During the break instead of reading a novel, I decided to read a few articles and did a interview on my topic. The 3 articles I read were "Schooling in Capitalist America Revisited" by Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (26pgs.), "Why is Corporate America Bashing Our Public Schools" by Kathy Emery and Susan Ohanian (16pgs.), and "Channel One Enters the Media Literacy Movement" by Steven Manning (4 pgs.).
The main article I read was " Schooling in Corporate America Revisited". the article is basically the revisions of their original book ("Schooling in Capitalist America"), with new evidence that supports or goes against their previous views. Their objective was for education to help make a better economy for everyone without the different prejudices. They were hoping that learning opportunities wouldn't limit people from obtaining the education they wanted. America is still struggling to obtain these objectives. These objectives are looked through human development, inequality, and social change to see how education is affected.
Parts of this article relate to my topic because it shows how public education fails in some ways. The article basically gave me another point of view on schools. Besides explaining how society has an effect on education, it also explained the social aspect of school. How family income offers advantages and disadvantages when it shouldn't. Also how schools in America really only prepare students for 'the hierarchical structure of the modern corporation'.
I totally agree that schools just prepare us for the adult work environment. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but isn't school supposed to be about learning about various topics so you you can be an 'all- around smarter person)? Preparation for working is all hat matters. It seems like less time is focused on the curriculum of school, and more on the social aspect of it. The ideas of respect , authority, compromise, and many other communication skills come from being in school (If not already being taught at home). Being able to succeed in any type of workplace seems to be the focus of schools in America.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
HW 45 - More Big Thoughts on Schools
From these texts on Sizer and Hirsch, both were founding fathers of two forms of education. Hirsch who focuses on elementary schools, believes in testing and knowing the facts. He believes that first grader should be able to "read and know basic number facts by the end of the first grade". This doesn't seem hard to do, since most first graders (that i know) are able to do this. Sizer however believes that students should be able to leave high school with a higher understanding of things, and a valuable worker in the community.
I agree with Hirsch's technique and think that it works for the age group he is targeting. In elementary school kids are still eager to go to school. They haven't yet started to feel that they hate school and its pointless. I think that since they are still in the process of becoming independent from their parents, they are more eager to learn and go along with what they're learning.
Even though I don't fully agree with Sizer's point of view, I think that it fits society now. Today knowing the facts are enough of a challenge. It seems like now a days everyone is being challenged to question things and know how to think deeper about a situation. I don't think that taking a test or drilling math facts will help contribute to something like problem solving. I think it is beneficial for the student to think deeper or about different aspects of a topic rather than just knowing the facts.
This argument that Hirsch and Sizer have been having for years seems silly to me, because they can be combined. Hirsch's technique works for the younger kids because it doesn't seem like much on a challenge. However, as they get ready to leave elementary school and get ready to head middle school they are still gaining independence. As they get older they can be challenged with deeper thought. They can still learn the facts about a topic, but should then be eased into thinking about the significance or alternatives of the topic.
I agree with Hirsch's technique and think that it works for the age group he is targeting. In elementary school kids are still eager to go to school. They haven't yet started to feel that they hate school and its pointless. I think that since they are still in the process of becoming independent from their parents, they are more eager to learn and go along with what they're learning.
Even though I don't fully agree with Sizer's point of view, I think that it fits society now. Today knowing the facts are enough of a challenge. It seems like now a days everyone is being challenged to question things and know how to think deeper about a situation. I don't think that taking a test or drilling math facts will help contribute to something like problem solving. I think it is beneficial for the student to think deeper or about different aspects of a topic rather than just knowing the facts.
This argument that Hirsch and Sizer have been having for years seems silly to me, because they can be combined. Hirsch's technique works for the younger kids because it doesn't seem like much on a challenge. However, as they get ready to leave elementary school and get ready to head middle school they are still gaining independence. As they get older they can be challenged with deeper thought. They can still learn the facts about a topic, but should then be eased into thinking about the significance or alternatives of the topic.
Friday, March 12, 2010
HW 44- Big Expectations For School
Everyone has big expectations of school myself included. School is supposed to be a learning environment where you learn things form American History to calculus. However, a lot of the time I am not learning to better myself, but rather to just push through. A lot of the time I feel like I go to school, do the work, and make sure I understand the material because that is what I'm supposed to do. That's what I'm supposed to do if I want to go to a good college, and get a decent paying job. In other words I do this so i can achieve the basic American idea of success.
I feel like education in America is set up for me to ignore this feeling, but still keeps me going with this plan that the norm is supposed to follow. I get this from the liberal arts Op-Ed piece as well. Last year as I was getting my college list together, I was trying to decide if a big university of a small liberal arts school was the best for me. I kept hearing that liberal arts colleges would provide me with a 'well rounded education' that I would need as an adult. This article seems to focus how the liberal arts education route will help the student in their career. Besides enhancing critical thinking and communication skills, basic learning skills are needed in the work force. On one hand I feel like liberal arts is a great way to develop thinking skills and make the smarter. However I feel like they are a part of the setup as well. Yeah, they are trying to create better development, but it seems like this only so we can get a good job. I'm not sure whether I think liberal arts schools are good or bad. I think that it's just another way to make us think that it's a better institution than what was previously offered, basically it's preparing us for the same thing, but in a different way.
As I was reading the Op-Ed article on liberal arts colleges, they mention how their schools prepares students to be better employees. The opinion piece about separate schools for employees and entrepreneurs by Robert Kiyosaki (author of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"). I never considered that school is preparing us to be good employees instead of good business leaders/owners. By giving this option, I think that everyone is going to feel like they are too good for being an employee. I feel like everyone is going to aim to become an entrepreneur, who will be willing to work as an employee anymore? I do agree that American education needs an 'injection on innovation' to make it a better system, but I don't think that this is the innovation it needs.
I feel like education in America is set up for me to ignore this feeling, but still keeps me going with this plan that the norm is supposed to follow. I get this from the liberal arts Op-Ed piece as well. Last year as I was getting my college list together, I was trying to decide if a big university of a small liberal arts school was the best for me. I kept hearing that liberal arts colleges would provide me with a 'well rounded education' that I would need as an adult. This article seems to focus how the liberal arts education route will help the student in their career. Besides enhancing critical thinking and communication skills, basic learning skills are needed in the work force. On one hand I feel like liberal arts is a great way to develop thinking skills and make the smarter. However I feel like they are a part of the setup as well. Yeah, they are trying to create better development, but it seems like this only so we can get a good job. I'm not sure whether I think liberal arts schools are good or bad. I think that it's just another way to make us think that it's a better institution than what was previously offered, basically it's preparing us for the same thing, but in a different way.
As I was reading the Op-Ed article on liberal arts colleges, they mention how their schools prepares students to be better employees. The opinion piece about separate schools for employees and entrepreneurs by Robert Kiyosaki (author of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"). I never considered that school is preparing us to be good employees instead of good business leaders/owners. By giving this option, I think that everyone is going to feel like they are too good for being an employee. I feel like everyone is going to aim to become an entrepreneur, who will be willing to work as an employee anymore? I do agree that American education needs an 'injection on innovation' to make it a better system, but I don't think that this is the innovation it needs.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
HW 41
Source 1:
Burke, B. (1999, 2005) 'Antonio Gramsci, schooling and education', the encyclopedia of informal education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-gram.htm.
This article (compiled by Barry Burke), talks about Antonio Gramisci an (Italian phiosopher) and his ideas on schools and education. I know he was from early 1900's Italy, but he brings up a good point about Ideological Hegemony. He tries to explain how ideological hegemony relates to school being a big part of society, and how education is used to sort people.
Even though this article was a little challenging, I think that Gramisci believed that education was a way for a society to prepare kids for jobs and positions with power. he viewed education to be another way to keep people in that society 'in their place'.
Source 2:
Bennett, James R. "Corporate and Government Control of Education in the United States." Education Resources Information Center. 1986. Web. 22 Feb 2010..
This is a brief abstract of an opinion paper about the influence the government/corporations has on education in America. It mentions how schools (mainly colleges) rely on the on the government in order to do well. It's also another way for corporations and and the government to control education. Even though it's brief, this overview mentions how education and government go hand in hand. Institutions rely on the government/corporations money for funding (research, scholarship money , etc.), while the government/corporations rely on the institutions for backing and support.
Source 3:
Kohn, Alfie. "The Corporate Role in the High- stakes Testing Obsession & Other Methods of Turning Education into a Buisness." Reclaim Democracy. oct 2002. Web. 24 Feb 2010..
This article also explores the affect corporations have on public education. Kohn believes that corporations involvement in public education has caused America's students to become basically a test taking product. Corporations use school and students to advertise their product not in cafeterias, buses, and through the products they are trying to sell. Kohn brought to my attention how these companies even work their product/advertising into our curriculum. I found this article interesting but only somewhat informative. I would have to check up on some of the facts that he presents in this article.
Garcia, David R. "Profiting form Public Education: Education Management Organizations and Student Achievement." ERIC (2009): n. pag. Web. 4 Mar 2010..
This is just an abstract about a study that was conducted in Arizona (2001) comparing and contrasting EMO charter schools and non-EMO charter schools. This article briefly mentions how most EMO charter schools, the for-profit educational management organization have authority over curriculum and instruction. Some people feel that an EMO charter school will provide their chid with a better education with a higher level of academics. Based on the results, even though test scores were sightly higher compared to non-EMO charter schools, EMO schools lacked reading comprehension and complex thinking skills.
Possible Source 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_school For profit schools are not only focused on the benefit of the child, but also profit. supported by businesses/corporations for funding.
Possible Source 2:
http://www.edutopia.org/economic-stimulus-education-funding-priorities
Burke, B. (1999, 2005) 'Antonio Gramsci, schooling and education', the encyclopedia of informal education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-gram.htm.
This article (compiled by Barry Burke), talks about Antonio Gramisci an (Italian phiosopher) and his ideas on schools and education. I know he was from early 1900's Italy, but he brings up a good point about Ideological Hegemony. He tries to explain how ideological hegemony relates to school being a big part of society, and how education is used to sort people.
Even though this article was a little challenging, I think that Gramisci believed that education was a way for a society to prepare kids for jobs and positions with power. he viewed education to be another way to keep people in that society 'in their place'.
Source 2:
Bennett, James R. "Corporate and Government Control of Education in the United States." Education Resources Information Center. 1986. Web. 22 Feb 2010.
This is a brief abstract of an opinion paper about the influence the government/corporations has on education in America. It mentions how schools (mainly colleges) rely on the on the government in order to do well. It's also another way for corporations and and the government to control education. Even though it's brief, this overview mentions how education and government go hand in hand. Institutions rely on the government/corporations money for funding (research, scholarship money , etc.), while the government/corporations rely on the institutions for backing and support.
Source 3:
Kohn, Alfie. "The Corporate Role in the High- stakes Testing Obsession & Other Methods of Turning Education into a Buisness." Reclaim Democracy. oct 2002. Web. 24 Feb 2010.
This article also explores the affect corporations have on public education. Kohn believes that corporations involvement in public education has caused America's students to become basically a test taking product. Corporations use school and students to advertise their product not in cafeterias, buses, and through the products they are trying to sell. Kohn brought to my attention how these companies even work their product/advertising into our curriculum. I found this article interesting but only somewhat informative. I would have to check up on some of the facts that he presents in this article.
Garcia, David R. "Profiting form Public Education: Education Management Organizations and Student Achievement." ERIC (2009): n. pag. Web. 4 Mar 2010.
This is just an abstract about a study that was conducted in Arizona (2001) comparing and contrasting EMO charter schools and non-EMO charter schools. This article briefly mentions how most EMO charter schools, the for-profit educational management organization have authority over curriculum and instruction. Some people feel that an EMO charter school will provide their chid with a better education with a higher level of academics. Based on the results, even though test scores were sightly higher compared to non-EMO charter schools, EMO schools lacked reading comprehension and complex thinking skills.
Possible Source 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_school For profit schools are not only focused on the benefit of the child, but also profit. supported by businesses/corporations for funding.
Possible Source 2:
http://www.edutopia.org/economic-stimulus-education-funding-priorities
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
HW 38- Cool Project
Cool can be interpreted so many different ways. Whether you are the cool one, trying to be cool, or aren't trying to be cool, cool is always present. The idea of trying to be cool eventually crosses everyones mind. Even if you are not trying to be cool, you are still thinking about cool. In Alicia and I video, we tried to focus on how people aspect of cool can affect a person. Everyone has a desire to be cool and uses the people around them to influence which type of cool they want to be apart of. In our video we focus on the labels/stereotypes that are present in our school. There is always someone who doesn't seem to fit in with a certain 'clique', and fail miserably when they do try to fit in.
Alicia's character knows that she doesn't fit in with a certain group, and hates being the outcast. She sees girls come into the bathroom that know where they fit in and tries to see if she would fit in as well. She sees Esther the Asian girl that's into anime, Egypt the cocky jock, Brittani the confident fashionista, and Sandy the proper and poised good girl. Alicia tries to be like each of these girls by mimicking their pose in the mirror, just to get a disgusted rejected look from each of them (except Sandy). After watching our video, I hope people will question how much other people influence who you are. Although the message in our video is
Alicia's character knows that she doesn't fit in with a certain group, and hates being the outcast. She sees girls come into the bathroom that know where they fit in and tries to see if she would fit in as well. She sees Esther the Asian girl that's into anime, Egypt the cocky jock, Brittani the confident fashionista, and Sandy the proper and poised good girl. Alicia tries to be like each of these girls by mimicking their pose in the mirror, just to get a disgusted rejected look from each of them (except Sandy). After watching our video, I hope people will question how much other people influence who you are. Although the message in our video is
Saturday, January 23, 2010
HW 37- Final Cool Paper
Whether they realize it or not, everyone is worried about being cool. We are more worried about how other people view us and if they accept us or not. I believe people are engrossed into this is superficial view of cool, instead of what is causing this desire for the coolness. The idea of being cool actually comes from feeling meaningless. There is something missing that causes people to have this empty feeling, in turn making them crave attention (or the need to be cool). What exactly is missing though? Is it something that we as humans are commonly missing which is causing us to crave attention? Trying to be cool makes us feel important. We cover up our insecurities with this important feeling that gives our lives meaning.
While in a class discussion, it was hard for us to come to a conclusion what was really cool. People were trying to seem down to earth by saying that they didn't think that they were cool, therefore there is no set definition of cool. However, when Andy asked us to name people we thought were cool in our grade, most responses were: Jerald, Anias, Egypt, Charles, and Javon. When you think about these 5 people, they share some similar characteristics. For the most part they all play a sport, are boys, buy what some say are expensive clothes, and are black. They all appear confident in who they are, and put on like they don't care what anyone thinks of them. Even if they don't recognize that they are considered cool, they still put on this mask to hide their insecurities.
I feel that the media contributes to teenagers opinion of cool. Celebrities are admired by most of society because they are something we are not. They have a talent that everyone doesn't have, they seem confident in who they are, and they make enough money to buy the lavish things that they want... so who who wouldn't want to be like them? Celebrities have such an impact on the teenager consumer, that they are directly dictating what is/should be cool, whether it's shoes (Michael Jordan = Jordan's), Drinks (Derek Jeter = Gatorade, 50 Cent = Vitamin Water), or even food (Michael Phelps = Subways). By endorsing these products, they are showing us what we should buy, look like, and even act like. If we try to emulate them, then we will feel our lives will have meaning just like theirs.
From these responses, I would have to say that teenagers (especially in our school) are clear on what they think is cool. Confident sport players that can afford expensive clothes seems to be the cool trend. Kids are doing whatever they can to buy the Prada shoes or the Monlcler jackets because that is what is portrayed as cool. The 'cool' kids are seen as important people, so if they have these material items they will be cool too... right? I understand that we are only in high school, but it's troubling that having superficial items gives us the satisfaction of having a meaningful life.
Tattoos, a permanent mark or design made on the skin by a process of pricking and ingraining an indelible pigment or by raising scars, are another thing that people do to be cool. It's crazy that a lot of people have, but most want these ingraining marks. A tattoo is looked at as a way for one to express themselves and shouldn't be a pointless fad that you have to live with for the rest of your life.
In the 1950's and 60's tattoos represented looking 'bad ass', and being a rebel. However, in 2009 people get tattoos for obscene reasons. I feel that sometimes people get a tattoo is used as an excuse for paying tribute to someone, such as their dead grandmother. Why is inking your skin the only way to remember your grandmother? Isn't there a picture you can carry in your wallet, or a piece of clothing you can keep forever? Tattoos have gone from being a selective and unique thing to becoming a trend. People are getting tattoos because everyone else is doing it. I agree with Mr. Fanning when he said "tattooing is a addictive fad that has become a part of American society." I am one of the many teens that is anxious to get their first tattoo. I know I sound like a hypocrite, but I'm going to follow this trend when I turn 18. Sometimes it seems like we hide behind the trend of tattoos and other things to hide the various flaws we see in our selves. Having this tattoo makes us cool, and look important to someone.
Ivan Ilych's obsession for being cool is portrayed through Leo Totsky's book "The Death of Ivan Ilych". Very similar to now, he feels that living a lavish lifestyle means that he is living a meaningful and important life. In reality, all it is giving him is acceptance in society. Before he gets sick, you can see how excited and happy he gets when he talks about decorating or buying things for himself. He wants to have nice to stand out in society. However in reality "it was just what is usually seen in the houses of people of moderate means who want to appear rich, and therefore only succeed in resembling others like them selves"(p.13). Very similar to today, everyone thinks that they are standing out by buying expensive things. How is that considered unique when everyone is doing the exact same thing. That shouldn't make you feel important, but like a follower. It seems like Ivan felt being accepted or 'popular' in society means that you were living a meaningful life.
The need to feel important to not only the people around you, but society is represented in "Invisible Man" by Ralph Ellison. The main character is a black man that has been given the chance to attend college. He felt that since he was one of the few black people in is town able to go to college, he was cool. His idea of cool, was being in charge, and having a title. He wanted to succeed only because it would make him better than other blacks, and give him a sense of importance.
His idea of cool was being a man with a title. All he really wanted was to feel important/needed in life. However, after he gets kicked out of college, unable to find work, and used by his 'brothers' in his brotherhood, his cool has no meaning. He was working so hard towards this, that when it was taken away he "felt suddenly empty... up until now I had felt a wholeness... a wholeness that guaranteed that it would change the course of history" (p.406). Even though his cool wasn't based off of material items, he was trying to cover up his insecurities by making himself seem important. He was hoping this would give him a meaningful life.
The more I analyze cool, the more I wonder what is missing from people’s life, what makes them crave this attention? "Cool is not just some phase you go through... but rather something that if once attained remains for life.(p19), what makes this something that is hard to live without? I feel that this wanting cool stems from everyone wanting to feel approved, to mask their flaws/insecurities. Take a bully for example, he feels important because everyone is scared of him. He thrives off of the weakness of other kids to mask his own insecurities.
While in a class discussion, it was hard for us to come to a conclusion what was really cool. People were trying to seem down to earth by saying that they didn't think that they were cool, therefore there is no set definition of cool. However, when Andy asked us to name people we thought were cool in our grade, most responses were: Jerald, Anias, Egypt, Charles, and Javon. When you think about these 5 people, they share some similar characteristics. For the most part they all play a sport, are boys, buy what some say are expensive clothes, and are black. They all appear confident in who they are, and put on like they don't care what anyone thinks of them. Even if they don't recognize that they are considered cool, they still put on this mask to hide their insecurities.
I feel that the media contributes to teenagers opinion of cool. Celebrities are admired by most of society because they are something we are not. They have a talent that everyone doesn't have, they seem confident in who they are, and they make enough money to buy the lavish things that they want... so who who wouldn't want to be like them? Celebrities have such an impact on the teenager consumer, that they are directly dictating what is/should be cool, whether it's shoes (Michael Jordan = Jordan's), Drinks (Derek Jeter = Gatorade, 50 Cent = Vitamin Water), or even food (Michael Phelps = Subways). By endorsing these products, they are showing us what we should buy, look like, and even act like. If we try to emulate them, then we will feel our lives will have meaning just like theirs.
From these responses, I would have to say that teenagers (especially in our school) are clear on what they think is cool. Confident sport players that can afford expensive clothes seems to be the cool trend. Kids are doing whatever they can to buy the Prada shoes or the Monlcler jackets because that is what is portrayed as cool. The 'cool' kids are seen as important people, so if they have these material items they will be cool too... right? I understand that we are only in high school, but it's troubling that having superficial items gives us the satisfaction of having a meaningful life.
Tattoos, a permanent mark or design made on the skin by a process of pricking and ingraining an indelible pigment or by raising scars, are another thing that people do to be cool. It's crazy that a lot of people have, but most want these ingraining marks. A tattoo is looked at as a way for one to express themselves and shouldn't be a pointless fad that you have to live with for the rest of your life.
In the 1950's and 60's tattoos represented looking 'bad ass', and being a rebel. However, in 2009 people get tattoos for obscene reasons. I feel that sometimes people get a tattoo is used as an excuse for paying tribute to someone, such as their dead grandmother. Why is inking your skin the only way to remember your grandmother? Isn't there a picture you can carry in your wallet, or a piece of clothing you can keep forever? Tattoos have gone from being a selective and unique thing to becoming a trend. People are getting tattoos because everyone else is doing it. I agree with Mr. Fanning when he said "tattooing is a addictive fad that has become a part of American society." I am one of the many teens that is anxious to get their first tattoo. I know I sound like a hypocrite, but I'm going to follow this trend when I turn 18. Sometimes it seems like we hide behind the trend of tattoos and other things to hide the various flaws we see in our selves. Having this tattoo makes us cool, and look important to someone.
Ivan Ilych's obsession for being cool is portrayed through Leo Totsky's book "The Death of Ivan Ilych". Very similar to now, he feels that living a lavish lifestyle means that he is living a meaningful and important life. In reality, all it is giving him is acceptance in society. Before he gets sick, you can see how excited and happy he gets when he talks about decorating or buying things for himself. He wants to have nice to stand out in society. However in reality "it was just what is usually seen in the houses of people of moderate means who want to appear rich, and therefore only succeed in resembling others like them selves"(p.13). Very similar to today, everyone thinks that they are standing out by buying expensive things. How is that considered unique when everyone is doing the exact same thing. That shouldn't make you feel important, but like a follower. It seems like Ivan felt being accepted or 'popular' in society means that you were living a meaningful life.
The need to feel important to not only the people around you, but society is represented in "Invisible Man" by Ralph Ellison. The main character is a black man that has been given the chance to attend college. He felt that since he was one of the few black people in is town able to go to college, he was cool. His idea of cool, was being in charge, and having a title. He wanted to succeed only because it would make him better than other blacks, and give him a sense of importance.
His idea of cool was being a man with a title. All he really wanted was to feel important/needed in life. However, after he gets kicked out of college, unable to find work, and used by his 'brothers' in his brotherhood, his cool has no meaning. He was working so hard towards this, that when it was taken away he "felt suddenly empty... up until now I had felt a wholeness... a wholeness that guaranteed that it would change the course of history" (p.406). Even though his cool wasn't based off of material items, he was trying to cover up his insecurities by making himself seem important. He was hoping this would give him a meaningful life.
The more I analyze cool, the more I wonder what is missing from people’s life, what makes them crave this attention? "Cool is not just some phase you go through... but rather something that if once attained remains for life.(p19), what makes this something that is hard to live without? I feel that this wanting cool stems from everyone wanting to feel approved, to mask their flaws/insecurities. Take a bully for example, he feels important because everyone is scared of him. He thrives off of the weakness of other kids to mask his own insecurities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)