The challenge with parenting is deciding which qualities to develop in their child, how to develop those qualities and making sure those techniques work well all together. This includes the technique of giving your child a fun childhood to enable them to be a happy adult, if the other techniques are detrimental to a good childhood then the result is either an internally conflicted child or the child just won't become a happy adult as the parent planned because the other parenting technique overshadows it. All the parenting techniques that parents use to raise their kids have to work together otherwise their children will receive mixed messages.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
HW 57: Parenting
The most logical approach I can think of to raising children (since I have no experience and can only theorize) is to come up with a list of qualities you want your children to have and come up with a parenting system to cultivate those qualities. The next step is to learn which parenting techniques can reasonably encourage that kind of growth in their child. For instance if a parent wants their child to be more independent then they should let them do things on their own even if it involves getting a little hurt, when children learn to fall on their own, they learn to get up on their own.
Monday, May 17, 2010
HW 56: Interviews
EQ: "Do friends make noticeable impressions on each other or make significant change or have significant similarities in their respective Myer-Briggs test results?"
This question is a specific and provable way of asking: "How much do friends affect each other, if at all?"
1-Do you and your best friend have similar personalities/traits? What are they?
2-Do you think you rub off on your friends? What qualities do you think your friends learn from you?
3-Do you think your friends rub off on you? What qualities have rubbed off on you from your friends?
4-Do friends effect each other equally?
5-Do friends have to "rub off" on each other to have a good relationship?
6-How important are similar personalities/traits to a good friendship?
Interview 1
Q-Do you and your best friend have similar personalities/traits?
A-um not really
Q-and you had the same personalities before you met each other?
A-yea
Q-Do you think you rub off on your friends?
A-yes
Q-What qualities do they get from you?
A-well i try to get them to be environmentally friendly, no littering i help ***** with not skipping so much and doing hw, those kind of things
Q-Do you think your friends rub off on you?
A-yes
Q-in what ways?
A-um im more out going
Q-as a result of being their friend?
A-mhmm, more loud not so reserved
Q-Do you think friends effect each other equally?
A-no, i think the people with the more dominant personality effects the friendship more then the quiet one
Q-Do you think friends have to 'rub off' on each other to have a good relationship?
A-i dont think they do, but i think for most freindships to work where people have the same tastes, some rubbing off needs to occur but not all friendships require the same tastes
Q-How important are similar personalities to a good friendship?
A-i think they important
Q-how important?
A-um out of 10 it would be an 8
Interview 2
Q-Do you and your best friend have similar personalities/traits? What are they?
A-LOL YES. we do. obnoxiousness, similar tastes in things, etc.
Q-Do you think you rub off on your friends? What qualities do you think your friends learn
from you?
A-they end up getting into the same things that im interested in because of spending so much time with me
Q-do your personalities change?
A-no, lol
Q-Do you think your friends rub off on you? What qualities have rubbed off on you from your friends?
A-ive gotten more confident from hanging out with good groups of friends
also artistic stuff has rubbed off on me from my friends too
Q-Do friends effect each other equally?
depends on the friends
Q-if you could generalize
A-not really, no
Q-if thats the case then which type of friend would have a more significant effect on the other?
A-the more outgoing, pushy friend would probably have a more significant effect
Q-Do friends have to "rub off" on each other to have a good relationship?
A-nah
Q-How important are similar personalities/traits to a good friendship?
A-pretty important, because if you have nothing similar in your personalities then you have
nothing to talk about
Interview 3
Q-Do you and your best friend have similar personalities/traits? What are they?
A-yes, we both share similar values and we have similar interests
Q-Do you think you rub off on your friends? What qualities do you think your friends learn
from you?
A-yes I think I rub off on my friends, and I think they rub off on me. I'm not positive but I think my friends learn understanding-ness from me
Q-Do you think your friends rub off on you? What qualities have rubbed off on you from your friends?
A-yes I think they have rubbed off on me, one main quality that I learned from my friends is to trust myself
Q-Do friends effect each other equally?
A-I don't think so. I think it varies between friendships.
Q-what type of friend has the most impact on another friend? if you were to generalize
A-friendship-wise, I think the friend who is most loyal and who one connects really well with has the most imact on another friend. In general, It is possible that a romantic type of friend has the most impact on another friend
Q-Do friends have to "rub off" on each other to have a good relationship?
A-I think so. Friends should imact each other in some significant way for the friendship to mean something more than just someone you see all the time.
Q-How important are similar personalities/traits to a good friendship?
A-I think they are pretty important, for me personally, I connect better with the people who are more like myself because I feel like they have a better understanding of who I am. I am still able to interact with people who are not like me but I connect more with those like myself.
Interview 4
Q-Do you and your best friend have similar personalities/traits? What are they?
A-no not at all, well wait, some of them hav the same like we like to go out and like play alotta sports be active
yeah its rly only ***** that doesnt rly share any persona traits with me lol
Q-Do you think you rub off on your friends? What qualities do you think your friends learn from you?
A-idk i might rub off a lil bit if i do im not sur what i rub off but it depends on the group of friends im with like if its guys or girls with guys like i usually like rub off i guess energy like i act crzy and then like they start acten crzy and its just a shit ton of energy gets made but like with like girls its more like keepen clm and like doin...other stuff lmao yeah like i create a vibe a lot of the time
Q-Do you think your friends rub off on you? What qualities have rubbed off on you from your friends?
A-umm somtimes like it depends on who, but over all a little bit
Q-in what ways?
A-like somtimes if im with certain ppl ill be nicer than usual or meaner or mor out going its rly situational or mor mature dpending on the age of the friends or the gender and physical attributes idk i usually just like asimilate to a degree with the group get on the same lvl but not act exactly the same like i still have my persona showing through but its like diff prts of it come out around certain pp,l
Q-Do friends effect each other equally?
A-clairify
Q-do friends rub off on each other the same amount? or is one more affected by the other?
A-oooo i find that usually im the dominateing force but like i conciencsly try to make sure i nvr take ovr compleatly cause like u kno the whole someone is gonna resent it so i like make sur to make other presences felt
Q-Do friends have to "rub off" on each other to have a good relationship?
A-no friends dnt hav to rub off on eachother it wont make a diff and it shldnt like friends shld try to like hlp make eachother better ppl but like they dnt have to to be a good friend it just isnt neccesary
Q-How important are similar personalities/traits to a good friendship?
A-not at all me and one of my best friends are almost complete opposites well maybe a lil important one does have to be able to establish some sort of common ground to level with each other essentially
The majority of these interview subjects admitted to having a significant effect on their friends and having been affected significantly by their friends. However having similar personalities is said to have little to no stake in the quality of the relationship, but everyone said that having common interests was important to maintaining a good friendship. Some effects listed aside from interests and personality were responsible habits, and the type of friend that had the most effect on their friends were charismatic and social. In these interviews it can be assumed that mostly positive attributes are shared, but thats not to say that negative attributes can be shared among friends.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
HW 54:Myers-Briggs Test
This test labeled me as ISTP, "'Engineer'. Values freedom of action and following interests and impulses. Independent, concise in speech, master of tools. 5.4% of total population." This result is pretty accurate and I think this description fits me pretty well. However I can see myself fitting a variety of descriptions based on my mood or who I'm with etc. These tests can't label your true personality, only the instant personality of the tester and the personality they think they have. However the questions test preference, which might seem like an easy way to figure out someone's personality, but not everyone knows what they truly want. Asking these questions will make the tester question who they really are which is important to personal growth and development.
The percentages are pretty helpful because they show how much of each section the tester belongs to. Because people naturally fit into different categories the percents make one hundred different categories for each section. This allows the definition to be more specific and create a more accurate result. This also lets the tester know how much of each category they belong to, if the percents are closer they're more likely to flip flop or change their personality.
The results of these tests are kind of helpful because they give some insight into how we think and act, but the results shouldn't be taken too seriously, because after all it's only a test.
Monday, May 3, 2010
HW 52: Initial thoughts on Human interactions
human beings are born around other people, immediately around their mother and then later on in society. It's impossible to escape other people, so we figure out ways to interact with them and make the most of these interactions. We interact differently with different people and treat people differently based on who they are in relation to us.
While it may sound selfish, every one has a goal in any given interaction. Weather it's to make friends, maintain a friendship, enjoy the other person's company etc. each person gets something out of the interaction. Some goals are conscious whereas others are subconscious. A student might say to themselves, "I should be nice to this teacher and then they'll give me a good grade", this is their goal for the interaction with the teacher. A subconscious goal might be "This person is mean to me so I will be mean to them to assert myself and possibly avoid getting bullied", of course this never works, but psychology and logic aren't always the same.
Even in interactions with friends people have goals. When around their friends people have similar subconscious goals (assuming this is a genuine friendship): "I want to be nice to my friend because if I'm nice them they'll stay in my life to make me happy". Even though the gesture of being nice to a friend may look selfless, the person wants the companionship of the other person for themselves. The basis of human interaction is to be better off in life than you were before, the goals of each interaction, conscious or subconscious, follow this ultimate guideline.
However this doesn't make human interaction a hollow and meaningless competition. Even though all of these goals are somewhat selfish there is a basic emotional foundation to them. People act differently around people based on how much they care about them, even if someone is just being nice to have the companionship of a friend, they still care about that friend. If anything this theory of interaction exposes how much we care about the people around us.
The conflict that occurs in human interactions, or the confusion that people might feel in interactions is the contradiction between the subconscious goal and the conscious goal. In the example of cheating someone might actively think: "I have a moral obligation to my spouse/lover and I shouldn't cheat on them" but they might subconsciously think: "This other person is attractive and my spouse/lover won't find out I should cheat on them". This conflict is the source of all moral dilemmas, the goal of our subconscious animal instinct and the goal of our conscious civilized self contradicting one another.
The conscious goals we have are determined by how we're taught and the subconscious goals are determined by how we're raised and how we would behave naturally in our hypothetical "wild" and "un-domesticated" identities. What you're taught is something that is explicitly stated to you and your mind remembers that lesson and thinks about it consciously. How you're raised is the subtext of those lessons that you pick up on that shapes you as a person. Natural instinct is more of a biological thing, that way the brain is meant to analyze situations based on what is the optimal outcome for survival. All of these things combine to create the goals that dictate how we interact with other people.
Monday, April 26, 2010
HW 51: School Essay
How do the right schools serve as salvation?
The official purpose of school is to educate the masses so that they will have knowledge and skills to use in society. In this way a student who comes from poverty can find salvation from their poor neighborhoods. Schools also have an underlying curriculum teaching behavior and obedience, skills that are needed in the corporate world. While some may argue that the lessons you learn in school won't help you in life I agree and disagree. The skills and knowledge learned in school help in society not necessarily in life, these two are not the same. In rare cases a teacher will give their students lessons that they can use in life, this is found mostly in alternative schools, since its hard to learn life lessons out of a text book.
Some may argue that school doesn't serve as a form of salvation, using the fact that a large number of high school graduates still end up on the streets and have no jobs. Schools are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but in those cases there are many aspects to consider, did the student study hard enough and really work through school? were the teachers of that school adequate and able to teach what was needed? There could have been many flaws in that system, but a well running system works to level the playing field between the poor and the rich.
School can serve as salvation from a variety of problems. It can be a salvation from poverty, racism and ignorance because of the lessons taught in school and the diverse environments in schools, (although segregated schools and schools with few ethnic students exist I choose to focus on the schools that are more diverse).
Salvation from Poverty
In several super teacher films we see young kids coming from impoverished neighborhoods, who just want to get through school or get through life, but then a teacher comes along who can inspire their students to do well in school and succeed. In these movies the students are given lessons in their subject matter but they're also given useful practical information. In "Dangerous Minds" the teacher teaches her students Karate, in "To Sir, With Love" the teacher teaches his students how to act properly, practice good hygiene and cook. Each of these skills can help the students survive on their own. On top of survival skills these students are taught conventional subjects in a new and interesting way that helps them in life. In "Stand and Deliver" the teacher has his class take the AP calculus exams which give them a head start in college and give these kids an actual chance at going to college.
Salvation from racism
Schools are good places to meet people, as a student every other student is your peer and you can relate to all of them on the most basic level because they share teachers or have the same interests etc. Public schools especially help students to see other people and, if the school is in a good area, other cultures and races. The best way to get rid of racism is to interact peacefully with people of other races. In "Freedom Writers" the teacher has her students sit next to people of other races to integrate them on a personal level. While schools don't have to be so blatant or literal in their integration, the way classes are designed, people of different races should be interacting, educating those students about those other races.
Salvation from Ignorance
In these films schools are meant to teach kids about the world, but have gotten caught up in grades or have small budgets etc. and have strayed from that goal. When the teacher comes in they re-establish the true goal of schooling, to reveal the truth to the students. In "Freedom Writers" the teacher tells her students about the Nazis and the Holocaust, the students have no idea that the Nazis ever existed and deny that they existed. However towards the end of the movie the teacher dispels these doubts and educates her students about the civil rights movement and opens their minds to history and popular literature. This is an example of how schools can get rid of ignorance, by teaching students what they need to know to function in society, things like history, knowing how we got to where we are as a country and as a people. Schools teach facts that allow students to hold their own in conversation and understand why things are the way they are.
Conclusion
The right schools and the right teachers can salvage students from poverty, ignorance and racism through education and forced integration. I emphasize the word right, because not every school is ethnically diverse and not every school will have teachers that can give students the information they need to survive. That being said, I think the system itself works and there are many examples of people who have become successful and evaded poverty by working through the school system. While schools have their problems, like the oppression of students or mandatory curriculums, these things are needed. Students need to learn obedience and discipline to function in society and a mandatory curriculum helps students to learn things and possibly find subject they love that they wouldn't have studied on their own if given a choice in their curriculum. Institutionalized schooling should be experimented with, but the system works, and functions as a form of salvation for some students.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
HW 50: Reading/Interview Responses
J.T. Gatto's "6 lessons"
Gatto's six lessons describe traditional schooling in an ironic manner, addressing issues like grading and strict hierarchies in school systems and robbing children of their individuality through institutionalized schooling. He expresses the main flaws of institutionalized schooling in his 6 lessons. His first lesson talks about obedience and attendance and how children are assigned to a class and must stay there regardless of weather or not they're actually learning anything or if that class is relevant to them. The second lesson talks about treating school like a state of mind and not a learning experience, the student "turns on" like a robot, takes notes, studies and repeats the next day. The third is about submission to the institution, the fourth talks about the students inability to choose their own curriculum. Lesson five and six talk about grading and surveillance respectively.
I agree mostly with the subtext of these lessons. Because they are written so ironically you can tell that J.T. Gatto means the exact opposite of these lessons. I agree that students should see school as a learning experience and choose curriculums that are relevant to their lives and that they should learn for the sake of learning and not just for grades or test scores etc. However school is also meant to teach obedience and behavior, in an ideal school system the students would be watched and taught to behave so that in the real world they'll conduct themselves properly and actually be able to get jobs and function in society, since obedience is a major part of the corporate world these lessons in behavior can't be ignored. I disagree with grading as well, but I have yet to see an alternative system that works on a large scale, it's difficult for colleges to interview every student who applies so grades are a must to see if students do their work, while a number isn't an exact representation of a student its logistically impossible for schools and businesses to get to know all their applicants personally.
Paulo Freire "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"
Pedagogy of the oppressed literally means, how the oppressed are taught. this text talks about how people are educated for oppression, from the day we're 3 years old in preschool to our college years, we're being bread to work for "the man". This is done through vague explanation of material and through obedience training. one example that Paulo Freire gives is how capitals are taught. "The capital of Para is Belem", the student knows the basic fact but they don't understand what a capital really is, and without that specific knowledge they can't really pursue a career in politics if they don't understand what a capital truly is and how their country is divided and why. The schools are designed to teach just enough that the students can get jobs and work for the rich people, but the lessons are so vague that the information learned can only be used used in a specific environment, the information can only be used as an employee, not the employer. This in turn creates less competition for businessmen who went to fancy, expensive schools and actually know what the information is and how to use it.
This model seems very convincing, however this system is mostly geared towards the education in South America (not to say it doesn't apply at all to the US), where there is less room for radical education and opportunity. In America it's possible to do well in school and get to go to good colleges that will teach the proper use of information. However this may just be my own personal narrow mindedness towards the way the majority of schools are set up in the US. In the south it's probably harder to get an alternative education and learn to use information learned in school to get a more successful career than a small business owner unless the student is born with connections and money.
Lisa Delpit "Power and Pedagogy"
Lisa Delpit talks about how black students don't do as well in school as white students do because they come from a slightly different culture than "the culture in power". "The culture in power" is the dominant culture of an institution or society. Most schools are based on middle to upper class cultures so the customs of lower class cultures are frowned upon, and students coming from these cultures have a lower rate of success. Because a large chunk of black students come from poverty they don;t belong to the culture of power, because of their culture they speak in ebonics and have a certain behavior representative of their culture. Having distinct cultural mannerisms is fine, but when it comes to getting a job or succeeding in school the student must emulate the mannerisms of the culture in power. Its hard for most black students to succeed in school because they talk in ebonics and harbor certain cultural traits that are frowned upon by the culture in power.
I agree with this theory, the way society is set up people from different cultures have to pretend to be a part of the culture in power. However this presents a problem, how do students succeed in school without losing their cultural heritage? If a black man speaks in proper english and wears a suit and tie and gets to work on time he's now an "oreo", black on the outside, white on the inside. The culture of power dynamic creates a binary opposition, white culture equals success and black culture equals failure. Because of the way society is set up it's impossible for black people to succeed in the business world without giving up their culture.
Interview with Mr Fanning
In the interview Mr Fanning gave his own personal philosophy on teaching and education. In the interview he said that "an education is the greatest gift you can get", indicating he has a very optimistic outlook on education. The goal of education is to "level out the playing field between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'" according to him. and using education as an equalizer he wants all of us to go to college eventually and become "life-long-learners".
I agree with Mr Fanning's goal and intent, however I don't think that every student will be able to accomplish this goal (I don't think he realistically thinks this either). Our school has an impressive college acceptance rate meaning that part of his goal is accomplished each year. However I don't think that every student will become a life-long-learner or have a passion for what they're learning, although some will in college or already have at SOF. The reason why students may not cultivate a passion for certain subject in SOF or in any school is because the subject is taught on its own. In my personal experience a concept or subject is far more interesting when it has relevance to the students life or when it connects to another subject. The reason why this is interesting is because the student gets to see that the subjects you learn in school are actually little pieces of a larger picture and that history and literature and math and science aren't gated off in their own separate domains, but that they're actually all connected to each other and to your own life and to the world.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
HW 49: Film Analysis
Esther's "super teacher" movie was interesting and realistic. It explored the super teacher as a fantasy, and realistically students aren't so easily inspired and their problems can't be fixed with poetry. The teacher fantasizes about a disruptive class where he teaches them about poetry and exposes their inability to communicate naturally. In this scenario the teacher teaches the students about poetry and exposes a flaw in their lifestyle, truly educating them. However in reality the teacher is really just a drunk who teaches a group of well behaved, but uninterested kids. The fantasy of the teacher is to take the worst possible group of kids and turn them into educated adults, subconsciously showing his excellence as a teacher.
In the other films most of the teachers actually had a class full of uneducated and misbehaved kids. The teachers did however, use these kids to solve their own problems. In "Freedom Writers" the teacher uses her students to get over the fact that she can't have a child with her husband and treats her students as surrogate children, in "Hamlet 2" the teacher uses his students as a way to make up for his failed acting career. In each of these movies the teacher-student relationship is romanticized by showing that there is learning on both sides, the students affect the teachers and the teachers affect the students.
I also noticed in Esther's film that the students in the real life scene suffered from a lack of interest and not a lack of obedience or discipline. this idea isn't addressed in many other films but is vaguely addressed in "Dead Poets Society". The students are very obedient and well behaved but they lack the passion for learning and the passion for poetry. In the fantasy and in "Dead Poets Society", all it takes is a charismatic and passionate teacher. However the one realistic quality that both of these movie's have is inspiring the students through learning real world applications. The teacher in Esther's film exposes the student's flawed lifestyle, teaching them that through poetry you can improve your life. In "Dead Poets Society" the teacher reveals life lessons to his students through poetry.
These films reveal several things about education. For one, teachers see students as a way to feel important and valuable in society, the students have an impact on the teacher as well as the student having an impact on the students (if any). Realistically there may be no impact on either side, but it is important to note that these life lessons are learned by teachers and students alike. Secondly, teachers have a certain expectation from their students, in Esther's video the teacher wanted a disruptive class to tame, so he could feel good about himself. The teacher expects a certain class and teaches them based on their perception of that class, it's important to consider the goal of the teacher and what they want their students to learn and what they think their students need. One realistic aspect of these movies is the super teacher connecting the student's subject to their own lives, in my own experience I feel more willing to do school work when it is convincingly applied to an aspect of my own life.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
HW 47: Film Ideas
1-Challenging the "leader" of the class: In each of these movies the class has a leader of some sort and for the super-teacher to gain their respect they must first gain the respect of their leader by beating them at their own game, understanding where they come from and why they act the way they do, or showing them the respect that no one else in their lives have shown them.
2-Using visuals and metaphors that the students can understand: the kids in these movies will have a hard, in our film we could connect the subject to the students life. As a parody this could be relating math to drug dealing and drive-by shootings or if we do a serious movie this could involve using simple physical objects to illustrate an abstract concept, much like the apples used in "Stand and Deliver".
3-Teaching non-traditional subjects or ideas: In "Dangerous Minds" the teacher taught her students karate and in "To Sir, with Love" Sidney Poitier taught his students cooking and many different subjects that aren't traditionally taught in core classes. In our movie we have to have some sort of subject like this to show that the teacher wants their students to survive or enjoy life. The teacher needs to give their students practical skills outside of the core classes
4-Going against curriculum: The teacher needs to reject some sort of standardized text book or a certain way of teaching to show that they have more faith in their students than the school board does, showing the teachers ability to see potential in their students.
5-A rival Honors class: Having the teacher make their students smarter than the honors class will show how great they are, that they can take ghetto ignorant kids and make them smarter than the rich intelligent kids. The honors class must have an average teacher to show that the students are easily manageable by comparison and to show that the main teacher is above average.
6-A test/performance: To truly show that the kids have learned they have to take some big scary test to show how much they've learned. This can literally be a test that they take that every one thinks they're too stupid for or participate in a science fair, play, art exhibition, whatever. As long as everyone doubts the students whatever test they take will work. Weather or not they pass or fail depends on how realistic the movie is going to be, failure might be a good idea for a parody.
7-Teacher Sub-plot: We need to see what the teacher is like outside the classroom, in serious movies the teacher still thinks about their students showing that they care about them and sincerely want to make a difference in their lives. A funny idea for a parody might be to have the teacher completely forget about what happens at school and live a completely separate life showing they don't care about their students.
8-Field Trip: This shows the students the outside world and their possible future, this shows the kids that they can leave their homes and go somewhere better. In serious movies this will show the students possible careers they could have if they go to an office building or science lab, in a parody the teacher might take their students to a meth lab or jail to show them their possible future. Or the teacher would take them to those places to discourage that future and educate them about how horrible those places are, tone is a major factor in deciding how those places are viewed
Monday, March 1, 2010
HW 42: Significance of Curriculum and Censorship
The goal of my research is to figure out how students are controlled through curriculum and censorship. Most people can figure out that schools are meant to shape kids into what the government and society wants us to be. However this question can't simply be answered by what we're taught, it's also answered by what we aren't taught and what's taught beneath the surface.
Researching what gets taught in schools gives us some insight into how America wants its students to turn out and what the overall goal of school is. To do anything correctly you must know the goal of what you're doing, this must apply to school as well. If you don't know what you're trying to accomplish in school you won't be very successful in it, some students may get good grades but won't retain what they learn and their goal is to learn then they've just wasted their time in school.
To figure out the goal of school, the student must first look at the government's goal for these students, based on the curriculums set in place the government wants students to have a well rounded education in high school and branch out into different fields of study in college, this is shown through the "surface" curriculum, the curriculum that students are aware of. The sub-curriculum should also be explored to discover how schools are transforming students into "ideal citizens" and what exactly an "ideal citizen" is.
Learning about the goals society has for us will help us to play along since we know what the overall goal is, or it'll help us to criticize the school system and come up with new systems set around goals that make more sense and produce better citizens.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
HW 41: School Curriculums and Censorship
"Censorship and Book Banning" in America by Melissa Kell
This article illustrates the main idea behind censorship and gives some examples of certain instances. The main example the article gives is "The adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain. The book makes use of the "n" word and is therefore deemed "questionable". The fate of "questionable" books are decided by a government organization that weighs the books educational value over its "questionable themes". However this list of books that can't be read in the classroom only effects schools who would actually want to read those books. Schools can censor their students independently without the help of the government. Schools can choose not to buy certain books which can easily censor and limit the education of students.
"School Curriculum-Hidden Curriculum"
This article refers to what schools teach to their students "under-the-radar". Aside from the regular curriculum there is a hidden curriculum that teaches other things. Things like Obedience, Punctuality and discipline are all taught in class when a teacher says "be quiet" "come to class on time" "get your work done" etc. Schools create these hidden curriculums subconsciously or consciously. They can actively instill values in students or teach a certain way to influence the students to act a certain way in that class.
"Curriculum Policy"
This pdf is an official document that contains the basis for a good curriculum. The overall theme is surprising in the fact that it asks that the students learn basic information in all subjects, the goal of advanced education isn't necessarily to learn that particular information but to encourage the student to think in different ways and expand their horizons. The Curriculum Policy also places emphasis on the arts and music and experiencing them both which not all schools have (or can afford). The overall goal of a curriculum is to learn basic information primarily and take away new ways to think from higher subjects according to this source, advanced information is only supplementary.
"Government Speech and the School Curriculum" by Professor Anne M Lousin
This article talks about certain topics that aren't discussed in schools, such as the Armenian Genocide and other genocides that don't get as much attention as the Holocaust. This may be because the government wants to talk about genocides that we've helped in to help portray America as a hero of sorts. While the government doesn't actively say what can't be taught there's a basic curriculum that must be taught to pass tests and this curriculum takes time away from topics that teachers and students would learn independent of the government. At the same time the curriculum put in place by the government is based on American history which is important to know as people who live in the US. However the government will always design its curriculums to support its own image.
"List of Banned books in Schools"
This list of banned books contains several books that would be deemed inappropriate for students, many of these are classics such as "Huckleberry Finn" (which was previously talked about in another article) "Catcher in the Rye" (Which SOF has apparently gotten away with), several dictionaries that contain biological descriptions of private parts, and "The Grapes of Wrath" was banned in Oklahoma for its use of the "n-word". This shows that schools are more worried about students coming into contact with inappropriate things than they are with actual learning. The books that were banned reveal the sub-curriculum of these schools, a lot of books were banned for the use of the "n-word" this shows that those schools don't want their students using racial slurs, this is part of their sub-curriculum. The majority of these sub-curriculums involve sheltering the students from mature topics instead of teaching the students about them in a mature manner that will help them develop a clear view of the world. Although considering the decline in teenage maturity over the years its not hard to see why censorship might be the easiest option, although it isn't the best option.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Hw 39: School Questions, Thoughts, Experiences
Questions
1-What won't they teach in schools?
2-Why did we switch from vocational education to school education?
3-Would our society be able to function without schools?
Ideas
1-School is put in place to "brainwash" kids into thinking the way the government wants them to.
2-Because all kids go to school or are home-schooled according to government curriculum, no one can "think outside of school" we're all raised to think the way we're educated, which depends on which school we're in
3-School is intended to make kids smarter, but by having an environment that consists of multiple distractions, like other students, sports and extra-curricular activities the actual learning becomes peripheral.
Experiences
1-In my experience, few kids actually come out of school with a "thirst for knowledge" or even remember what they learned
2-Just about every day people complain about how bad the school is, either in an attempt to look cool or too good for this school or simply because we go to a very poor public school
3-Teachers usually define weather a class is good or not, the subject matter has little influence in most cases
Schools are intended for education, or so we're taught to believe, but education isn't the only thing happening in schools, assuming it actually happens to begin with. The school environment offers so many distractions that most students prioritize other things above learning, things like friends, sports, extra-curricular activities etc. This puts schools in an odd position because while they're publicly intended to make smarter, most kids don't care about their own education. Most of the information we learn in school we'll forget unless its used in our careers, which means education isn't the main product of schools. This either means that education is like some weird business that advertises its apples and sells oranges or there's some sort of other purpose to school that we're missing.
This other purpose must be social development, the only other things to be gained out of school besides an education are friends and skill at extra-curricular activities which usually create friendships among the people involved. This means that school is productive in most cases, unless a student has no friends and doesn't learn anything. This relationship mimics life, life is in most cases a balance of knowledge and how social someone is. School really just serves as a virtual world where things are simpler, its a watered down version of the real world where kids like us can be safe from the big bad world out there. School serves as a way to ease us into the real world, we lose our innocence in controlled increments to create productive function citizens.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
HW 37: Cool Paper Draft
Introduction
Subconsciously being "cool" is about fitting into people's lives, each person is the hero in their own story and needs companions and "supporting characters". To be cool people try to fill roles in multiple lives and fill certain archetypes, this gives them a sense of value. Because this is all subconscious, no one is aware that they're playing roles or that they're altering their roles to fit more easily into the lives of the people around them.
Social Cool
The majority of Americans see Cool as a fashion contest. The way people dress defines how cool they are, not only do people, mostly teens, have to wear the right clothes, they have to wear them at the right time. Not only do they have to wear the right clothes at the right time, but also in the right group. For example a kid wearing expensive clothes with name-brand tags and logos will be accepted by most teens, but that same teen won't be accepted by the "alternative hippy" crowd. Cool is different to different people, everyone has their own standards for how people should dress, act and look to be cool.
What's Cool is partly defined by corporations, some people are dedicated enough to brand names to find anything that brand sells to be cool. People then associate things about those products to be so certain "traits" become cool by association. Certain companies have focus groups that find out what teens find cool and use that information to create new products that teens will find cool. These products are inspired by archetypical roles, for men there are products that give off a masculine vibe which fits the role of "hero" and men who assume this role are cool. For women however, their products are designed to give off a feminine vibe which fits the role of "princess" or "damsel in distress". A man can't assume a woman's role accurately and vice versa, because of these roles we're limited to wearing and buying certain things to be accepted in our culture.
Psychological Cool
People try to be "Cool" to feel a sense of value. We need to feel valued to have self esteem and function well as human beings. Instead of working hard at a skill and contributing to society, which would actually be valuable, most people try to look cool and assume the "cool pose" to be liked. However subconsciously we perceive "like" and "value" to mean the same thing which isn't always the case. Being stylish and trendy will get you liked but there's no real value to someone who doesn't have any skills or real qualities as a person.
The "Cool Pose" is a way to assume a certain role. The classic James Dean attitude of apathy and competence is closest to the "hero" role. The role of "The hero" can be assumed in many ways the "Cool Pose" is used to assume the rebel hero. James Dean's performance in "Rebel Without a Cause" conveyed just that, a rebel without a cause. Because he was a rebel he had a sense of mystery and his aloofness and apathy made him seem as though he was better than other people making him the main character which gave him attention which made him cool.
Mythic Cool
Being "Cool" or accepted relies on filling a role in someone's life. This role is a mythic role, to be accepted the person must fill the role of "side-kick" or "mentor" etc. As social creatures we try to surround ourselves with people who will benefit us in life, this can happen consciously or subconsciously. The way we become accepted is by tailoring our characters to fit the expectations of the people around us, and there are different expectations we have to meet to assume different roles, the standards one has to meet to be someone's mentor are much different than the standards they have to meet.
Conclusion
People will always be filling roles and there's no way around it. To be cool everyone vies for the role of the hero, everyone wants to be the main character, which is impossible. This is impossible because A-In the grand scheme of the universe there is no main character, everything just "is" and B-psychologically everyone is their own main character (unless they have self-esteem issues) so there's no pint trying to outshine them in their own life. "Cool" people may get attention but they don't have true friends because the role of "the friend" is a supporting role that few people actively try to assume. Instead we should all try to be our own hero's in our own lives but assume supportive roles in the lives of other people and accept that. There's no value in outshining the people around you, value comes from what you contribute to people and assuming a supporting role is the way to do that.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
HW 36: Cool Paper Draft Comments
Jakob's blog
"We try to be successful but success is defined by the people around us and to be accepted we must conform to the dominant idea of success". This was the idea that I took away from your draft, I think relating the idea of success to the pursuit of "cool" can lead to many interesting ideas. I liked the evidence you used from Matt our readings and the quote from the Genome research Institute, you have all the pieces for a great paper but your thesis is a bit odd since it takes the idea of cool in a different direction (which will make the paper more interesting). Because your thesis is so different you have to keep connecting it to the idea of cool so the reader doesn't get confused, you can do this by explaining the relationship between "cool' and "success". I look forward to reading the finished product and as always I expect interesting thoughts and ideas from you.
Beatrice's blog
"Teens use their "cool" identities to try to control their worlds even though we all ultimately have no control due to our socially constructed cultural maps" This is the way I understand your thesis. I like the way you connected our study of cool to a deeper psychological level. The way you can make your paper better is to add bulk and evidence to it, Matt's lecture should be very useful for this idea. You can also connect your idea to the ones we've discussed in class, for example (since you're going the psychological route anyways) you can connect this idea of feeling control to value, are they connected? do they both come from being/acting cool?. You can also connect this to the "cool pose", all "cool poses" no matter what time period or culture you look at evokes a sense of control, examine the relationship there. You have a good start but I'd like to see you expand these ideas further and connect them to the ideas we've talked about in class or expand on them with more outside sources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)