great.....

Its kind of funny looking at everyones post and how everyone wrote how they always struggle with reading books but not to sound redundant....cuz so do i. I thought that Frank McCourt's personal attitude throughout the book was annoying. He played it off like his life was so horrible and he was a never-ending sob story but there is more to this story. He wrote how nervous he was and how he didnt think the students would really want to listen to him but that is only his point of view. Although he looked at himself as a crummy teacher, maybe his methods really touched his students and they actually learned something from his teachings. That kind of pissed me off but i loved how sarcastic he was like Justin. People who know me know me as kind of a jerk and that i use my sarcasism to get me through. I dont use these "talents" to be a dick but sometimes i come across as one...oh well...haha.
Anyway...I wasnt a big fan of how he only looked at himself as a good teacher when he was teaching in the high end school but not when he was teaching in any other place. I understand that every person who pursues the field of teaching needs to explore the occupation to find where they belong but to only feel that sense of belonging when the students you are teaching are the smart kids who understand everything that McCourt was talking about. This situation made me angry because i want to teach high school history in an urban school district and i feel that they are just as capable of learning as any other student from anywhere. I feel that McCourt was secretly insinuating that inner city students just cant learn.?. I dont really know how else to look at it but i guess i can say that the major message i got from the book was that no teacher can effectively reach students unless they discover their methods of teaching to reach the students. Out of two thumbs....one up and one down on this one guys.