Waiting for Superman

Last night me and my family decided to watch "Waiting for Superman", a movie about the American education system. I had been wanting to see "Race to Nowhere", a movie that we had talked about several times in class, and I thought Waiting for Superman would be a similar movie, and would serve as an adequate replacement.

Waiting for Superman, though, focused a lot more on individual families and their quests to get their kids into magnet or charter schools than the actual problems with the way kids are learning or the curriculum. The movie explained the benefits of increasing the number of hours kids are in school, having school during the summer, and holding kids to extremely high expectations and pushing them to succeed. It seemed to me that it was almost the opposite of what we talked about in class with Race to Nowhere.

I was hoping for some kind of statement about the problems with standardized testing, pressure to get into college, or how important the arts are, but instead I got almost the opposite. The movie almost glorified standardized tests. It also stressed a need for everyone to get into college. Also, the movie continually talked about the importance of math and science, yet it never mentioned a need for variation in the school day with art classes or more creative classes like english.

The differences in these two movies show the conflicting views on education in America today. I would recommend watching "Waiting for Superman" if you have already seen "Race to Nowhere", it might be interesting to compare and contrast the two.

Tokenism on TV

This week in class, Doc 'OC and Mr. Bolos asked us to watch network TV dramas and keep an eye out for racial tokenism. For the most part, I found what I expected to find, African-American characters who were not at the center of the storyline, and mostly playing "the best friend" part for the main characters. One thing that struck me, though, was that in the 3 shows I watched this week, all of the black characters were portrayed as smart, rich, and well adjusted.

In the medical drama, "House", Dr. Foreman is an extremely intelligent and high-ranking doctor. In "Greek", Calvin is the member of the top fraternity at his school, and in "Gossip Girl", Raina is the pretty daughter of a wealthy CEO. Of course I'm not saying that African-Americans are incapable of these affluent positions, but the characters in these shows seem expertly placed to show the public that the show is not racist. The characters would be more believable if there were more African-Americans in general, and if every single one was not well-adjusted and seemingly perfect.

Even if this is racial tokenism, is it bad? Sure, the TV producers aren't accurately portraying real life, (on average, white people have higher incomes than black people), but I think that portraying African-Americans in a good light is always needed, even if it isn't exactly accurate. There is still racism and stereotyping in America, and any attempt to get the public to accept African-Americans in positions of power should be welcomed.

Should social Media get credit?

Today in class we discussed the effects of social media on protests. Social media allows ideas and plans to spread rapidly, and some argue that since the creation of social media protestors and revolters are able to band together more effectively. In class, Doc 'OC mentioned that some people argue that the current revolt in Egypt wouldn't be nearly as big or as effective without the help of social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook. While I think that those sites spread information effectively and help with communication, I don't think social networking makes for bigger revolts or revolutions. Social networking can get the word out, but it's really all about how much a group of people cares about the values they are fighting for.

How many times have you gotten a request for a facebook group or seen someone advertising a cause that you didn't really care about? Sometimes people absentmindedly join these groups or say they will attend various cause-related events without any intention of helping with the cause. To have picked up so many followers, the people must have already been passionate about change before introducing the ideas to social networking sites. The popularity online could just be because everyone is so passionate that they are bringing their ideas online after the fact. The Montgomery Bus Boycott is an example of how passion goes beyond how connected you are or how many people you can get to see your ideas.

Banned from NT

In class today we had a long and interesting discussion about whether or not parents should have had the authority to remove "Huckleberry Finn" from the New Trier curriculum. There were two very convincing sides to the story. In my own personal opinion, I think that Huck Finn is an intriguing and thought provoking addition to the books we read, and should absolutely be included in the curriculum for most English classes. Limiting our access to the book is implying that we aren't mature enough to take away the positive messages from the book and know that when a negative message is being conveyed we should criticize it, not follow it blindly. However, I do think that there should be an out for any student that feels personally offended by the book, like an alternate assignment or paper.

But, if not the parents, who should make the decision as to who reads the book and who doesn't? My first thought would be that the teachers should be able to decide what books can be effectively taught in the classroom. Teachers can see daily classroom discussion and decide whether or not a book provokes meaningful discussions and if students take the right messages out of the book. At the same time, though, I don't think teachers should have absolute power over the curriculum. While parents aren't part of their children's education full-time, they should have some kind of power over what they are being taught. Where should we draw the line between a parent's and a teacher's responsibility?

SnOMG!

When I woke up Wednesday morning to see my garage door sealed shut by snow, keeping my car captive, I must admit I was a little disappointed. What is the point of a snow day if you can't drive around and do things you usually do on a day off? Without transportation, my friend and I were forced back into childhood, spending the day walking around the neighborhood, attempting to make a snowman, and swinging at a nearby playground. It brought me back to a time before high school, when, without my laptop and drivers license, I was forced to take life at a slower pace and have fun doing simpler things. 

Unfortunately, many younger kids are not getting the same kind of technology-free childhood as I did. My younger brother and sister, both in 5th grade, already have cell phones, and they are not the exception. I know that many middle schoolers got iPads and Laptops for Christmas (perhaps only on the North Shore). I know parents think that these expensive pieces of technology are going to make their kids happy, but are they really depriving their kids of the best kind of childhood, one without distractions?