hw 51 school paper

Intro

Parents and teachers attempt to convince students that going to school is one of the most important things in their life, that without a traditional education they will be left with nothing and will go nowhere. Some theorist’s argue that school prepares you for life and we must focus on how to improve people’s preparation for the rest of their lives but does it even do that? The one thing traditional schooling does very well is dominate. Teachers dominate students, administrators dominate teachers and even politicians dominate administrators. Education claims to help one get a better life by making a person more conscious or intelligent but what it’s really good at is training people to accept control. There are two main types of educating: traditional and progressive. One is based on standardization and teacher dominating the ideas and knowledge of students and the other is student centered, developing a deeper level of understanding and insight into their own lives.

School has dominated us into where saying the right thing at the right time is all that matters, no individuality nor creativity is necessary. If you can recall a date, event in history or formula you get an “A” but that doesn’t mean you’re smart. School has turned us into sheep saying what someone else wants but not what we think. It in a lot of ways defeats individualism and personal interest. School numbs children into conformed boxes, in these boxes students are told they are learning but instead are memorizing things that they will either soon forget or never need.

Argument one

A prominent social theorist, Ted Sizer, has developed a new, more progressive style of learning, not based on testing and reciting facts but on gaining a deeper level of understanding of a topic. It is based on understanding why this topic matters, what it has to do with you and what can you take from it: “Students use their minds. Schools are to provoke young people to grow up intellectually, to think hard and resourcefully and imaginatively about important things.” Sizer is saying that school should not be about absorbing facts but about real, intricate understanding and comprehension. Students need almost more than anything else to be taught to think; they should be taught to examine their lives, experiences and the relationship to world events.

Sizer’s idea of deep comprehension relies heavily on individualism, something that is nearly impossible to do in a widespread standardized school system. One of the important parts needed to make a good school is student motivation. Where is the motivation in a school where students see no relevance between what they are learning and their lives? The students experience nothing personal and develop no interest, therefore no true learning is taking place and no intelligence or growth develops. And more importantly, the student doesn’t leave with a plan to continue personal growth. In the Sizer method the ability to develop an understanding is a transferable skill that can be replicated throughout life, something that doesn’t regularly take place in traditional schools.

The book How Children Fail by John Holt brings up some interesting points about modern schooling. The idea that there can only be one interpretation and only one answer creates a school based on fear. It instills a fear of failing in the students. Students are pushed to new heights just to get the right answer, because that is all they see when they add success and school; there is no critical thinking or examination. “Schools give every encouragement to producers, the kid whose idea is to get “right answers” by any and all means. In a system that runs on “right answers” they can hardly help it. And these schools are often very discouraging places for thinkers.” (Holt, 48.) Holt suggests that educational institutions commend students who find the right answer for being good re-hashers of information and condemn students who use creative, practical thinking. What kind of school system discourages thinking?

Holt also discusses the classroom participation forced upon the students by their well-intentioned teachers. He writes: “Maybe I thought the students were in my class because they were eager to learn what I was trying to teach, but they knew better. They were in school, because they had to be, and in my class either because they had to be or because otherwise they would have had to been in another class, which might be even worse.” (Holt 46.) This school system has created an environment where the students have been turned off because no learning materializes. They follow a system where the teacher is sole leader and the students must take it. Thus they feel no connection to the topic and interest is eliminated. This is why students only remember and use a small percentage of what they learn in school. Obviously, the teacher is convinced that if they are interested in the topic and have domineering control over the class the students must also be interested and intrinsically motivated to focus but that is not necessarily true. To this end Holt says “… A child who is learning naturally, following his curiosity where it leads him, adding to his metal model of reality whatever he needs and can find a place for, and rejecting without fear or guilt what he does not need, is growing – in knowledge, in the love of learning and the ability to learn.” (Holt 220.)

Argument 2

Another researcher who has corroborated with the information and ideas presented by Holt and Sizer is Pablo Freire. Freire’s main argument against traditional schooling is that it has become simply a banking method; information is just deposited from the “enlightened” teacher to the “helpless” student, and the intelligence and worth of the student is decided on his or her ability to retrieve that information. Freire writes in the second chapter of his book, Pedagogy of the oppressed:

Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the “banking” concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits. They do, it is true, have the opportunity to become collectors or cataloguers of the things they store. But in the last analysis, it is the people themselves who are filed away through the lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at best) misguided system. (Freire)

Freire discusses traditional, widespread education as simple domination, teacher above student. The teacher makes announcements and the students unwittingly deposit them into their minds because that is all they know, it’s all they have been told. This is so wrong because it breeds students who can only do one thing, collect. A student’s intelligence is based on their ability to collect, keep, and restate. The student becomes so enthralled in being the perfect depository that they fail to expand their creative mind. The mind that helps them solve problems, learn from experiences and understand, and adapt to their lives. Freire shows that when you center twelve years of your life on being depositories you’re left with next to nothing of substance.

Argument 3

These conclusions about school domination and the problems in the traditional school system are supported by physiologists who study multiple intelligences. One psychologist who defends multiple intelligences is Howard Gardner. Gardner defends the notion that there are multiple subject matters to be skilled in. Not only are there multiple types of intelligences they are completely independent from one another. Gardner once said: “If I know you're very good in music, I can predict with just about zero accuracy whether you're going to be good or bad in other things.” Schooling assumes that if you are a bad test taker, or you cannot repeat information you are not intelligent but that is completely false. A student can be have a hard time assimilating to school but that in no way predicts their true intelligence. Every type of intelligence is independent and exclusive and it is irresponsible for educators to ignore this concept.

Another physiologist who supports the theory that defining intelligence is more than just picking the right answer on a test is Robert Sternberg. Sternberg’s theory is that there are three main types of intelligence, analytical, creative, and practical. Sternberg once said: “The three parts of the theory are analytical ability, the ability to analyze things to judge, to criticize. Creative, the ability to create, to invent and discover and practical, the ability to apply and use what you know.” Sternberg says that intelligence cannot be defined simply as getting the single right answer to an irreverent question. Intelligence and success in school should include ones ability to form an opinion, artistry, and imagination and applied knowledge and know how. These theories support the conclusion that school domination would be lessened if not eliminated if the administrators and legislators taught to the strengths and interests of the students.

conclusion

In conclusion tradition schools are institutions where dominance is overly prevalent and real learning rarely takes place. Schools need to the concept that the skills of learning are transferable and once a child has been hooked on learning and the love of learning he will use those skills over and over rather than being dominated by the teacher or administrator.

Works cited

Sizer quote: http://www.essentialschools.org/pub/ces_docs/fforum/1997/speeches/sizer_speech.html

Holt quote 1: Holt, John. How Children Fail. New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1964. 48. Print.

Holt quote 2: Holt, John. How Children Fail. New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1964. 46. Print.

Holt quote 3: Holt, John. How Children Fail. New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1964. 220. Print.

Freire quote: Freire, Pablo. "Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed." anu.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr 2010. .

Gardner quote: "Howard Gardner." BrainyQuote.com. Xplore Inc, 2010. 24 April. 2010. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/howardgard194101.html

Sternberg quote: "Robert Sternberg." BrainyQuote.com. Xplore Inc, 2010. 24 April. 2010. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertster296031.html

hw 50

Gatto against school summary-
Gatto's against school article has a lot of points, one of the most interesting is that when we go to school for five days a week for nine months a year for 12 years but in so many cases don't receive an education, they don't learn anything. School is set up to put students into a submissive state that puts students under ranked from the teacher. School is supposed to prepare children for becoming adults so we need show them how to and that doesn't happen in schools. Gatto also talks about what school really accomplishes, the way we learn and are taught allows us to become obedient and indoctrinated. School also conforms students, it does a terrible job looking at the individual but a good job looking at the group. In a lot of ways we are reduced to numbers and dehumanized sorting, we are sorted and have no control schooling reduces us from individuals to a part in the social group. To much of schooling and grading brings down the lesser students and bring up the stronger so leaving no chance for improvement.
Response: Gatto brings up some interesting points. I agree with Gatto when he said "We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness - curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight - simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids to truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then." to me this just seems logical, all i hear is that school helps prepare you for life, it teachers you how to be a functioning adult and how to get a good job. Well if that's true shouldn't we treat students as adults. give them knowledge and tools to act independently, have more student accountability. I also find it interesting when he mentions all the famous people that we hold so highly but never did receive a proper education. we look up to them and want to be like them but at the same time go to school everyday even though they didn't.
gatto six lessons summary- in this article Gatto discusses the six basic lessons/central themes that take place in our school system. these lessons happen everywhere in the country and have become the basis of our education:lesson one is school is a giant sorting machine, students are sorted and numbered. lesson one also talks about how sorting puts students in a place from which they cannot get out, sorting keeps kids in their place and prevents movement or advancement. lesson two says that school is completely teacher oriented and that students should understand that they are at the discretion of the teacher meaning that when the teacher switches topic the students should switch with ease. The third lesson is simply be obedient, as a student you have no real power so stop fighting the teacher as if you do have power. The fourth lesson is similar to lesson 3 it says that the teacher is one in control and the students should respect authority. Lesson five focuses on the grading system implemented by schools. In school everyone is being judged and a student is only as good as his teacher or transcript tells him. Lesson six says that school is a place where students can be constantly watched to make sure they don't learn anything that would tamper with the schools mission. He even writes "Children must be watched if you want to keep a society under control."
response- I don't believe this is something Gatto believes or wants to to happen they are just trends he has noticed. It is scary to think about especially lesson six. the idea that school is just a place where students are monitored so they are kept in check is unsettling and sounds like something from "1984." I do not believe that this is all school is, some parts maybe but not the entire education system. I do agree with Gatto on the point that school is about being obedient and respecting authority, school is full of domination and the teacher is in control of the student. So on lessons two and three i agree with Gatto.

Freire: In his writing Freire brings up the point that no one is really learning, no one gets a relateable or true education, information is just pored into their heads and whether or not they can recite it shows their intelligence. Teachers give students information that they deem real knowledge and if they can hold that knowledge and retrieve it they are considered intelligent but in reality they are no better than they next guy. Freire constantly talks about the inequality our schools system creates, known as the banking system. This system relies on the teacher and the student being unequal. The teacher is higher and the student is their subordinate. The banking system attempts to dumb down the student, to push them away from thinking, individualism, education that affects their life and keep them ignorant, so they can be utilized. Our banking system of learning depends on the submissiveness of the individual and hope they will not ask questions and Freire hates this.
Response: I have mixed feelings on Freire's idea, while even the most right-wing educator will agree that some of the things you learn in school seem useless and are just filler that doesn't mean that the 12 years of school are just depositing useless information. I have used a lot of what I learned in History and English in discussion and debate, not everything taught is pointless. I agree with Freire on the point that school requires you to be obedient to authority (but I do see that decreasing as you get to high school.) School asks that you be submissive and not resist and that in some ways prepares you for respecting authority later in life. I agree that being subordinate to every adult in the school seems kind of outdated but i don't completely see that as being every student being completely oppressed like Freire. Freire's argument seems somewhat radical but nevertheless is an valid view point.

Delpit: Summary: Delpit's idea's centers around how the school system we use is not universal, far from it. The way we teach children works for some of students but it fails nearly just as much. Delpit also focuses on what she calls the culture of power. The culture of power has five basic aspects, these parts help explain how our school system might let students from one culture will do well but another culture might not.

One is that students lack power. their teachers control them, their textbooks control what they see, the administrators control what textbooks they get. Delpit also shows that school prepares us for work, and our status in our jobs determines the power we hold, therefore lack of power in school correlates to lack of power in life. Two is that there are a set of codes and rules to follow in order to be accepted in school. these rules are set up to not match with every culture, in other words school attempts to conform students in to a specific ideal. Aspect three says that the best way to be successful in school is to be part of the culture or group that has the power. Those that have power set rules and codes that dictate how to be successful in school so those that are from power are used to the codes and those that are not must learn it all from the start as new. Aspect four is somewhat of an extension of "3" it explains how it is easier for information to be passed within a culture than between two. This explains that its easier for the students from power to learn when compared to students from other cultures. The final, aspect five explains that the members of the culture of power ignore or don't talk about the fact that they are in power, they refuse to acknowledge it because then they look like the bad guy.
Response: Delpit's argument makes logical sense. It's obvious that a persons culture affects what they are interested in learning and how well they do in one subject and not all schools are exactly culturally neutral. The two aspects that seem the most logical to me are number three and four. If what is taught is based on the power culture the students from that culture will essentially be relearning the basics, being taught what they already know. Obviously this is unfair and creates an un-level playing field. schooling should be culturally neutral, giving each student equal opportunity to learn the topic.
delpit interview with N. Stanley summary- Delpit's core mission in education is to give students the skills needed to succeed no matter what their culture or class. Delpit expresses her ideology that the most effective ways to teach students is through art. Creative learning, to her seems more universal in every culture than learning from a worksheet or lesson. delpit also expresses her belief that learning in context especially with language, can be much more beneficial than textbook learning. She continues to express that what makes the best teacher is someone who is genuine and truly want all the kids to succeed, its not enough to simply teach from a textbook. If the teacher is committed, the student will be committed.
response I agree with most of the stuff Delpit says, in my experience applied learning where we are taught in terms of when it will be used is by far the best way to learn. There is a difference between hearing a topic and seeing it, in other words you can either be told how to speak a sentence in Spanish or you can see how it applies to normal conversation and for me at least the latter of the two is the most effective. To her point that some cultures learn differently i think is correct, there are 100's of different cultures in the word and its illogical to think they all look at a test or a topic in the same light. In addition to teach a student but have no care in whether or not they succeed just adds to their feeling that they don't need to be in school and there is no purpose in learning your topic.

Manley summary-The lecture from Manley covered a few different topics. It started off with the idea that teaching in general can be a very humanistic job. It allows people to become more connected and get to know each other. From there it branched off into what are the advantages and disadvantages of traditional and progressive learning. He talked about the idea that much of difference between progressive or tradition is predicated on whether or not the class is teacher or student centered. He also talked about his experience in a traditional school and how it lowered his self esteem which was interesting. We also able to discuss the argument that the best way to have a progressive school is in a small setting because its hard to facilitate individual education to a large group of kids with only a small amount of teachers.
Response-This interview was helpful and interesting because it incorporated many different aspects, like personal experience, main ideas, and pro's and con's of teaching methods. It was interesting to think that having a more progressive class can be as easy as making it less teacher based or authoritative and more equal. It makes me wonder why it is not used that often, why are so many schools stuck with the banking model. It was also somewhat thought-provoking to think about how a lot of the debate on progressive vs. tradition boils down to in depth learning vs broad learning. Its a hard choice to pick which is the overall best choice, one gives you more insight, while the other prepares you better for life.

hw 49

a. your personal contribution:
in the movie i played the role of rebellious student. The character helped show a different type of student outlook towards school.Having different characters, with different ideas on school like the teacher who likes poetry, the gossipers who care about their social lives or the rebellious students show opinions on what school is for whether it be for learning, socializing, or killing time. Having a rebellious student helped focus on how unengaged and uninterested students are in what they are taught. In that respect the rebellious students of the class show that much of the problems in school lie in the topics and the lack of connection the students feel.
b. your analysis of the message and tone of your section's film
To me the message of our class film is that students do not care about what school is offering and schools fail to accomplish their goal of education students and creating intelligent citizens. The fact that at the end of the film the students just started talking again as if nothing happened shows that overall students don't care about what school is set up to do, and the failure of the teacher shows the failure of schools to effectively teach students. The obvious emotions shown by the teacher also touch a little on the idea that education and student teacher relationships aren't always so black and white. The teacher and students are supposed to have a strictly professional relationship but that isn't always the case (as we see in the film) and that attributes to the failure of the teacher, the school, and the students. A lot of what caused the conflict of the story and a part of the message is that all the characters had different objectives the teacher wanted to enlighten and educate but only a small amount wanted to be educated, the different objectives collided and attributed to the teachers breakdown and the classes. The sad tone plays into the all around upsetting atmosphere schools creates. In too many cases there is more of a negative than a positive and the tone of the film is meant to help show that.
c. contrast the film with the savior/teacher films we watched clips of
The obvious main difference between this film and the other teacher films we watched is that the teacher failed. He couldn't get the students interested in the class and eventually they won unlike dangerous minds or dead poets society. In our film our teacher wasn't such a hero which Is the most used option except in maybe the class. In most of the other films we watched the teacher switched to immanence as then succeeded but in our film there was no switch the teacher was unable to teach the students. There was also no change in the student
perspective.

The breakdown of the teacher had no effect on the students in the other films we watched the teacher made a connection with the students but in our film no such connection was made. Another difference in the our film was that there was a collection if different types of students in most of the films we watched (except for maybe hamlet 2) there was only bad kids in dangerous minds and freedom writers only good kids in dead poet society. However in our film there were some smart kids some rebels and some gossipers.

d. theorize (explore thoughtfully and powerfully) the connection between salvation and education/schooling in our culture
I think there is a big difference between salvation and education in our school system. Of all the teachers in new york i would guess that less than one percent truly enlighten or save their students. Sure there is the occasional teacher that can really help a student get a better life but for the most part giving an education is really just about going through the motions. Salvation from good teachers doesn't seem to happen often enough, educating helping or saving and standard schooling in this country don't seem to correlate. they are almost opposites.

A lot can be learned from the fact that this film was made by students, the group that understands school better than anyone. Its shows the opposite reality of what the savior teacher films say, all the movies like Dangerous Minds seem unrealistic. School in our culture does a good job drilling information into students heads but is ineffective when it comes to helping students who need help with something other than what is in the district curriculum.

extra credit

2a.Do you hold the teacher responsible for the damage done to Souleymane?
What happened to Souleymane was obviously sad and i disagree with the decision to expel him but who holds responsibility is a lot less obvious. The way I see it there are two main people responsible for the expulsion and possible deportation of Souleymane, the teacher (Francoise) and the student Esmeralda. Each one played a part in creating the incident and are all equally responsible.

To start the teacher is obviously partly responsible because he called the disciplinary hearing, his decision to call the hearing is what lead to his eventual expulsion. However I only hold him responsible for that the incident itself was not his fault. When Souleymane started to yell at him in class the teacher was only trying to stop him so he could do his job. Souleymane was impeding on the teachers ability to teach the rest of the class. However going back we see that the entire argument was started by Esmeralda when she leaked the information from the meeting to the students. In doing that she incited Souleymane and some of the other students to act out and complain in the middle of class. If Esmeralda kept the information to herself like she should have the whole problem never would have occurred while I blame the teacher for calling the hearing I hold Esmeralda responsible for the incident itself. Both characters are at fault and should hold blame.

2b.Are the 14-15 year old's morally responsible for their own choices?

Whether or not the students are morally responsibility for the own choices brings up the question: Do they understand what they should do versus what they should not do? I believe Souleymane knew very well what he should have been doing in class and what he shouldn't have done. Therefore the yelling and arguing with the teacher is Souleymane's fault, if Souleymane wanted to talk to the teacher about calling him "limited" he should have done it after class. Instead he chose to become verbally hostile and disrupt the whole class. The choice to be disruptive and rude the teacher was made consciously and individually. While I do not think he should have been expelled for hitting the other student with his bag because it was an accident i do think he should have been reprimanded for being disruptive and preventing the teacher from teaching.

2c Is the teacher morally responsible for finding solutions to the institutional car wreck that he's steering his class through? Or would it be better to see this as a systematic issue rather than an individual moral issue? If the former, how should the system be altered? If the latter, how should individuals be trained to make more effective moral and pragmatic choices?

Too me this seems more like a system problem than a individual one. If we analyze the roots of the incident we see that it was all because Esmeralda was allowed to sit in on the teacher meeting. That is obviously a system wide policy and one that helped fuel the problems in the class. Secondly disruptive students are a problem in nearly every classroom. Souleymane acting out was not the first act of rebellion from a student toward a teacher. It happens all over the system and even by other students in the class therefore the less disciplined system itself is slightly responsible for the incident.

One way the system can be altered is through eliminating the need for students to sit in on meetings. the idea that they represent their classmates and help create equal say is great but we see that, that does not happen instead it provokes problems for the class. Another way the system should be altered should be that there should be higher discipline for students to disrupt the class and less for students who don't care. I think the school might benefit from more student accountability. Every time a teacher has to stop and tell a student to pay attention it takes a way from the learning time of the other students. After a certain age students understand the consequences of their actions, they understand that of they don't do well in school they probably won't get ahead in life. Students know this and if they still make the choice to not pay attention its their mistake and the other students shouldn't wait while the teacher lectures them on why they should pay attention.

homework 48

possible film treatment:
Jake a normal teenager is having breakfast with his father. We learn that his mother and father are both very intelligent and his father is a member of Mensa. The intellectual environment causes Jake to value his education highly. during the breakfast the father expresses his anger with Jake's school, saying that he isn't challenged enough and no one in the school cares teacher or student. Jake explains to his father that he agrees with him but it is something that happens everywhere and in much of the system. The father continues to talk about the problem but Jake doesn't really listen. after a short while he leaves for school.

Jake's school is obviously bad, from the exterior it looks old and without any funding for renovation and all the kids are completely distracted, no one but Jake is going to class. Jake goes to his class and walks in with all his friends who do care about school more than most of the students in the school but not as much as Jake. after a while a teacher walks in, he looks tired and out of it. he puts his feet on the desk and tells the kids to take the period off because he has a hangover. No one is shocked by it because it has become a frequency. Jake turns around and talks to his friends. They talk about how crazy it is that this is their school. They talk about how they wish they could be learning and being prepared for college, all of them are upset but eventually change the subject to something else.

Jake goes home and watches TV. his father walks him and asks him if he did his homework, he tells him he had no homework then his father leaves the room and comes back and throws him a book and tells him to read it before tomorrow night. Jake looks like he is upset but inside is actually excited to be getting something to do.

At dinner Jake tells his father about what happened in school that day. he also tells him about about other problems at school and that they have one of the lowest college acceptance rates in the state. Jake's father becomes angry and tells Jake he has decided to take him out of the school and will home school him for a few months, maybe more. Jake asks him not to but the father doesn't budge. he tells him he will finish out the semester which ends in a few days then will start being home schooled.

The next day Jake tells all his friends they say their upset he wont be in school but at least he might learn something. Jake starts his homeschooling and is doing fine academically but bored and misses his friends. he is still in contact with them and they tell him that the school is getting worse and worse. and that they are getting sick of it.

About a week into the homeschooling the doorbell rings during a lesson they go to answer it and its Jake's friend Steven. Steven tells them he can't take the school anymore and wonders if it is ok if he gets taught by Jake's father too. Jake's father reluctantly says yes. they go back and continue the lesson both Jake and Steven are thrilled.

A few days later the doorbell rings again it is the rest of Jake's and Steven's friends they too want to be home schooled. The father says no but Jake appeals to his compassionate side and he agrees. there are now five students in the living room.

The five students continue to be taught by the father all of them happy and moving at a much faster level than they ever would in school. we then learn some administrators have learned about the switch and don't know if it is legal, they decide they should try to stop it.

The administrators call the father and tells him he must stop the home schooling. He refuses and hangs up, he tells the kids he doesn't know how much longer they can work together but nothing more.

Eventually the administrators meet the father at the house and demand that he sends all the kids to school or he will go court and eventually prison. The father tells them the students need him and he is served to court.

At the court they plead with the judge. Each student tells the judge about the sad excuse for education they are given. the father tells the judge that although he too is upset with the school system it is not the place of the father to take the place of the state, the students must go back to school. The father works out a deal with the judge so they can finish out the year and then go back to school. The father doesn't tell the kids until the next day.

When he tells them he is nearly in tears and the kids are obviously upset. they complain and complain and are angered but the father tells them that its OK, they only have a year of school left and they will all go to college.

They finish out the year and everything is very sad, and disappointing. the father tries to cheer them up but it is no use, all they wanted was a quality education and the moment they got it it was taken away. right when he was about to say goodbye he tells the kids to wait a minute. he walks out of the room, calls the principle of the old school asks for a job gets it then calls his boss and tells him he permanently quits. he ten goes to tell the kids he will be their teacher next year.