Paper 3

Public Education in America is, to put it simply, a mess. We are ranked 17th in the developed world for education, which is pretty frightening since all this money is going into a broken school system. In the beginning of the movie chalk, a quote appears, saying that “50 percent of teachers quit in the first 3 years of teaching”. Clearly something is not working. We have gone through several readings in the past few weeks of how to solve this growing problem, but I think ultimately we need a complete overhaul of what we define "success" as, how we measure it, and the class structure itself.

What is Public Education for? There are various opinions on that, I think what is is for and what it should be for are two different things however. I identify with an idea of an author we discussed about how school is ultimately an exercise in creating a group of conforming individuals who can fit certain, predetermined niches that "the system" has laid out for us. The system will toss aside students who don't fit well into this system and label them as "useless". They then end up with several problems later down the line, including poverty and then even more stigma attached to them later down the line. This is unacceptable.

Education in America should be about discovering student’s strengths and weaknesses, rounding them out, setting goals and pointing kids in the right direction regarding their ultimate niche that they decide for themselves, not what is decided for them. People who can get through the system who know what they are good at and where they could apply it would be much better off than children who receive a broad, shallow, punitive education that expects them to know what they want to do with their life at 16 and expects them to spend exorbitant amounts on a college education, since that is a common view of what success is. They spend more money on the school itself in some situations, rather than the education that goes into. On an episode of “The Daily Show”, Lewis Black talks about a school that opened up in California. "Half a billion dollars on a school? Did they build Los Angeles a Hogwarts?" Black said. "I went to school in an empty carton of Pall Malls!" There would be less debt across America if people did not just go to college because they feel as though they have to as well, and their time spent there would be much more productive.

So why should there be a change? Well for one thing, it is largely impractical to assume a student’s intelligence based on a bunch of test scores. Tests should not be assumed to be these perfect, infallible tools when they are definitely not. They do not take into account any situational influences that could affect a grade. For example, I recently read an article about a teacher being forced to administer a certain test to her elementary school students by the district. Many of these students were ESL, but the test was clearly biased towards white, native English speakers. It was testing on idioms that were often confusing for these Spanish speakers.

I believe another way we can help change our school system is buy changing the entire format. Kids go to school for 8 hours a day, plus homework. They are crammed with as much information as they possibly can in this time period to remember until their next test. Students could be placed on a system where they attend school for a half a day, with only 2-3 classes at a time. A part of the class could be blocked for lecture, another part of the class would be application and discussion. bell Hooks refers to this as “engaged pedagogy”, which “begins with the assumption that we learn best when there is an interactive relationship between student and teacher”. A small quiz could be done at the end of the period to determine if the students “got it”, and if they didn’t, an extra discussion could take place before lecture the next class period. I think this way emphasizes critical thinking and gives students time to process information without switching back and forth between disciplines.

Do you need another reason for a call to change? Standardized test companies often make ridiculous amounts of money by selling these new tests, all the money that is getting spent on buying these tests to measure an abstract amount of success could be used to hire more teachers and improve class sizes. Possibly these test companies could be sabotaging students and teachers so more tests could be ordered and made so they can make even more money. Privatizing the public education system in this way is incredibly detrimental.

The good of society depends on something being done to fix this. Apathy and judging the students and teachers as lazy, incompetent, or just stupid is only perpetuating this system.  

Some people are stuck on tradition. They are proud of the grades they made in their day, and they got into a good college and have a nice job with no debt. Well good for them, but it is a very different world now. You cannot assume that just because you had a wonderful experience in the public education system that everyone else did, especially if you are white and have parents that have moderate to high income. Privilege does not erase that the system is set in your favor.

"Well, how do we measure success?" some may ask. Success is a very individual thing. For some people that is being the CEO of a company, for others it’s having good interpersonal relationships and being able to get by independently. I’m going to use the definition of success as being capable and comfortable in the amount of money you are earning. A test score from the College Board is not going to predict this however, it is going to predict how well you do on a test. If we stop measuring students in test scores, and start measuring success in how many students can get jobs out of high school that can support themselves, that might be better (this also involves a overhaul of the minimum wage system, but that is a separate essay). It could be how many students manage to pick a major and stick with it in college, it could involve testing their stress levels.

Finally, some people are hell bent on believing that some kids are just stupid, and are doomed to fail. This could be because of the narrow definition of what success is, or because the education system is failing right now and people cannot seem to accept that its not the sole problem of the parents, teachers, or students. It may sound a bit elementary, but everyone is good at something, whether it be empathy or mathematics. John Gatto discusses this in his paper when referring to the “basic functions” of public education, including the “diagnostic and directive function…School is meant to determine each student's proper social role.” School emphasizes that the student is stupid and useless if they are not conforming or performing in the way that is expected of them. However, no one is useless, no one is untouchable.

I am not a teacher. I am not someone with a master’s degree in education, I have not spent time working on a school board. However, I am someone who went through the ringer when it came to public education, and there are clear failings to be seen that cannot just be blamed on the student. As Pablo Freire wrote "Those truly committed to liberation must reject the banking concept in its entirety, adopting instead a concept of women and men as conscious beings, and consciousness as consciousness intent upon the world. They must abandon the educational goal of deposit-making and replace it with the posing of the problems of human beings in their relations with the world."

Freire, Pablo "Chapter 2, Pedagogy of the Oppressed" Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York, Continuum Press, 1993. Print

Gatto, John "Against School" Harpers Magazine, 2003. Print

Black, Lewis “On Education in America” Comedy Central, 2010. Television

Hooks, bell “Teaching Critical Thinking” Routledge, Print

Chalk, Film, 2006

My HS experience vs. Gattos ideas

My experience in high school was similar to Gattos in that I felt like I was being stifled by several varieties of the same stupid institution that bred conformity and lack of critical thinking among its learners. I went to five different high schools before I graduated. One was an online public high school, one was a "bad" school with a few exceptional teachers but the constant threat of gang violence and the apathy of teachers who were already looking for new jobs. I went to another in Texas that was snobby and felt like I had teachers political opinions shoved down my throat, a school on Cape Cod that was also snobby and inclusive, and finally another school in Texas that was too large to have any kind of real drama within the student population, but you were ultimately just a number to administration.

I definitely did see some of the themes discussed in Gattos paper, especially in the mentions of the "functions" of education.

I saw the differentiating function in action when I was trying to get into an AP government class in high school. My first 2 years of high school were spent being flung across 4 different high schools, and I had a hard time getting a solid foundation. Plus, it honestly is not very motivating doing school work when you know you are not going to get any credit for it in 6 months due to lack of communication or stubborness on the part of the school district. My junior year though I had an awesome history teacher who challenged me and and inspired a great love of learning, I ended up with a 99 average for the whole year in his class.

My senior year I was basically fighting to graduate, retaking classes that I had passed in other schools or just taking classes that I hadn't taken before. My counselor treated me like an idiot, and when I wanted to take an honors level class so I had at least one challenging class in my schedule, she ignored my requests after I bothered her about it for a month. I got my parents involved and they told them they denied my request but could not be bothered to at least let me know. My parents were very angry and finally got me into a honors level class about 2 months into the year. The school had decided that I was not competent even though my test scores were brilliant and my grades were great because it did not fit into the picture they saw my freshman and sophomore year. My counselor even laughed at me when I told her my plans to go to a 4 year school eventually, they were incredibly disrespectful of any idea that didn't fit into their norm.

Author ranking 1-5 (hooks, Gilyard, Aronson, Large, Boyce)

1. hooks- I ranked hooks essay number one because I felt like it was the most thorough and reasonable. Several of the other authors did not seem to have the same effect as she did and I felt like she made the strongest argument.

2. Aronson- Aronson made a very good case about the issues going on in these Arizona schools and why they were happening. Sometimes the truth can be uncomfortable but it is discussed in a very reasonable fashion.

3. Large- The article that included Larges thoughts was a book review. It discusses what the book is about "Grit", and how kids need character. It also briefly touches on attachment parenting, and how that helps children in the beginning, but kids need adversity to grow character. I felt like it was not very well rounded and that it did not discuss things very thoroughly.

4. Boyce- Boyces approach was through mindful thinking and empathy. While these are all nice concepts, I would love to see some science behind why he thinks this is the key to everything.

5. Gilyard- I ranked Gilyard last because it felt wistful for the good ole days without giving any reason for his position. He discusses the humanities being cut, and says they should not be, but gives no explanation as to why they shouldn't be, he just talks about DuBois.

How does each author support their ideas?

Jerry Large is an author who believes that early attachment, and a little adversity later on helps kids develop "grit" which is an essential part of character. He discusses differences in two different schools, one with a large amount of privilege and another with less privilege and the differences in their test scores.

Barry Boyce believes that empathy is the most important trait that we take to the job market, and encourages Mindfulness by using contemplative approaches. These feature "nonattachment,noticing our cognitions, and being able to find a spot in our heart and mind where we can see whats going on but not get caught up in it". This nonattachment can come about via meditation or yoga.

Gilyard is a believer in the Humanities, however I don't feel like he went too into depth with his paper. However he insists that keeping the humanities in schools helps promote a democratic and egalitarian environment.

Deb Aronson talks about the MAS program and how even though it was a good program, it made administrators uncomfortable and was cut, going along with many of the other racist events happening in Arizona at the time. Books were banned, and students rights were being violated.

bell hooks discusses critical thinking and engaged pedagogy and how it is important in the class room.

Group Discussion about Chalk with Comparisons to Freire, Gatto, Rose, and Black

In Gatto's "Against School", he speaks of students and teachers boredom and the structure that a public school environment enforces, namely conformity and teacher/student dynamic. We see this in Chalk when Mr. Stroop the history teacher pulls two students aside and asks them to dumb themselves down so the teacher does not appear stupid in class. In effect he tells the young male student that they both know he knows more about history than he does, and to the young woman to stop using so many big words. He does this because he has a huge ego, but more importantly because the teacher/student dynamic was being disturbed. 

In Mike Rose's "Resolutions we should make for 2011", he mentions that one idea that has been stated is to get "rid of the bottom 10% of teachers (as determined by test scores) and replaced them with teachers at the top 10% we’d erase the achievement gap, or leap way up the list on international comparisons". He then mentions that this is flawed because a students achievement is often proportionate to their parents income. We can see this in "Stand and Deliver" because of how low income the students are and how it is a challenge for them to rise to occasion academically.

In the Daily Show rant, Lewis Black discusses a misplacement of funds or a lack of funds. He discusses a new school in California that is extremely lavish, and it was built for 570 million dollars. None of the money actually affects the educational quality "Im pretty sure schools shouldn't be the nicest building you'll ever be inside, I went to school in an empty carton of Pall Malls!". In chalk there is a scene where one of the teachers is talking about how the volleyball team needs new uniforms, because they "cant go out naked" but they cannot afford it. Also, a running gag throughout the movie is the broken copy machine that doesn't work the whole year, presumably because they cannot afford to fix it. 

Friere believes that students are forced to conform and that the teachers are oppressors that stifle creativity, the teachers teach and the students are taught in a rigid manner. "Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor". Mr. Lowry was very strict and anxious in the beginning, demanding respect from his students when  he really had not done anything to earn it, like yelling and sending students out of the class. Over the year he starts to loosen up, he wins the Spelling Hornet and starts letting the students teach him and they open up to his teachings. 

What do I think high school is for?

I think high school is an awful babysitter for older children. I think high school is largely rehashed things from middle school with some electives thrown in to make the experience somewhat tolerable. High school is a way of delaying people from entering the workforce while forcing them into a box that makes colleges and testing companies lots of money at the expense of students finances and well being. High schools breed apathy and conformity whilst trying to establish a group of manager types to run the whole show. High schools should teach critical thinking, actual job skills, and not put students into boxes based on abstract test scores about how well their ESL students know English idioms. We need electricians, plumbers, nurses, and these are all fields that could be introduced in high school. We could offer more tech programs, even make them mandatory that way students can graduate with some kind of job skill besides filling out a resume with school clubs. This in turn could help the government by lessening the need for welfare, and that money could go back towards the schools.

I also think standardized tests need to be eliminated. My senior year of HS I had to take a Social Studies state test as one of many that determined if I graduated. Some of the stuff covered on this test was World Geography, a class I never took due to me living in California at the time and is normally offered to freshmen. They expected me to remember some random river names and statistics after if I did take the class, NOT REVIEWING IT FOR MORE THAN 2 YEARS.

WS 32-37 and how these pertain to P#3

This section shows ways to categorize things and how to show their differences. Some of these include Compare and Contrast approach, or a Cause and Effect approach. It also goes into how to make your argument in a clear and concise manner. This can relate to paper number three because we have to make a argument as to changes we would make to the public school system, as well as comparing and contrasting different materials that we are exposed to during the units period. For example I could compare and contrast Chalk as well as Gattos writing and put my own argument as to whether each is right, one is right, or neither is right.