Posted on

Do you believe in ‘once saved, always saved’ (OSAS)? Why or why not?

Introduction
Biblical scholars have been arguing this question over the centuries under the alternate title of ‘eternal security’. Two distinct systems of theology, Calvinism and Arminianism, attempt to explain the relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in the matter of salvation. How you answer this question will depend on which you adhere to most. A source of contention can be seen in two main passages in the Bible, which seem contradictory on first reading:
• John 3: 16 – For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (NIV 2012).
This is also supported by Jesus’ words to Martha in John 1: 25-26 …and whoever lives by believing in me will never die… (NIV 2012).
On the surface, it appears belief in God is all that is required to be saved, but could it also infer that if you stop believing, your salvation is put into question? What level of unbelief is needed, or what behaviours could imply possible unbelief?
• Paul discusses grace now reigning to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ in Romans 5: 21 (NIV 2012) and then asks the question in Romans 6:1 (NIV 2012), “… Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?”
There is more to this statement, which goes beyond the scope of this essay, but his response in Romans 8: 12-13 (NIV 2012) is critical in this discussion. In these later verses in Romans, Paul encourages believers not to rely on grace, but to reject a sinful lifestyle because their eternal destiny is dependent on their post-conversion lifestyle choice. This indicates one can lose their eternal security.
In this paper I propose that there are good arguments for and against ‘eternal security’ as evidenced in the Bible, where we should find the source of all theology. After describing these arguments, and discussing biblical evidence that both supports and challenges both sides, I will propose my viewpoint. The answer has eternal consequences, so the intention is to give readers enough substance to challenge their own beliefs and consider the way they should live their lives going forward. In particular, can we lower our level of responsibility and just rely on God’s grace to cover over a multitude of our sins? Or should we make every effort to do what is right and holy at all times, and take responsibility for all that we do, knowing that God’s grace is there for us when it is needed, but should never be abused?

The OSAS Argument
In the Bible there are often seemingly contradictory passages, and it behoves us to seek the true meaning through the original translations (Greek and Hebrew). In many cases, we can find the true meaning easily, but where there is a lack of clarity, we should look to what we know to be clear in the first instance. Then we should try to understand the conflicting verse within that context (a hermeneutical principle known as ‘the analogy of faith’). Following this principle, those who believe we can lose our salvation could be seen to be in error as they violate this principle in two ways:
• They base their understanding of the gospel on a few difficult or unclear passages rather than on the many very clear ones;
• They overthrow the correct interpretation of clear passages by understanding them in the light of faulty views of the unclear or more difficult passages of scripture (J. Hampton Keathley 2004).

The major arguments around OSAS seem to be centred around whether or not persistent personal sin after salvation can exclude you from eternal life. A key change that takes place between the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT) is the method of atonement for sin. In Leviticus 16 the Lord tells Moses how Aaron must come before the presence of God once a year (at the Ark of the Covenant) to atone for the sins of the people. In the NT, Jesus died for our sins once and for all, making our atonement for sins complete. If we believe in Jesus, we receive the Holy Spirit to dwell within us. He is the presence of God, and it is this power we now possess that will keep us from sinning. John 3:16 tells us clearly that whoever believes in Jesus has eternal life (NIV 2012).

Many scholars have argued that this last verse is the end of the matter, taking the approach of the French theologian, John Calvin (1509 – 1564) who based his system of theology on the five tenets commonly referred to as “TULIP” (Piper 2015). On the other side of the argument, Arminians espouse the views in the Five Articles of Remonstrance of Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius, 1560 – 1609 (Arminius n.d.)
While all the tenets affect this discussion, one of the main arguments between the two views is whether or not:
• God’s grace is irresistible so no one can lose their salvation of their own accord, supporting OSAS, as in Calvinism;
• God allows His desire to save all to be resisted by an individual’s will, that could lead to losing your salvation, as in the Arminian doctrine.
While Calvin and Arminius debated this in the 17th century, some of the central issues could be traced back to Augustine’s disputes with the Pelagian’s much earlier in the 5th century and are ongoing today (Wikipedia, History of the Calvinist-Arminian Debate 2019).

Discussion of the Biblical Evidence
The key verse in support of OSAS is the much-quoted:
John 3: 16 – For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (NIV, 2012).
John Piper drew on the following scriptures to support the understanding of the gift of eternal life (Piper 2015):
Matthew 10:29; Luke 18:29-30; John 3:16, 36; John 5:24, 6:40, 17:2-3; Romans 6:23; Galatians 6:8; 1 Timothy 1:16, 6:12; Titus 1:2, 3:5-7; 1 John 2:24-25, 5:11-13; Jude 1:21 (NIV 2012).
As alluded to earlier, if belief in Jesus is all that is needed to have eternal life, then we must look at ‘belief’ carefully to make sure of our eternal security. A common understanding of belief is trust, faith or confidence in someone or something. In John 3:16, belief is much more than just having an intellectual trust in someone (in this case, the one true God in the person of Jesus), as ‘(e)ven the demons believe that – and shudder’ in James 2:19 (NIV 2012). It requires action in the form of faith that will transform your life to save you from the eternal consequences of sin and demands our total surrender and obedience to God’s word. Belief in Jesus can also imply love of Jesus and following how He lives as shown in these verses: John 14:15, 21; 1 John 2:5-6; 1 John 5:1-3 (NIV 2012).

But can lower levels of belief, or actions that indicate unbelief, affect our salvation? In Calvinism, perseverance of the saints works on the premise that God will enable a believer to persevere once believing in Christ. This supposes there is only belief or disbelief. What if there are levels of belief below true belief? The Arminian view Nixon espouses holds that true belief requires adherence to the expectations of holiness required of believers who claim to follow Christ. It doesn’t mean absolute perfection is required but does mean that persistent sin, if not repented of, can cause you to lose your salvation. Piper draws on these verses that teach sinful behaviour is antithetical to faith:
Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Ephesians 5: 3-7; 1 Timothy 6:9 (NIV 2012).

Since Jesus himself said we need faith to believe, it follows that sinful behaviour is akin to disbelief. To have real faith is to take up our cross and follow Jesus as seen in Matthew 16:24-25 (NIV 2012). Jay Lucas taught his congregation that an outward profession of faith without an inward regeneration meant you never really possessed Christ at all, so they couldn’t lose a salvation they never had. God requires commitment to the process of sanctification to bring salvation to fruition (Lucas n.d.; Nixon 2019, 89). Piper concurred with these thoughts, claiming no sin a believer commits can result in condemnation or loss of salvation, but that believers who live in continued sin are hypocrites, and not really believers at all (Piper 2015).

Piper, while also a proponent of Calvinism, supports the need to continue in one’s faith to be finally saved (Piper 2015). He points out faith and actions must work together as shown in Genesis 22 and reiterated in James 2:22, where Abraham was about to offer Isaac as a sacrifice up the mountain, and God intervened and provided a ram as a replacement, for Abraham’s faithfulness. Other passages in the NT that support the view that salvation is conditional upon faith or that we must protect our faith are:
Colossians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 15:2; Hebrews 3:6, 14; 2 Corinthians 13:5; 2 John 1:8-9; John 15:5-6 (NIV 2012).

Nixon takes the Arminian view claiming that while the initial justification is based on faith ‘whoever believes in him’, which is your initial commitment, the final judgment is based on faithfulness, which is your post-conversion commitment (Nixon 2019, 96). He stresses the concept of Commitment, which provides a connection with judgment being based on deeds spoken throughout the NT in verses such as:
Matthew 16:27; John 5:29; Romans 2:6-10; 14:10-12; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:7-10; Ephesians 6:8; and 1 Peter 1:14-17 (NIV 2012).
Nixon believes, ‘commitment wends a balanced way between the justification-by-faith passages and the judgment-by deeds passages, giving equal weight to both’ (Nixon 2019, 95). He goes on to say that while Romans 2:6-10 does not suggest ‘sinless perfection’ (Nixon 2019, 94) no amount of good works can erase his disloyalty to God and to God’s way of life (Nixon 2019, 95). Abandoning commitment to God’s lifestyle is tantamount to abandoning one’s faith.
This discussion of the Biblical evidence reinforces why there has been so much debate by so many theologians over this whole issue for a long period of time. It will probably continue long into the future, but is it God’s intention to dwell on these issues? Or would he rather we spent our energy on reaching those that are yet in the position to be able to lose a salvation they haven’t yet received?

Conclusion
It is my belief that Once Saved, Always Saved is a human term that does not clearly reflect the full intent of God’s saving grace and His requirement for us to repent and turn away from our sins in order to follow Jesus and inherit eternal life.
Clearly, some passages in the Bible state we are saved for all eternity, and in others, we can lose our eternity through repeated sin. Logic follows that we should not risk our eternity by knowingly sinning, but if we do err, we should seek forgiveness and turn away from it.
I am not willing to risk being told at the end of my days, “Depart from me”! God’s love for us was so great, giving His only son’s life for us to have eternal life, that I would want to show my appreciation by extending that love back to God. How can I show love, and at the same time sin and just expect it to be covered by God’s immense grace?
I have been saved and accepted through my positional union with Christ and know that no-one can remove me from God’s hand. I am not interested in taking part in the perfect tense argument used by some to support their saved state, or just relying on the expectation of grace to cover my sins.
I don’t consider loving God and keeping His commandments “work”; doing these things doesn’t enter the realm of thinking I am being saved by “works”. I know that I can confess my sins and God is faithful to forgive them. I would rather love God by trying to emulate how Jesus lived on earth as our example. I want to act in a way that the answer to the OSAS question would never need consideration, let alone have to be proved by God, at the end of my days on earth.

References
Arminius, James. n.d. “The Works of James Arminius – Vol.1 Nine thrological questions, Q 7 and 8.” Wesley Centre Online. Accessed October 27, 2019. http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/the-works-of-james-arminius/.
J. Hampton Keathley, III. 2004. “1.4. Assurance of Eternal Security.” Bible.org – ABCs for Christian Growth – Laying the Foundation . 30 June. Accessed October 24, 2019. https://bible.org/seriespage/14-assurance-eternal-security.
Lucas, Jay. n.d. “Is Salvation Forever? The Doctrine of Eternal Security. A position paper prepared for the Grace Community Church.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.cloversites.com/c5/c5ee493b-e6ad-4985-bdea-1a4665570f2e/documents/Is_Salvation_Forever.pdf.
NIV. 2012. NIV Faithlife Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Nixon, Timothy L. 2019. “Exegesis of Romans 8:12-13: The Epitome of Paul’s Response to the Question of Romans 6:1.” Scholar Works at Harding. Spring. Accessed October 21, 2019. https://scholarworks.harding.edu/hst-etd/12/.
Pawson, Davis. 1996. Once Saved, Always Saved?: A Study in Perseverance and Inheritance. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Accessed October 29, 2019. https://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XNJ3BgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&dq=once+saved+always+saved&ots=AjK8zpz0gr&sig=DkaGKAIcsnDBFnG3T5twRzc42UY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=once%20saved%20always%20saved&f=false.
Piper, John. 2015. “Watershed differences between Calvinists and Arminians.” desiringGod.org. 15 August. Accessed October 25, 2019. https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/watershed-differences-between-calvinists-and-arminians.
Wikipedia contributors. 2019. John Piper (theologian). 21 September. Accessed 10 27, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Piper_(theologian)&oldid=916990996.
Wikipedia, contributors. 2019. “History of the Calvinist-Arminian Debate.” Wikipedia. 31 October. Accessed November 2, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Calvinist%E2%80%93Arminian_debate#Augustine_and_Pelagius.

Tenets Calvinism Arminianism
Total Depravity Every aspect of humanity is corrupted by sin so humans can’t come to God on their own account Even though people are depraved and corrupt, they can decide to trust God or not for their salvation
Election Unconditional – God selects His people based on His will and not on anything inherently worthy in the individual Conditional – Tied in with Pre-destination, God elected those to bring to salvation – those He foresaw would believe and provide their own decisive impetus to maintain their faith
Atonement Limited – Jesus died for all, but it would only be effective for the elect Unlimited – Jesus died for all, and this would become effective for all who believed through faith. In other words, faith is the human means of obtaining forgiveness of sins that was purchased by the cross
Grace Irresistible – Those called will come to salvation through God’s work of renewal in our hearts Prevenient – God’s work of renewal in our hearts is in response to our act of saving faith. Grace therefore enables but does not ensure, personal acceptance of the gift of salvation
Perseverance of the Saints People will persevere and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from him Conditional – Arminians say God works to preserve His people, but He does not always prevent some who were born again from falling away to destruction

(Arminius n.d.; Pawson 1996; Piper 2015; Wikipedia, contributors 2019)

Posted on

Who decides what giftedness is?

WCGTC logoNew Zealand may have lost a World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, but Kentucky and technology has kept those of us unable to attend this one very well connected. It was just like being there ‘in person’ (ahem, she coughs), as I listened with passion to Roland Perrson’s Keynote address –

“Who decides what giftedness is? On the dilemma of researching and educating the gifted mind.”

So much better to hear his words, than to have to wait for the printed versions later.

To me, the biggest take-home (even though I am already at home!) had to be –

  1. We in leadership need to adapt more to the traits of our gifted scholars, those of risk-taking, setting things straight, not being afraid to challenge the status quo, question established traditions (some ideas from Winner, 1996) and challenge current knowledge monopolies, if we are to make a difference.

Are we ready to become more like those we advocate for? Or are we there already, and people find it hard to work with and accept our passionate personality type?

This last question also relates to the second ‘take-home’ from his address.

  1. To be in a place of influence, people must first adopt, conform and prove loyal to the dominant knowledge monopolies and their influential leaders; their allegiance must be proven before they are rewarded. Many of our gifted would find the sort of compromise needed an almost insurmountable challenge, given their traits identified in number 1 above!

This gets to the very heart of the acceptance of giftedness and following on from this, the funding of education provisions that will promote it. I agree with Roland, that their potential contribution to the global economy, to solving global problems, and meeting their own specific needs are important.  I love his comment, with regard to new threats in synthetic biology, nanotechnology, machine intelligence, and manipulation of genetic structure (Bostrum, in press):

“Will this human error become human terror?”

Roland (from Sweden) identified two problems that cause gifted education to suffer with problems of theory, implementation, and worldwide recognition, namely:

  1. Dogmatism ( a closed mind, characterised by stubborn refusal to acknowledge truth; a wilful irrationality leading to unsound thinking; something that can contribute tremendously to survival), and
  2. Frequent failure to recognise human nature (and take it into account in research and application).

Roland makes a great case for why this is so (you will have to listen to his speech here) but I want to look at the ability of creative gifted people to compromise, or work within the status quo.

I believe policy makers may want the ‘intellectual profit’ from our gifted population, but only if they can fit into their predetermined goals. Roland reminded us that Galileo was imprisoned for his scholarly opposition, and today the same sorts of ‘opposing scholars’ (read here, our creative gifted individuals) might also be viewed with antagonism if they are not conforming to societal expectations. As Roland reminds us, gifted often refuse to accept that which does not conform to their own logic, conviction, or insight. Their conclusions often don’t coincide with the dominant knowledge economies and therefore they may experience challenges with cooperation or eventually, continued employment. If this is the case, I wonder if there is a ceiling placed on funding ‘general education’ for the gifted and talented, but avenues outside this that government can selectively fund to promote their own ideologies.

This shouldn’t be, and probably hints at scepticism. But, Roland’s address also hinted at scepticism and Big Brother tactics, and I think realistically, we need to consider everything that might be causing a disjunction for our gifted and talented. We need to BE the change our gifted population needs; we need to encourage them to know this themselves and be their own best advocates. But, we will make more inroads if we can work with the system than fight against it. Roland spoke of Clickenbeard (2007) encouraging educators to increasingly emphasise the economic benefits of their work when interacting with policy makers to be listened to.

Funding in industry follows economic benefits – in the absence of any other form of economic benefit analysis in education, we now have National Standards! As educators, we need to be accountable for our work with the children – scary as it might sound to some. Others who have worked outside of education know only too well what accountability looks like. It is a reasonable expectation that we will be measured against some sort of goal. We would be listened to better if we were offering targets for our gifted education goals to be measured against, not just rebelling against the pre-set standards. Pro-activeness, like shown in our recent Gifted Awareness campaign is a great step forward. Encouraging our gifted students to advocate for themselves is huge!

Roland Persson started with the question, “Who decides what giftedness is?” The New Zealand Education Ministry has left that to us, to every community, to decide it for themselves. Let’s keep the momentum rolling and support those members of our gifted education organisations, advisory services, special interest groups, public and private organisations, and anyone like me, who just simply believes in gifted education and wants to see the best for our gifted kids, so they cope well into their gifted adulthood.

Roll on Odense in 2015! Saving my pennies already.

References

Bostrom,  N.  (2013).  Existential  risk  prevention  as  global  priority.  Global  Policy,  in  press.

Perrson, R.S. (2013). Who decides what giftedness is? On the dilemma of researching and educating the gifted mind. Keynote address at the 20th World Conference of Gifted and Talented Children, 10-14 August, 2013, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.

Winner,  E.  (1996).  Gifted  children.  Myths  and  realities.  New  York:  Basic  Books.

Posted on

What all teachers in regular classrooms can do for the gifted … # 1

gifted education blog
Making learning different and meaningful for all.

Teachers often think they just haven’t got time to differentiate the curriculum for gifted students. They may not use these exact words, but they look at all the other things they have to report on each week, and doing something extra on top of that for a small minority is beyond them. Besides, if they don’t really have training in teaching gifted students, what should they do?

Here are a few things that could be done in the regular classroom that would help gifted students and not hinder the rest of the class along the way. And it won’t take too much extra time, but will probably save you much stress and time in the long term. It is the start of an ongoing set of ideas especially helpful when getting started with meeting the needs of gifted children in the regular classroom.

  1. Accept there are gifted students, even if you don’t know what they should look like. If a parent tells you their child is gifted, it is usually not out of pride or bragging. It is because they have lived 24/7 with this child for their entire life, and they know there is something different about the way they think and do life. Being accepted as they are is one of the best things you can do for a gifted student, and it doesn’t take you any time at all, short of a thank you or a smile when parents offer you advice that might help you with their child.
  2. Think about what sort of investigations could be done at a deeper level right at the planning stage. This is the time you should be thinking about your gifted students, not just when they finish early or start to cause you challenges in the classroom lessons. Just as you have to think about ESOL or physical disabilities when you are planning, so you should consider how what you are planning will affect the child who might already know what you are planning to introduce to everyone in your classroom.
  3. Use labels  and practices that will not alienate your gifted child from their peers. If you say “Extra for experts” you imply that only those who complete the task at hand are experts, and worthy of a greater challenge. Gifted students are worthy of a challenge all the time, as is every student in the classroom. If they already know what is being taught, they should not have to repeat it just to earn an extra challenge. Try finding out what level each child is at before you start a topic; pretest, or maybe challenge them with the “Five most difficult first” strategy. If anyone is already familiar with the difficult level, then they should have an advanced level made available to them, or something that will challenge them to apply this knowledge in a new way.
  4. Choice is paramount for gifted students. This involves being flexible in what you will accept as an outcome that displays what the student has learned. It might be negotiated individually with the gifted student, or be part of a whole class choice system. Having a variety of products based on learning preferences, or Bloom’s taxonomy, or The Six Thinking Hats, or allowing a different context for a standard problem will accommodate the needs of gifted students to work on meaningful tasks that they are passionate about.
  5. Have a variety of question starters at all levels of thinking displayed prominently in the classroom to provide the opportunity to “differentiate on the spot” when challenged by a student needing something extra “now”. Ask the student to reword a topic with a particular question starter, or decide it yourself.   Useful starters are … In what ways could you…? Thinking about this from the …’s point of view, how else could you …? Show how many different ways it might be possible to …? From your experience, how has this helped you …? If you are not very creative, ask someone else in the school who is, or brainstorm some good question starters at your next syndicate or staff meeting.
  6. Ask your gifted students what they are interested in – it could be Antarctica, Roald Dahl books, Science Fiction, trains, aliens, or anything that they can sit and learn about for hours. Try to incorporate these passions into the curriculum they do at least once a term. Ask them a question about it at least once a week. Give them a smile at least once a day, especially when you see them reading or hear them talking about their favourite topic.

Try these six ideas out over the next few weeks, or whenever the time is appropriate, and let me know how you get on.

Posted on

Mother’s Day 2013

Yes – we love our Mothers here in New Zealand. Out come the chocolates…the brunches…the special dinners…the flowers! Well, for some of us, anyway. I have to say I was very blessed with my family taking me to lunch – even if I did have to pay for my son, who yet again, had lost his EftPos card!

Yeah … Right!!! So the Tui commercial says!

Mothers have had the grace given to them to birth and nurture and bring forth into the world. What an awesome privilege. And it is not only our biological mothers I am referring to here. There are many wonderful women who have not had the pleasure of giving birth to their own children, but who, in many other ways, have helped in the raising of young people. Do we really, I mean, Really! appreciate our mothers? Continue reading “Mother’s Day 2013”

Posted on

Global Scaremongering

We have had a wonderfully hot summer in New Zealand, since Christmas. Yes, I realise it has hurt many who depend on the rainfall to keep drought conditions at bay, but it could have been worse if we didn’t have the last two wet months of 2012; I think a lot have forgotten that.

The media have had a field day with our long, hot summer, again offering doom and gloom and prophecies of the negative effects of the planet warming. The earliest mention of global warming I have come across is from a newspaper published the year I was born, 1959, which was found in the wall cavity of an old bungalow I was renovating with my husband in 2004. It talked then of the dire consequences we were to experience then, that are yet to take place to the full extent they predicted half a century ago. Continue reading “Global Scaremongering”

Posted on

Light No Fires!!

Cooking over an open fire in the village

I laughed the other night when I deciphered from a Samoan tv news article that there was a total fire ban in Samoa. I mean – what are the people supposed to do? Most village people cook their food over an open fire! What would a total fire ban be, if you were still allowed to light a fire for cooking? Too many questions. But, I still see umu smoke rising on a Sunday, so I guess they are not going hungry.

But the reason for the fire ban is obvious – there is a drought here. Water is scarce, especially on Savaii, and parts of Upolu. Our own area, up in the Aleisa hills overlooking Apia, that gets its fair share of rain clouds, has had poor water supply since we have been here – and that is nearly four months now. We were told there would be a new sub-main down our road once the budgets had been approved, because they were out of 2″ pipes until after the new financial year started in August. Well, hello, it’s October, and no sign of our pipe yet!

We started with connecting into a half inch PVC pipe supplying the non-resident neighbour – who occasionally filled the water tanks for the cattle. Being downhill from us, it meant we could go without water for a day as he called by in the morning to turn the tap on, and returned later in the evening to turn it off – if we were lucky. But that was in the deal, so we got a few water barrels and made do with what we had.

When this even dried up for days because of the narrow pipe,  we tapped into the other neighbour’s 3/4 inch pipe and had a more regular supply. That became infrequent as the water authority turned the pressure down during the early part of the week, needing us to buy a pump just to get it up to the header tanks on the roof. It was always available at least once during the week to get the whites ready for church on Sundays – so we made sure to build our higher usage around the days the water flowed.

Somehow I have managed to produce a crop of over 500 tomatoes and 25 sweetcorn off the land, and beans coming out our ears! Another crop of tomatoes that made very poor growth to start with have now leaped into life with more regular watering. The pineapples continue to grow despite the lack of water, as do the staple crops of taro and taamu.

So, I will light no fires, as I am told to do. (Except my gas cooker and mossie zappers, right?) But I will still see smoke arising from around the village next Sunday, as always.

 

 

Posted on

Gifted Awareness Week New Zealand

This week coming New Zealand is hosting its annual Gifted Awareness Week – a time when we hope to reach more eyes and ears in an effort to alert the general population to this special group of people in our community – the “gifted”. In many ways they have been prone to losing the use of their gifts or having their uniqueness shunned through general ignorance of those around them. Continue reading “Gifted Awareness Week New Zealand”

Posted on

The 5.75 Questions You’ve Been Avoiding – by Michael Bungay Stanier

This got me thinking – it was just an interlude that started to challenge my ‘procrastinating’ personality. Watch the short video – The 5.75 Questions You’ve Been Avoiding – by Michael Bungay Stanier and ask yourself if the .75 question is numbered correctly! Is it only worth .75, or should it really have been entitled the “5 and 100 questions”? Continue reading “The 5.75 Questions You’ve Been Avoiding – by Michael Bungay Stanier”

Posted on

Questioning … the art of encouraging thinking

Often teachers feel overwhelmed at the thought of trying to meet the needs of all the different students in their classroom. They think they have to have 26 different plans – one for each child in the class. I don’t think even our super-human teachers could carry that on for too long.

The ministry wants us to personalise the learning for each of the students. Continue reading “Questioning … the art of encouraging thinking”