ohta, a parent at the school. There were also some great workshops by Kyle Hasegawa too.
Dinner in Chinatown with Lhuga, Ohta-san, Stuart and a mix of others was good times too.

Overall, it was great. Though we ended a bit earlier than the last BarCamp, I was just as tired.

Over the next few days, I'll try to post my BTG reflections too. And of course, links to the pile of photos I took.

Hello. Again.

2009-09-29T12:44:28Z

Just trying my new Squarespace Blog...!

Too Many Elements...?

2009-06-17T23:28:09Z

I've been plowing through books again and right now, I'm on Sir Ken Robinson's The Element. Well rooted in this TED video...

Now, this video has virtually become one of the borderline cliché videos in the education forefront. Everyone knows about it or has seen it.
But the book is a much more deeper analysis of many, many stories regarding Robinson's proposal of the Element, an interphase of desire, senses, creativity, and intelligences that converge to create a happiness and productive super-state.
Concurrently, Robinson also critiques and comments on the current social structures, particularly education, that appear to stifle and disrupt the achievement of the Element.

In essence, Robinson proposes that there is a sweet-spot in the human adventure and life is about finding that.
It's also similar to Dan Pink's Johnny Bunko, which I wrote about here.

Right now, I'm somewhere in chapter three, and it's been a good read.
But for me, I feel as if this is something I've always believed in.
Okay, always is probably exaggerating, but I have been in lockstep with Robinson's argument.

But right now, I wonder... What of multiple Elements?
Robinson argues that there are 'mediums' that people enjoy their Elements.
Whether that's Richard Feynman, Matt Groening, or Paul McCartney, each has found their zones.
But they've found them in physics, animation and music.

Except, bringing it to a much more egotistical venue, I tend to find myself in many mediums.

I love music.
I love photography.
I love teaching (though I will rarely, if ever, admit it).
I love to write.
I love to work on computers.
I love to read.
I love leading & planning.
I love analytics.
I love free expression.

I can find myself working in many areas and enjoying every moment of it.
Yet, I also get stuck in zones.
And I also get bored too.

What is my Element?

I guess I'll have to read on.

These Are The Voyages...

2009-05-30T01:46:24Z

Okay, you got me.

I'm a pretty big Star Trek nut. No, I don't know where the Romulan Neutral Zone is or what star Ceti Alpha VI orbits, but I like me a good Star Trek here and there.

Unfortunately, there were very few good new Star Treks lately.
That show with the pansy song intro sucked beans until the season it got canceled and the movies were crapola in a box too.

And here we are with a new trek across the stars with a new crew and an old Spock to boot.

What did I think? Lessee...

Lens Flares... WTF?

Did some of the keys on the editing software get stuck or something?

The lens flares are annoying.

WTF.

Bigness in Real Life doesn't necessarily transfer to Film and Screen.

Okay, so I've heard that JJ Abrams wanted to make Enterprise feel all big and stuff.
So they used everything from a beer factory to a new, larger bridge to do it.
Unfortunately, it didn't work.

The Bridge, Sickbay, Engineering.
All of it was purposefully BIG looking.
But it entirely failed to communicated the size or bigness of the ship.
Abrams' camera work and the tightness of the shots ended up making the ship feel tiny.
And the random junk around the sets made it feel cluttered like my desk.

And at the same time, the old sets felt more advanced because it allowed more of the ship left to interpretation and imagination.
JJ's intent to show the ship to be bigger made it feel smaller because it created real borders, as opposed to those imagined.
Much like the Star Wars prequels with fake giant sets, the world became restrained.

And big doesn't mean advanced.
I mean, for frak's sake, we try to make things smaller when things get good.

Even Battlestar Galactica was able to pull off a much larger feel, despite tinier sets.
I don't know how Ron D. Moore was able to pull it off, but Galactica felt like a behemoth.
I mean, they didn't even show the engine room until the last half of the last season!

Enterprise felt the smallest in years.

Slow. Down. It's. Okay. To. Lay. Off. The. Speed.

Am I getting old or something?
It's not like I can't keep up.
I can.
It was damn fun.

But please, please, someone try to educate me as to why everything is so damn fast.

Didn't they teach you that a good steak needs to rest before you eat it?
Or cook it, for that matter.

This movie was definitely fun, but the problem is that once it starts running, it just keeps on galloping to the gate at full flank.
It doesn't slow down for the sadness, speed up for the action, or give you time to consider Nero's position.
It just runs straight ahead on warp factor 9 straight through the script as if mommy was calling JJ in for dinner.

In Japan, especially Western Japan, and in many areas around the world, the concept of ma is appreciated.
Ma is purposeful rest.
It's a fundamental in music, cooking, comedy, everything.
With silence and lull comes the emotion.

All I got was an adolescent "AWESOME!!!".
I would like a little more than that.

And the Moral of the Story is...

This movie is good, but it's not great.
It's a popcorn action movie.

Except, the greats of Star Trek, and much Sci-Fi for that matter, are able to carry a nice plot point to the end.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan wrestles with aging and cheating death.
Battlestar Galactica wrestles with morality where your conscience is your only policeman.
1984 wrestles with information freedom.

But this Star Trek could have had a perfect plot point.
Yet, it failed.

Star Trek could have been entirely opposite of it's Khan predecessor by saying "YES, YES YOU CAN cheat death/be awesome/take risks and succeed. (Circle One)".
It could have been about confronting adversity and succeeding despite your pitfalls.
It could have been partly the pursuit of happiness.
It could have been, "fall seven times, rise eight"

But it just ended up being traditional hero worship.

The good thing is that there's enough to hope for the next movie though.

Captain James T. Kirk is not a douche. Just kinda. But he's okay.

Recently, there was an article on io9 that straight out called Chris Pine's Kirk a "douchebag".

At face value, that's what I thought too.
Yet, really, he's just cocky and confident, not super douchy.
Pine's Kirk is definitely not William Shatner's Captain. James. T. Kirk.
Yet, Pine does justice and creates a believable, yet herotastic Kirk.

Recently, I was asked where I get my confidence.

(Okay, I'm not that confident, but apparently I look so. Anyways.)

My answer was that I don't really know.
I just am carefully confident.
In my opinion, Kirk was always this way too.
He just is confident.
And this Kirk is just as so.

All Good Things...

...must come to an end.

And right when you thought things could pickup, the movie ends.

Nero?
Oh, yeah.
He's dead already.
Can't we go explore the next solar system or something?

That's what the movie ends on.

And I like that.

It ends with a great platform for the next feature.

I just hope it's a little deeper.

Space, The Final Frontier...

It's damn good.

Go watch now.

Study Hall Hell: Why It's An Even Bigger Waste of Time Than It Ever Was

2009-04-27T23:14:08Z

The rise of technology has really done one thing for all of us. It's made it a lot easier to work from anywhere. We can take work home on disc or stick and we can sure as hell do it when we want to. Very few things, especially in the educational context, actually needs to be confined to a school or classroom.

In fact, as many technologic forerunners like to say, ranging from Mimi Ito to Don Tapscott to my boss to occasionally me, this new age in information ubiquity is all about life long learning. The availability of information allows for education and learning to be a constant, on-demand and no long stringently constricted by the availability of a teacher. The Internet allows for that small world syndrome to come to an apex, freeing all of us to learn what we want, when we want, and from who we want. And by extension, schools are somewhat reduced to rubber stamp organizations that commoditize the individual.

In theory.

But the same constructs that allow all of this information transparency and access also directly affects the constraints on non-educational things as well. Websites, services and games have all allowed for the space between people feel closer and less distinct. We can now access the activities of our friends, family and even neighbors via constructs such as, in no particular order, Facebook, email, Twitter, blogs, World of Warcraft, Second Life, SMS, Skype and instant messaging.

Indeed, the world has gotten smaller! WE CAN BE WITH OUR FRIENDS ANYTIME!

Yet, despite the spread of the newest of new technologies, the 'social' of 'social networking' remains poor facsimile of the real thing. Regardless of our social mannerisms and stature, the persona of our human existence is often warped and construed by the interpretation of the two-dimensional context of the Internet. The medium is inherently flawed and is not a substitute for actual face-to-face interactions and true social membership in a community. The medium is naturally dividing and allows for the detachment of the 'real' individual and the 'online' individual. Concurrently, the 'social' component is inherently fueled by the presentation of the individual. The feedback, in turn, creates a pleasing response that fulfills the social hunger of the single person. Though it is hard to diminish or rate this interaction, it is a different type of social membership and community. But that doesn't make it the primary... At least until we all evolve into machines.

Enter study hall.

Study hall is a construct that is supposed to allow students to study during school hours. Naturally, it is open for students to freely interpret and select what they feel as optimum. And it's no surprise that such hours, except in those times of duress (typically post-procrastination), this interpretation typically involves not doing a lot (procrastination!). Though it is also available for group work, study hall naturally moves what is individual time typically outside of the school schedule into it. And this is where things begin to separate.

Despite the long, long twelve years of primary and secondary education, this time is actually a fairly short in the grand scheme of things. Yet, high school is barely four years and study hall is an even tinier speck of this spectrum. But this time in high school is also, what I believe to be, strongly formative in the lives of many students. And study hall wastes this time. Time that school can create communal and social participation.

As mentioned above, schools have become somewhat marginalized with the rise of information ubiquity. But no social construct has usurped its place as an organization that can organize and bring together similarly aged groups of people, especially youth. Regardless of the overall efficiency of the educational structures themselves, schools act as a hub that can allow for strong academic collaboration and facilitate the healthy growth of the youth. Schools also enjoy place in many societies as places of learning and a status of pseudo-sanctity. It is these qualities that we cannot ignore nor squander. Schools need to be efficient and have it so students can exploit every single moment they get to be with their peers while manipulating the increasing deluge of information.

Study hall flies into the face of this, wasting time that can be used to collaborate in the real world. And this is without considering the fact that students are busier than ever and have less real time to spare outside of the school day. Naturally, one or two hours of freedom is probably not a bad thing, but it is subject to the typical laws of diminishing returns. Technology allows for individual time at home to be enriched with the strength of community and face-to-face time, but let's not waste the real thing when it's available. When it all comes down to it, Facebook Groups do not replace band and student council nor teach how to organize events and negotiate rent. Let school be where students get real social experience.

Battlestar Galactica: Rules, Considerations & Resolution

2009-04-13T12:19:27Z

This is a random rambling about Battlestar Galactica. I can't get it to come out right, and frankly, I give up. This post sucks. Battlestar was good. And it makes you think outside of the box. That's what I'm trying to say. But I'm still posting.

I have always been a science fiction fan. Star Wars, Star Trek, Cowboy Bebop. Brave New World, 1984, Blade Runner. Whatever the medium or style, science fiction has always been one of my favorite forms of exploring the human experience.

That said, Battlestar Galactica was a show I got into very, very late. Despite hearing all the rumors and talk about an incredible sci-fi experience, the show didn't catch my attention until far into its last season. This was most likely due to the campy, craptacular nature of the original and the varying science fiction shows that have been mentioned in the past, such as Babylon 5 and Firefly, that were talked up but barely caught my attention.

"For that one fraction of a second, you were open to options you had never considered. That is the exploration that awaits you... [C]harting the unknown possibilities of existence." - Q (John DeLancie), Star Trek: The Next Generation

Although dystopias and the continuous questioning of human progress are part of my own personal views, I have a soft spot for Star Trek and its optimism. Though fans and product are both eternally mocked and loved for its own form of campiness, Star Trek provides a view to a world where life is better, but with its own set of problems. Yet, instead of simply trying to overcome problem after problem, its storytellers invited the watcher to try to understand the conundrum beyond the plot device of the week. Through a lens based on tolerance and diversity, creator Gene Roddenberry projected an optimistic worldview in an age of Cold War hostilities.

But, in essence (or cynically), Star Trek is about a set utopian rules and testing these rules with various allegories of (nearly) everyday problems. Racism, good & evil, sharing, artificial intelligence, arrogance, sin, war, death, cheating, whatever. Star Trek was a dispenser for stories that were tackled with the gloss of optimism.

"You cannot play God then wash your hands of the things that you've created. Sooner or later, the day comes when you can't hide from the things that you've done anymore." - Commander William Adama (Edward James Olmos), Battlestar Galactica.

Where Star Trek tested its own fictional rules of tolerance, Battlestar Galactica presented a world where the society was shattered. Star Trek's stories & world were always supported by a mythical United Federation of Planets and its Starfleet. Few times were such givens blatantly broken by the heroes, as repercussions and uniformly strong moral character seemed to be without shortage in the universe.

In contrast, the crew of Galactica and its ragtag fleet are faced with the abyss of extinction during the entire run of the series. And with that premise, they confront the perpetual questioning of existence itself and sustaining values that they had previously held as inalienable.

"Sometimes, you gotta roll the hard six" - Lieutenant Sharon Valerii (Grace Park), Battlestar Galactica

For me, Battlestar Galactica's appeal came from this struggle between the divide between order and anarchy. Where Star Trek tested rules that were enforced, Battlestar Galactica tested how the rules stood and bent under duress. And it is this freedom from the rules that allowed a new exploration beyond a single vision of the future. In place of a vision, Galactica explored the fringes and limitations of mankind. And it danced all over it.

Galactica's "rules beyond the rules" may not seem too revolutionary, but for me, it opened up a new set of considerations. What are the rules where there are no rules? What rules are the rules that need to be rules and which are superfluous? Add to that the considerations of the classic dystopia of technology versus humanity and you're left with a enormous pile of materials for the dreaming Chief of IT Operations. (No surprise that my position title is inspired by all the 'chiefs' that fix everything on sci-fi starships.)

"All good things must come to an end" - English Proverb

Obviously, this post has been inspired in part by the end of Battlestar Galactica. And really, I'd rather talk about that. Because the final episode was a vapid excuse for an ending. No, I don't really have a problem with the ending itself. But the delivery was awful. The action story never teased the viewer with the possibility of failure and everything felt as if it was scripted and on greased rails running towards a happy ending as fast as possible. Ron D. Moore has said that he felt that it was all about the characters, but really, we need plot too. The character stories were well scripted, but the story lacked punch and whatever complexities were left to the will of God or the Gods or whatever other random plot device they could come up with. Including making Starbuck a frakking archangel or something.

All in all, it was a good run. Galactica made me think. It made me laugh. It made it fun.

Now I just need to find another place for my sci-fi fix.

Something To Munch On

2009-04-12T21:33:21Z

While I work on my entries, munch on this...

This video goes best with this one from CHOW.

What If Schools Get In The Way?

2008-12-11T22:41:44Z

I am going to go and piss on a lot of lawns today with this one.

But.

Don't say I didn't warn ya.

Here we go.

What if schools get in the way of students?
Please note that this opinion is entirely based in the frame of the developed nation. United States. Japan. Western Europe. Basically countries where people have a large amount of disposable income.

Back to the topic.

We have an innate assumption that school is good. It's the ultimate 'parent's word' that has few spoken justifications beyond 'you have to', 'it's your job', etc. And it's not like we have a choice. Regardless of background or economic standing, these words are nearly universal. Children are a special case where their entire choice is dictated by the parent.

As a result, we have our schools. Pushing for a balance of academia and activity, our schools provide controlled environments for students to explore their world. Most of the time, the schools are built to give a fairly balanced, if not identical, education to each student. Regardless of the flexibilities of the IB or AP or any other academic program, students are inundated with work that is, on the surface, developed to give students different shades of gray.

Yet, with our economic standing, what if these assumptions and results were wrong? What if school, in the sense of "reading, writing and arithmetic", had a negligible, minimal or detrimental effect on the development of kids. Partially, this is discrimination based on economic standing. But this is not a moral issue. A child of a billionaire is going to inherently have more opportunities and freedoms than a middle class family. Similar to Amartya Sen's argument in Development as Freedom, the increased development is only going to allow for more choices and liberties. We, as members of the first world, are going to have more chances and flavors of ice cream.

In a sudden, but completely related jump, let us consider economics. The typical economist may work on figuring out prices and market theories to figure out how development or trade works out. But in the end, it is the study of the allocation of scarce or limited resources. Key factors such as diminishing returns and comparative advantage determine how the economist views the world. These are common concepts when considering trade, manufacturing or other various doodahs regarding our wellness. Yet, these are not considered in the educational field.

So, what if we did apply this to a certain range of students. What would happen if we considered diminishing returns in a student? Consider a student that has diminishing marginal returns as we increased the amount of math work (i.e. said student hates math). The economist may suggest the student ditch math class. Conversely, if the student loves math, the student would benefit from doing more math work. Most of us wouldn't dream of growing rice in Antarctica or raising cows in Death Valley. So why should we force feed a certain type of curriculum on a student who rejects the material?

"But Genki! You're insane!" may describe the thoughts going through your head. "We do a curriculum to make sure a student gets equal taste of all the intellectual ice cream!" To this, I have no argument against it. But why has the education in our much, much wealthier world remained in a strongly one-size-fits-all format, as if we don't have the money to upgrade it ? Why isn't curriculum customized down to the individual student level, where a teacher or mentor can nimbly adjust to a student's desire of exploration and get the frak out of the way when the kids really ramp it up? Why are teachers forced into positions where they inherently block kids from their potential and interests? Why can't teachers be guides for learners, making sure they follow ethics, principals and fundamentals of their interests? Why can't teachers be co-learners, analyzing and offering constructive criticism?

Learning spawns learning. But why do we keep stuffing when we can be collaborating?

Why aren't teachers enablers?