HW 49

For my class film, we did a scenario where there was a student being bullied and one of the other students steps in to save the bullied student from the bully and stands up to the bully. Back in the classroom, the teacher is trying to get the students attention unsuccessfully and nobody is listening to him and keeps talking back and throwing things around. Students just keep walking out of the classroom and keep talking back. After a while, the teacher silences the students and starts talking to them about why what we are learning is important and plays a song for us that resonates with what we are learning. The hero student talks back to the teacher saying what he is teaching them is stupid.

I was one of the students in the classroom not listening to the teacher. The teacher gives me a piece of paper and tells me to write my ideas and thoughts on it but i roll my eyes at him and say no.

This story is different than most because there really isn't a hero student in the other films but it's similar to other super-teacher films because the students misbehave and treat the teachers very badly and it takes a while for the students to finally start listening to the teacher. The part where the teacher (Andy) gives us the paper to write things on is similar to "Freedom Writers" where Hilary Swank's character gives her students a notebook to write their problems out. The teacher tries to connect to the students.

I think that "saving" students is something every educator wants to do because I can imagine that it does feel really good to help young people who are in trouble and make their adult lives better. Saving people is a good thing and if a higher authority, which is in this case a teacher, is able to better someone's life, it is a big accomplishment. Teachers who do this are regarded as very good teachers ad have films made about them. I think that teachers who are able to actually able to teach students life skills and not just math, science, etc, that is very important because book smart won't get a person anywhere without life skills. I think it's admirable if a teacher helps students who are in dire need of help more than teachers who just are able to connect with students who are well off but just don't want to focus.

HW 47

Ideas for class movie:
-Teacher at first fails at teaching and calming down students but after a while, he does.
-Teacher fails miserably at helping the students and never succeeds.
-Teacher relates to the students in life experiences and the students grow to like the teacher.
-Teacher helps the students fight for their rights over something unfair going on and then the students like him more.
-Teacher is just all around a good teacher.
-Students like the teacher at first but then something happens or a rumor starts about the teacher so the students start to lose respect or trust.
-The teacher is just an all-around bad teacher.

HW 46

The book I read was "Academy X" by Andrew Trees. It is a true story about a private school teacher and all of his mostly horrid experiences there. He talks about his opinions on students and of teachers and just how messed up the school is, generally speaking. He tries to be a fair teacher and I personally got to see actually how hard it is to be a teacher and control a classroom. It really puts into perspective how different private schools are from public ones.
In the book,the parents basically run the school because they are on the board of trustees at the school, which I later learned was Horace Mann and put a lot of pressure on their kids to get into Ivy's and will do anything to insure that of happening-even doing dishonest things. If a kid gets in trouble, nothing happens because the parents just "buy out" the school in some way such as having an auditorium named after them and the dean and principal are on the parents side even saying "the parent is the best customer" meaning the teachers should treat the parents as if they are shopping in a store. This is a very crazy school system and the students do such crazy things and the teachers will try to punish the students but can't because the students know that nothing will happen to them. The kids are extremely undisciplined which I believe will probably hurt them later in life because as one grows older, less things they will be able to get away with. One case that was very huge was when the most popular and affluent student of his class named Caitlen claimed that the teacher raped her because he wouldn't let her get away with plagirizing a paper. She took off her top at the end of class and then took out a torn shirt and the principal came in and she ran over to the principal "crying" and made the torn shirt look like the teacher did it. The teacher believed the girl and wouldn't give the teacher a chance to explain himself. Practically the whole class was on the teachers side and knew he didn't do anything. He did have a minor, minor crush on the girl and thought she was beautiful, which is of course perverted but rape and a crush, especially in a student-teacher case is a very big difference.
This relates to my topic of how a school is run and what the teachers run the school and this book definitley gives a very different side of who actually runs this private school system. It is shocking to see that people can actually get away with these things. In this particular case, the teachers barely have any say in teaching because the parents tell them what to do through bribery. The tables turned and I really hate it because the teachers don't tell the parents how to run their jobs and neither should the parents. The purpose of school is to learn things but the kids who are on the poor side (middle class) learn more because they can't get everything at the drop of a hat by being bought into an Ivy whereas the rich kids know they can slack off and do whatever because their parents will just get them everything. I can relate this to my own public school experience how there aren't any super rich kids and you certainly can't buy your way into and out of situations and how there will mostly be serious problems if parents get too involved. Things are taken more seriously because everyone has an equal education.

HW 45

E.D. Hirsch Jr's opinion on schooling reminds me nothing of SOF's idea of schooling-he believes we should focus on learning and grasping the concepts of subjects rather than just learning every subject in its fullest way. Like the Wikipedia article on him says: "Hirsch proposed that Romanticized, anti-knowledge theories of education prevalent in America are not only the cause of America's lackluster educational performance, but also a cause of widening inequalities in class and race. Hirsch portrays the focus of American educational theory as one which attempts to give students intellectual tools such as "critical thinking skills", but which denigrates teaching any actual content" This goes against SOF's beliefs that we should have fewer subjects but still learn more in the few subjects we have. He believes that there are things that every student should learn depending on what grade they are in and should just keep learning more of the "appropriate" things in the grade they are in. It is more of a "quantity over quality" approach to schooling children. He even wrote a book called The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, which is a dictionary that contains all important facts a person needs to know to be considered smart and literate in his eyes and to me, they seem like basic facts such as who MLK is. I don't believe that much in his opinions at all because even though i do believe that one should know who MLK is or what Roe vs. Wade is just because it was so significant in changing the way a majority of America thought, I don't believe that only facts should be taught in school because that can't get a person very far in life because a person also needs to have basic life skills in addition to knowing facts.


Theodore R. Sizer's arguments on schooling agree more with SOF's type of teaching than with Hirsch's. He believes that it is "quality over quantity" schooling-less subjects are taught but the students should be able to grasp the core classes very well rather than just having many different subjects. This following quote as said in Sizer's obituary in the New York Times really reminds me of SOF: "the student is a valued worker in that community, with the teacher in the role of mentor or coach. Depth of knowledge is emphasized over breadth, with the mastery of a few core subjects preferred over the scattershot spate of electives the modern high school seems to favor." We clearly don't have many electives or subjects but we do have the standard classes: english, math, science, and history that will actually help us in life. We also have to develop "critical thinking skills" and i definitley believe that in SOF, 1 of the mottos is that we should "teach" ourselves and our teachers are just there to egg us along and help us when needed. I believe this idea seems a bit more left wing that Hirsch's because Hirsch's ideas seem much more rigid and follow the authority member type of schooling whereas Sizer's is more free-thinking. I agree more with Sizer's sort of teaching because it is important to learn a few things very well than have various ideas just shoved into a student's head and not have them explained to him/her.

HW 44

I agree with what Obama says about accomplishing something in life because it is true that in this world, you can't get anywhere or be successful without going to college. I noticed that when some other people speak about getting somewere in life, they make it seem so easy like "go to college and your life will be better" and I feel that they fail to mention that it is not that easy and Obama actually admitted saying it's not easy at all and that you really can get a lot of places with hard work but the sad truth is that sometimes, even the hardest working people don't get very far in life. "But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed. And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide. And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it." This is what Obama says and i agree with it 100%. I also like the argument he makes that it starts with yourself because the person has to be able to make change happen and other people can't do it for them-it has to come from within, as cliche as it sounds, it is correct. If the person doesn't want to learn but is forced to, they won't do work and will fail out but if they themselves want to get themselves an education, they will do very well in life. I also feel that the argument about becoming a great rapper or NBA star is an impossible dream is kind of true because it is a very hard, fickle thing to get into and unfortunately, part of that business is out there for entertainment purposes whereas an inventor of something helps people do things easier, so i believe it is an easier goal to set for someone. "We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country. Now I know it’s not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork. I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in. So I wasn’t always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I’m not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse. But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams." This is also a very important part of Obama's speech in my opinion, especially the part where he says we will "let down our country" because i think that if you think about giving up on your country by not getting an education, it is really shocking because that is obviously so many people. I also agree with what Obama says that coming from a broken home isn't an excuse for not doing well in school because yes, it will of course be hard to focus on anything but if you get out of the bad situation, you will have a better life and perhaps help your family. I also agree with his statement that one of the keys to getting a good education and succeeding starts from fullfilling your goals one small step at a time starting from finishing your homework one night. I like Obama's speech because i honestly believe that it is very empowering and the fact that Obama can be empathetic is good because he actually experienced the work-your-way-up story or American dream story and knows what people are going through because it would seem different if Obama was saying all this and he was fed with a silver spoon because he couldn't really know what it was like first hand. I think that what Obama is saying is very good.

HW 43

When i think of school memories i think of people teasing me in elementary school not liking elementary school being out of the crowd because i didn't have a PTA mom or a rich family. I think of graduation and going out to lunch and learning easy things in school. My "wild child" days when i stole a lot and getting into small fights with various people. Doing homework and exhibitions and presenting. The feeling and mood in school when it got to be warmer out. Getting report cards. Going to various events in the auditorium for the school play or pep rally or whatever. Taking the midterms or long tests. Seeing all my friends on our first day back to school and the anticipation. The last day of school.

HW 42 Part B

1. For the first link from CBS news, the article was about how school suspensions aren't good, especially for younger elementary school students because they don't really learn anything from it. I definitely agree with this because when there is an out of school suspension, the kids don't do work at home anyway, so it is defeating the purpose and students just get more mad. Younger kids it's even worse for because they need to realize and know why they are getting in trouble instead of just being suspended. The student will give up. I think that if any kind of suspension has t be given, it should be in-school and that an at-home suspension should only happen if the student actually poses a great threat to themselves and fellow students. Things are perceived worse when children are younger.

2. The second article is about whether or not suspensions are effective or not. It specifically talks about little kids like first graders getting suspended which I think makes no sense. First graders are too young to know exactly what right and wrong is. The teachers shouldn't suspend or punish kids in that way, the parents should. Also, getting suspended this early on in life could cause problems later in life for the student because in addition to giving up, they might actually become very troubled people and will maybe drop out of school in a worst-case scenario.

3. The third article talks about suspensions in high schools. Unlike the other articles, I am getting the impression that the author sort of agrees with suspending students. The author argues that the student who was suspended probably doesn't want to be in school anyway so they misbehave to get suspended and get out of school, so why suspend students? He also said that the high school students who get suspended doesn't really educate them at all and that they will end up n the street. The article also says that suspension rates have dropped drastically in some high schools from about 27% to about 9%. I think that that is good because suspensions should ONLY be used as a last resort in case no other method of discipline works.