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.

homework 47

*1.A story that mimics the school where all the teachers were fired, but the students still pressure the fired teachers to teach them after school.

2.The of a teacher that teaches everything in the curriculum into applied learning so the students see the importance of what they are learning.

3.A new math teacher is given his curriculum but instead teaches only what he believes is necessary for real life.

4. An English teacher decides only to teach banned books.

*5.One student is taken out of a really bad school by his father and home schooled, and some of the other students leave school and are taught by the father.

6.The students learn more when they are taught by other students than with teachers because they can relate.

7.The film can be shot from the view of the teacher

8.the students are very calm and the teacher is very loud and energized.

homework 46

The Catcher in the Rye is the story of Holden Caulfield and his attempt to weed out the "phonies" and find someone who sees the world like he does. Holden rejects the prep school life style. According to him everyone has become an indoctrinated follower an walks blindly. I think Salinger main argument in the book is that it is not necessary to do what the system wants from you. Salinger uses Holden to say that school and the rest of life is filled with a lot of unnecessary events and things and people over complicate life. Holden wants to regain the innocence of childhood because it isn't full of unnecessary facts items.

The way Holden views prep school and his colleagues is a perfect example of student perception of school. His anger with nearly everyone who is associated with Pencey shows his overall feeling that school is phonies." Holden's perception of what school does and what everyone around Holden are completely different. According to Holden school serves as the proverbial gateway that obstructs the innocence of childhood and turns it into a do nothing society.

The Catcher In The Rye demonstrates that the institution of school can be misleading, it can sell you one thing but give you another. It is not just teenage angst because Holden associates himself with his former teacher who even tries to tell him the positives of school. To Holden the institution of school is a lie, and all the people who come out of it whether it be his brother or his roommate are also lies.

The constant phonies that Holden identify are those who he sees as frivolous and shallow, they are those who have been sold the lie and believed it so much that they try to sell it to others. The phonies are a way for Holden to classify what is wrong with school and with society. All of the narration and identifying of what is wrong and what is good help distinguish what Holden thinks about school.

Hirsch:
E.D. Hirsch believes we need more of a national curriculum and more conservative, implicit style learning (what I mean by this is it focuses heavily on facts.) A lot of his ideology relates to the idea that we should train students to be what he calls culturally literate, meaning that students should learn terms, dates, people and formulas in all subjects that are referenced often in pop culture or newspapers. By Hirsch's logic a national curriculum followed across the board will lessen the emphasis on school choice, something Democrats and Republicans often talk about. If every school taught at the same level there wouldn't parents who are constantly trying to find the "best school" for their children. It also leaves nothing for the students to fall back on, resulting in higher student accountability, higher national standards and hopefully better schools. Hirsch defends his argument that common curriculum makes for better schools by pointing to other countries with a common curriculum like France where even immigrants score high on tests.

Sizer:
Sizer's idea of the right education system follows a more in depth approach to learning. He wants an education system where there is less emphasis on absorbing facts and information and more on true comprehension. Sizer hopes that students will have a deeper understanding of the topics. Sizer wants to see students who have a more personal and intricate understanding of topics, where they use their minds individually to try to become more insightful. Hirsch follows a how will students be able to think and interact socially and intellectually whereas Sizer follows a how will students gain more transferable skills to help them become intellectuals. A lot of Sizer's idea stems from individualism, according to him individualism for the students is incredibly important for learning and that cannot happen in wide spread standardized education system.

1. Do these theories contradict each other? Intellectually, emotionally, practically? In what ways do they? Could they be adapted to work together?
The two theories do contradict each other but not by that much. Hirsch wants basic knowledge with an anyone can teach it mentality and a preset curriculum and Sizer wants to see students with a more personal profound understanding of books, or events. Hirsch seems more emotionless with no student to topic connection. but that doesn't mean it is completely wrong. The opposition of Hirsch's argument says that it teaches not necessary things about people that don't affect their lives. But the cultural literacy argument may affect the student more than anything else. In Sizer's speech he said "students use their minds. Schools are to provoke young people to grow up intellectually, to think hard and resourcefully and imaginatively about important things." It is important for students to learn how to learn and to use these skills to obtain a superior understanding of any topic. So with cultural literacy necessary to be social intellectuals in the current world and deep understanding being important for connection to the world the best education system has to be a mix of both.

2. Which of the two theories do you find more resonant in your own experience? Has your education at one of Sizer's schools (he not only inspired SOF, he also came and visited) taught you to use your mind well, to be intellectually alert, to be able to think about important aspects of your life and society? Have you had any teachers that seemed inspired, now that you know about it, by Hirsch? For instance, would you say that the chemistry class's focus on molarity and ions and the periodic table of elements create an emphasis on knowledge?

If there is one thing SOF has done for me it has helped me to think more in depth about abstract topics. I see how the emphasis on habits of mind and looking at all angles has helped my understanding, and exhibitions have helped me become a better writer. With that in mind i find more of a connection the sizer schools. However the sizer method has failed me in a lot of ways, i agree with Hirsch that we have to be culturally literate in order to be successful functioning intellectuals and there are a lot of ways where the lack of A.P. courses or regular courses that teach these aspects have hurt me significantly. This quote from the NYT article Doing Our Homework defends the need for cultural literacy. "When Mr. Hirsch talks about ''cultural literacy,'' what he's talking about is the full set of information, both fragmentary and complete, that a person possesses about not only culture but economics, history, science and math. Without such ''intellectual capital,'' just reading a newspaper, with its references like ''supply and demand,'' ''Machiavellian tactics,'' ''black holes'' or ''The Picture of Dorian Gray,'' can be overwhelming." If school preps for you life shouldn't we learn more about terms used in life.

As I said before I think the one right education system has a mix of both Hirsch's and Sizer's ideas. a school where the students learn the terms of culture but at the same time are taught to gain a more personal message. When it comes to the idea that some classes like chemistry are not as necessary to cultural literacy as U.S. History there is a gray area. I agree that a great amount of science and math isn't used everyday but innovation and invention fuels a nations prosperity and it for that reason that chemistry although it may seem irrelevant is imperative.

homework 44

USATODAY article on two types of school:
This article brought up some very interesting ideas. In theory the school system where everyone is split into entrepreneurs and workers should work but I don't know if it end up a success . I would not be surprised if those who were put into the worker category revolted because they felt like it infringed on their ability to switch classes or "live the American dream" The author is basically accepting the idea that some people are employees and others are executives and that is normal but he is also rejecting the idea that you can change status. Saying that no employee can ever change their title this is wrong, it is possible for a mid-level worker at McDonald's to be promoted to corporate and know they can move up. The point where he says that everything in education will be done for sustainable growth and the development and safety of your country seems a little unrealistic. Yes this system works for the military but there is more incentive in the army to act solely for the sustainability of your nation. The idea that your actions greatly impact everyone around you is much more prevalent in the military then it is in business school.


Bar Ought To Be Higher NY Times article by Bob Herbert
I agree I think so much starts with the teachers, they can help the student as an individual. A standard across the board style curriculum tries to shoe horn students, fitting them all into one system but not all students have the same strengths and weaknesses. so if you have an individual oriented class where teachers have more control students should learn more.

It brings about the idea that there should be more applied learning. students should not be taught something because it is going to be on a test, they should be taught it and understand why its important and how they can better grasp the topic. A lot of Kenny's system is based around understand yourself and what you should do to help your community, i think this is key to becoming educated. This is another unexamined or unused role of school, if students are treated as individuals and are shown by their teachers how they can use what they learn and what they can do for the world school will become more meaningful.



Obama's speech:
I also read the Obama Speech transcript and there are some ideas that i do agree with along with others i am not in as much agreement. For one i agree that a good education is heavily reliant on the students themselves. Although students are given baby steps when they were in the younger grades, they cannot expect teachers to show as much compassion as they get older. Although I do think that a lot of what makes a good education system stems from the teachers care and how they help the individual student, student responsibility is just as important. Students should understand they need to prioritize their responsibilities. Which goes further into the idea of having a education system more focused on student accountability. The school provides teachers, classrooms, books, and computers for the students. If he (the student) still decides to watch T.V. instead of doing homework, he and his parents are at fault. Obama said "But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying." Every child in America has the right to an education an it is their responsibility to utilize it.

However the idea that going to school will allow you to accomplish amazing things like curing AIDS, or innovating new green technology seems a little far fetched and sounds like political fluff. Yes someone will do that but that really should not be the aspiration of every kid in a science class. It gives the impression that we all know that school teaches useless things but try to block that realization because it feels good to think what we're learning is going to help us all change the world. We won't all be like that but some will.

If school is supposed to be the place where the future leaders and innovators are born who will eventually change the world and help society then the curriculum matches. All the science and math and English we learn may only be used consistently by a handful of kids but those kids are supposedly the ones who are going to make the big leaps of progression.

homework 42 part B

question: why is the modern school system treated like a giant race to get the best rank on every level from student to nation? Where does the ranking stem from, is it fair to the students or teachers? Is it linked to our seemingly obsessive need to be validated?

significance:
This is so important because school plays such a pivotal role in the rest of out lives, what are we asked when we apply for a job? where did you go to school. And what is asked of us when we meet some one new, what is your name and occupation? So in order to be successful economically or socially we rely on our brand-name education. This in some ways plays into the need for ranking and sorting. If our careers and friends depend on our education is it really such a surprise that everyone is trying to reach the common goal of success. I think ranking is societies solution to sorting out who is better. Your rank in middle-school determines where you go to high-school, your rank in high-school determines where you go to college, your rank in college determines where you work and your salary, your job determines when you retire and so on.

It seems like sorting and ranking affects nearly everyone it touches, it can make or destroy hopes and it can have a deep effect on your outlook on school, or life. Some students obsessively think about their rank in school, to them it is their future and in their eyes it is the gate way to accomplishing their life goal. To these students the rank and sort system is one of the most important parts of school.

Functionally sorting and ranking provides a system of conditioning the students/citizens. through ranking some students are weeded out and those that remain are given good jobs. Ranking allows us to sort and by sorting we are able to have a functioning class system. Some work for the industry and others run it, helping to fuel international capitalism. In short the sort system is in some ways unfair but at the same time allows a nation to compete on the global stage and improve its economy and the well being of its citizens.